On January 10, 2019, the final court hearing in Wilkinson vs. IBLP took place in the 18th Judicial Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois. This hearing was not for the purpose of ruling on the case itself, which had been voluntarily nonsuited in February 2018, but rather to rule on a motion for sanctions filed by Bill Gothard against seven of the eighteen plaintiffs, and on a motion filed by the seven plaintiffs for a protective order against Bill Gothard and two other individuals. Following a full day of hearings, the judge denied all motions. In lieu of publishing a joint statement reflecting on the hearing, the seven plaintiffs told us they believe the transcript speaks for itself. In his typical style, Bill Gothard is not conceding gracefully. He filed a motion to reconsider on February 10th, the last day to file an appeal to Judge Popejoy’s ruling. This motion effectively extends the time to prepare an appeal, which we believe Gothard would like to do. The attorneys for the eighteen plaintiffs funded their lawsuit on contingency, and continued to do so through the hearing in January. However, they are not appellate attorneys. An appeal seems unlikely to be successful, but it will nonetheless require the plaintiffs to hire an attorney. Recovering Grace has received a number of inquiries from our readers as to what, if anything, might be done to help these women continue to stand for truth and justice. Good news! There is something we can do to help. We’ve been told that a fund was established on their behalf through a victims-advocate non-profit organization. An appeals attorney will cost these women $10,000 just for their retainer. The retainer is due today, and there are additional costs. Even a small donation will help them financially, and it will also remind them that they are not in this fight for justice alone. Thank you in advance for being a part of their story in this way.
This is part three of a three-part series.
Part One
Part Two
Megan Lind (her story HERE) was the last plaintiff to be called to the stand. Megan is my sister. She and I had sat next to each other the entire day, writing notes back and forth and silently communicating our thoughts about the proceedings. I had been invited to attend by several of the plaintiffs due to my association with Recovering Grace (RG), and that inclusion touched me deeply, but I was even more thrilled that I could be there for my sister. Megan doesn’t ask for support, even from family. In fact, when she joined the lawsuit, she didn’t ask me what I thought of it; she merely told me she had decided to do it. She is a woman who has developed a strong inner sense of self over the years, and she doesn’t sweat over the approval of others. Her self-assuredness is hard-won, and I am constantly inspired by her. This week, though, when I purchased my plane ticket and then shared a room with her, was my chance to support her without having been asked, and to demonstrate publicly, after all these years of her not feeling heard, that I believed her. I held virtual hands with her and with all the women who took the stand or who stood with those who did. Without words spoken between us, I felt more strongly connected to Megan that week than I think I ever have before.
Megan walked to the stand, easily the tallest woman in the room, standing well over six feet in her low-heeled black booties, as she turned to be sworn in. She was striking in a black pantsuit over a high-necked, silky, teal top, and her expression was a vision of calm that spoke to the room and set the tone. She was ready for this. If she was nervous at any time before or during her testimony, it was difficult to tell. I watched from the gallery, and I was not nearly as unaffected as she appeared to be.
Mr. Sotomayor asked her questions regarding her employment before he got to his usual timeline question regarding her last interaction with Gothard. She listed her occupations as far back as 2000, both in the medical field. She had last interacted with Gothard in 1999. Mr. Sotomayor spoke with her as he had with the other plaintiffs—sometimes loud and fast, other times sarcastic or incredulous in tone, always keeping the witness on her toes—but Megan never once met his speed or his tone, answering calmly and so quietly that even Mr. Sotomayor seemed to be affected by her.
His questions about her employment quickly became clear—Mr. Sotomayor had some discovery in hand that referenced those social media chats again. But before he got to that, he brought up the repressed memory question. The way he worded it was odd—I couldn’t tell if he hoped to discompose her by the way he asked.
“Now, when was the last time you had contact with Mr. Gothard or the Institute for Life Practices?” Mr. Sotomayor mispronounced Gothard’s name, stretching it out with a soft “a” rather than dropping the vowel. Every time he said it throughout the day, it was jarring.
“Practices?” Megan asked.
Mr. Sotomayor looked down at his notes, “Well, I’m sorry. The Institute for Basic Life Principles.” Close enough.
Megan answered, “The last contact I had with Mr. Gothard was in 1999.”
“And from 1999 to the time that you began at the hospital, did you have any problems with your memory?” Why was he bringing up her employment again?
“At the hospital, problems with my memory?”
Mr. Sotomayor was trying to get somewhere with this, but it was awkwardly done. “From the moment in time that you left—the last time you saw a doctor to the time you began working in the hospital for the oral—for the surgeon, did you have any problems with your memory?” Again with the memory question, no mention of “suppression” or “repression” yet. What was this? I leaned forward to listen better.
Megan wasn’t doing him any favors, “I don’t work for the surgeon in the hospital.” I still didn’t know where he was going with this, but my nerves were gone. Megan, however, was imperturbable.
“Oh, I’m sorry. You had said you worked for an oral surgeon, was that correct?”
“Right, before—”
“When was that, 2005?”
“2005, 2006.”
“So, between the time that you left Gothard’s contact, which was 1999, you said—?”
Megan kept her gaze on Mr. Sotomayor. “Uh-huh.”
“You have to answer yes or no.”
She raised her eyebrows. She sensed that something was off, too. “Yes.” She gave a slight shrug. “Yes.”
“To 2005, did you have any problems with your memory?” I was starting to feel angry, and I still wasn’t sure why.
“No,” Megan replied.
“So, you never had repressed memories; is that correct?” There it was.
Perhaps Mr. Sotomayor had mistaken her calm for emptiness, but Megan would not be led into a trap, “I didn’t say I didn’t have problems with repressed memory. I said I didn’t have problems with my memory.”
Mr. Sotomayor sounded incredulous, “Well is there a difference between repressed memory and memory?” Okay, I was definitely angry. He was toying with her, and the edges of the room began to take on a reddish glow.
“I believe so.” She knew what he was doing. I envied her composure.
Mr. Sotomayor moved on to the “repressed memories without clinical diagnosis” line of questioning, which he had used several times already. “So would it be fair to say that you simply diagnosed yourself with repressed memory? Would that be fair?”
“No.”
“Why is that not fair?”
“I didn’t diagnose myself; I just—”
Mr. Sotomayor interrupted, “You alleged that you had repressed memory, right?”
“Yes.”
“So that statement, did it come from you or from your lawyers?” Mr. Mincieli objected on grounds of attorney-client privilege, so he rephrased it, “Okay. Where do you attribute that statement coming from?”
“Having repressed memory?” He only had twenty minutes. Megan wasn’t going to make it easy for him.
“That statement, did you have—?”
Megan interrupted him, now. Maybe she was tired of the back and forth, “By not remembering things until I read Rachel Frost’s posting on RG. Not recalling my instances until I read that.”
Mr. Sotomayor still had a path to lead her down. “So would it be fair to say that you only joined this lawsuit after you read what somebody else had to say, right?” That wording, his tone—they seemed designed to provoke her. Perhaps her inscrutable calm was getting to him.
“After I was starting to remember things.”
“Well, were you having trouble remembering who Rachel was before you read her story?” Really, Mr. Sotomayor, you still think she doesn’t know the difference between memory and repressed memory?
“I knew who Rachel was before I read her story.”
“And you admit that at that point you weren’t having any problems with your memory, isn’t that what you said before?” At this point, I think my brain exploded. He hadn’t used this tactic with anyone else. He was trying to shake her.
“Right,” she answered. She wasn’t shaken yet.
Mr. Sotomayor brought out his coup de grâce: the social media chat he’d been waiting to use: “There was a website for a Facebook or some sort of communication by way of the internet with something called R2D2, do you remember that?” She assented.
“And R2D2 was a secret exchange of information, right?” A slow smile crept over my face. I knew about R2D2. Mr. Sotomayor was going to mess this up.
A subpoena was later sent to my husband asking for transcripts from that private group. Under Illinois law, conversations with your attorney may be discoverable if not specifically about legal advice, but since, according to my husband, the focus of the conversations did involve legal advice, what Gaffney was hoping to find is anyone’s guess. Regardless, the non-suiting of the case effectively canceled the subpoena.
(Given that Sotomayor made an issue at this hearing that there was still outstanding requested discovery, it might as well be noted that Gothard has refused to turn over almost everything that the plaintiffs asked for—specifically including emailed conversations between him and one of his main supporters (who is neither an attorney nor employed by a law firm)—as falling under attorney-client privilege, yet he insisted on accessing actual attorney-client privileged conversations.) From what I’ve been able to gather about Gothard’s big scandal in the ’80’s, these tactics are nothing new.
“Right,” Megan answered.
“And the reason why it was listed as R2D2 was because all you women thought you were clever enough to come up with a password that nobody else would think about, right?” He must have meant for discovery purposes. Poor maligned keychain. Mr. Mincieli objected to the form of the question, and the judge sustained the objection as to the portion “all you women.”
Mr. Sotomayor continued, “Who was part of the R2D2?”
“I don’t recall, sir. I am not part of that group.”
“Well, you communicated with that group, right?”
“For a very short time.”
“When was that?”
“I don’t recall—I don’t remember.”
“Was it before the lawsuit?”
“I think—I don’t recall.” Her expression didn’t change, but I felt a tickle in the back of my neck. She was being pounded now, and she didn’t have the answer he was looking for. I wondered if he was getting to her.
“So, you don’t know whether it was before the lawsuit and the—after the lawsuit was instituted, right?”
“I don’t recall, sir.”
“Is that because you have repressed memory?” What?!
“Yes, sir.”
“Oh, really?!” He must have felt very proud of himself; he had been playing with that word “memory” from the beginning of her testimony; I felt like this snafu was what he was hoping for. It seemed so petty of him. So obvious.
“So, your repressed memory—” Mr. Sotomayor must have suddenly realized that if he pressed this she would come out of the fog he’d pushed her into and catch her error, and he was getting off his track, so he moved on, “—It was your motivation to be part of a group so that you could go after William Gothard, correct?”
“We were part of a support group.”
“I am talking about you.”
“I was part of a support group.”
“To go after Mr. Gothard, correct?”
“No.”
“Well, the motivation was to terminate him from the Institute that he headed; is that correct? Is that correct?” Mr. Sotomayor had his timeline wrong: Mr. Gothard had already resigned long before there was any lawsuit, and his own board refused to allow him back. But, semantics.
“That I was terminating him from the Institute?” His clock was still running.
“No, that you were hoping to have him terminated, correct?”
“I was hoping, yes.”
“Yes. So—and that was the purpose in the R2D2, correct? Correct?”
“I don’t know.” Her eyebrows lifted again.
“Well,” Mr. Sotomayor gave in and finally just asked the open-ended question, “Well, what was your purpose in subscribing to the R2D2 and responding?”
This, she could answer. “Having an outlet to chat with other women who had the same experiences that I had had.”
As with all the plaintiffs, he’d underestimated her. Mr. Sotomayor conceded. There was one more thing, though. She’d said she wasn’t in the group anymore. “So, do you still participate in this R2D2 site?”
Asked and answered. “No.”
“When did you terminate that?”
“I don’t remember the date.”
“Do you have any records with respect to those communications?”
“No, I do not.”
“Did you destroy them?”
“No.”
It seemed that Mr. Sotomayor was unfamiliar with the cloud-based nature of social media. He yielded the floor to Mr. Mincieli. Mr. Mincieli used only a fraction of his fifteen minutes to address Megan’s motivations for the lawsuit, to refer to her claims of sexual abuse by Gothard, and to the recent triggered recollection of memories in 2014. The judge had already stated that he had read through every complaint, motion, and pleading, so those did not need to be restated.
When Megan sat down next to me, she leaned over. “What notes do you have for me?” I stared at her for a moment, uncomprehending. Then I looked down at the little yellow notepad in my lap, on which I’d been jotting notes from each of the motions, and then adding little comments and feedback and handing it to the plaintiffs when they stepped down. I hadn’t even thought to take notes when Megan was on the stand; I was riveted the entire time. I looked at her, chagrined, and whispered, “Nothing. You did great!”
Sanctions against Megan Lind (pg 75-85)
Response to Sanctions by Megan Lind
Mr. Sotomayor’s first twenty minutes on Rachel Lees’s hearing were taken up primarily with attorney Jon Mincieli on the stand, Rachel having been unable to travel to the US due to visa issues. The judge quipped that he would have enjoyed a nice vacation to New Zealand with the attorneys to take her witness statement, but–alas!–neither attorney filed anything that would cause that to be necessary, so she would not be heard at all.
Rachel Lees’s hearing was called before Megan Lind’s, but I mention it last because I decided to detail the majority of Mr. Mincieli’s moments on the witness stand under her hearing, since it was used for more time with Mr. Mincieli on the stand, and for final arguments.
Mr. Sotomayor actually called Mr. Mincieli several times during the day—in Jane Doe V’s case, Mr. Sotomayor used his entire twenty minutes with the other attorney as his witness, and he spent his first thirteen minutes of Jane Doe IV’s hearing questioning the other attorney before calling “Ivey” to the stand. Mr. Mincieli was thus on the stand more than twice as much as any of the plaintiffs. It was interesting, having an attorney on the witness stand. Mr. Mincieli is in his late forties, of medium height and mild demeanor. He spoke firmly and confidently, but the difference between his courtroom style and Mr. Sotomayor’s was like night and day. In fact, the more Mr. Sotomayor raised his voice or gesticulated, the calmer Mr. Mincieli seemed to become. However, he never hesitated to speak up on behalf of his clients. His respect for their stories was most evident when he was on the witness stand. More than once, the judge had to remind Mr. Mincieli that he was a witness, not an attorney, as he objected to Mr. Sotomayor’s questions.
From the gallery, it felt like the other two plaintiffs’ attorneys could have spoken up more in objection. Mr. Bryant—a tall, gently spoken attorney with salt and pepper hair who was the senior attorney of the two—did speak up when he saw fit to object, but Ms. Roark did not speak on the record at all. Perhaps they allowed Mr. Sotomayor more reins because they trusted Mr. Mincieli to handle himself. And he did. I had never met or spoken to him before this day, but I left that hearing with mad respect for the plaintiffs’ Illinois attorney. Besides the judge’s ruling, which was so unexpected in its detail and understanding that I’m still marveling over it weeks later, Mr. Mincieli had, in my opinion, the third most quotable moment while on the witness stand.
Mr. Sotomayor spent most of his time with Mr. Mincieli challenging his due diligence in filing the lawsuit in the first place. It was clear that he took issue with the lack of clinical medical diagnosis of one of the two and/or claims in the complaint—that of repressed memories—and he spent a lot of time with the plaintiffs’ establishing that lack. With Mr. Mincieli, he attempted to break through the attorney-client privilege to elicit testimony that Mr. Mincieli had participated in an effort to defraud the court with a frivolous lawsuit. He didn’t get very far. I wouldn’t say that Mr. Mincieli was a difficult witness, but his experience in the courtroom gave him the wherewithal to provide Mr. Sotomayor with just exactly what he was allowed to ask for and nothing more. From Mr. Mincieli’s testimony, it seemed strange that he was the attorney on the witness stand, as he had not even been involved in the case at the initial filing.
Mr. Sotomayor kept referring to what he called “137 sanctions” which he argued should allow him to obtain answers that would normally be privileged. He used the word “fraud” several times. The judge at one point broke in, “I don’t have any indication of fraud. You’re seeking 137 sanctions. I don’t believe 137—I will check it out—but I don’t believe it says anything about “fraud,” nor have you brought any independent cause of action for any fraudulent activity.” Mr. Sotomayor responded that according to “137, an attorney cannot use the attorney/client privilege as a shield to bar evidence that would—that the court could consider.” The judge reminded Mr. Sotomayor that he had brought in several of the attorney’s clients to try to substantiate his claims. “And as such,” Judge Popejoy concluded, “you don’t need to get into attorney/client privilege, and that is not the basis for 137, for the record.” The judge emphasized that last. Mr. Sotomayor had used “for the record” several times already at this point, and the judge was annoyed by it.
“The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”
Added to the rule is the punishment, which Gothard was seeking from the plaintiffs:
“If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, may impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney fee.”
Rule 137, as it expounds upon Rule 2-611 and pre-empts it, makes the imposition of sanctions discretionary rather than mandatory, and requires the judge to set forth specific reasons for a sanction in an order. The motions for sanctions filed by Mr. Gaffney rested on this Rule, and the disconnect between the complaint filed by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Gaffney’s motions for sanctions, and the focus of the hearing itself is probably what gave me that feeling that the judge was looking for something specific in these hearings. There didn’t seem to be a proper connection made, and it’s something that the judge did end up addressing in his ruling.
Another point he pressed upon Mr. Mincieli was the order to compel that hadn’t been complied with, as the case had been non-suited before the deadline. Mr. Sotomayor kept mentioning “R2D2” as though he assumed that there was more from that site that he should be allowed to see. Mr. Mincieli responded that everything that was requested of his plaintiffs had been turned over. “The order required us to turn over either what was not turned over, or get to the defendant something saying we have turned over everything.”
“And you never filed any affidavit saying that you turned over everything because there was still outstanding things you hadn’t turned over?” Mr. Sotomayor asked.
“No,” Mr. Mincieli replied, “that is not true. I hadn’t filed anything because we nonsuited the case. The case no longer existed.”
Mr. Sotomayor’s argument as to this point was that he believed there was, in fact, discovery that hadn’t been turned over, and that the voluntary nonsuit did not lift the order compelling it. The insistence that there was more seemed curious. Was he hoping to see the portions of R2D2 that were privileged? He already had thousands of pages of private conversations.
Mr. Sotomayor was never more combative that when he had Mr. Mincieli on the stand. At one point, not getting the answers he seemed to be looking for, he poked at Mr. Mincieli, “Okay. You’re a smart lawyer, right?”
Mr. Mincieli rolled his eyes over to the bench, “Your Honor, are we going to get argumentative?” The judge began to respond, but Mr. Mincieli turned back to Mr. Sotomayor, “And yes, I am, by the way.” The entire gallery laughed, and it wasn’t just the plaintiffs’ side of the room. I’m pretty sure even the clerk and the bailiff cracked a smile. It was like a pressure release.
Mr. Sotomayor continued to press. “Sir, as a smart lawyer, can a person bring a lawsuit in connection with the allegations contained within this complaint unless there is an exception to the statute of limitations?”
“I don’t know. In general? I mean, there are statutes of limitation that bar lawsuits unless there is an exception in general, yes.”
It seemed that Mr. Sotomayor finally felt he was getting somewhere, “So in this case the exception was repressed memory, right?”
“Not only repressed memory,” Mr. Mincieli responded. Here it was, for the record.
“Not only repressed memory? What was the other exception?”
“I believe it reads that the plaintiff suffered from a condition that caused them to repress memories and/or fail to appreciate or understand that they were—that they suffered damages. I am paraphrasing.”
Mr. Sotomayor went in for the kill. “Since you did an excellent job of paraphrasing—”
“Thank you,” Mr. Mincieli responded politely.
“—can you explain to us now what, if anything, you did to investigate that standard with respect to this individual, Rachel Lees?”
“Well,” Mr. Mincieli considered, “there is general information that was available to us, not only for Rachel Lees.” Mr. Sotomayor interrupted him, but the judge allowed Mr. Mincieli to continue his explanation in the style he chose. Inexplicably, Mr. Sotomayor backed into his chair during this speech and did not interrupt once. Mr. Mincieli had the floor.
“We learned that because of the nature of the upbringing of the ladies in IBLP and the teachings of the IBLP, they had a culture of and were raised and had beliefs and understandings that prevented them from understanding, to a certain extent, what sex even was. To another extent what sexual assault or sexual abuse even was. That touching can be wrong. What grooming is. They were raised in a system that valued authority and only authority over all other things. And that authority rested entirely in Bill Gothard. So the idea that Bill Gothard could possibly do something immoral or wrong or sinful was a concept that they couldn’t even form in their brains. When some of them said, ‘I feel uncomfortable about the things that Bill Gothard does to me,’ to their parents, they were told, ‘That’s impossible. Maybe he even wants to marry you,’ things along those lines. So, we developed a lot of information about the lifestyle and the culture of people in IBLP. And based on that, that is how we formed a conclusion that we pled the exception the way we did.”
It was at this moment in the proceedings that I realized that, not only did the plaintiffs’ attorney “get it” regarding what the plaintiffs had suffered from Gothard and his ministry, but also that nobody in their right minds could miss it, including Judge Popejoy. I could hardly believe Mr. Sotomayor allowed him to speak all of that without once stopping him.
Mr. Mincieli used Rachel Lees’s hearing to make his final arguments. He addressed the court, “Your Honor, what we have argued is, and I am reading from Count 47 of our Third Amended Complaint, which is related to Rachel Lees, Paragraph 595. At the time of the abuse, Rachel Lees did not appreciate that the act was abusive. 596, Rachel Lees was suffering from a condition that caused her to repress the memories of abuse and/or Rachel Lees did not know her injuries were caused by the abuse.” Mr. Mincieli looked up from the complaint. “There is a discovery rule here in Illinois, your Honor, that requires there to be knowledge of an act, that it is harmful, and that it caused her damages, before a statute of limitations starts to run. So what we have done in these cases is not just plead that all the girls have had repressed memories. Now, you have heard on the stand that some of them have actually had repressed memories and some of them have diagnoses telling them why they have repressed memories. But for others like Charis Barker and Rachel Lees, we have alleged the discovery rule ‘and/or’ in the alternative, that they have suffered from a condition where they did not recognize that they suffered from abuse.”
What he was explaining was that there are two exceptions to the statute of limitations, both of which were used in the complaint with an “and/or” alternative for purposes of discovery. Because, Mr. Sotomayor, as you surely already know, a case need not be filed with all the discovery already in hand—that comes after the filing. There merely must be due diligence in filing the claim, which Mr. Mincieli described above. I was starting to suspect that Mr. Sotomayor was being deliberately obtuse on this subject.
Mr. Mincieli’s defining moment happened before the lunch break, during Jane Doe V’s hearing. He was again defending his due diligence, and spoke to his belief of their allegations. “I am confident that everything we filed is accurate. I know their stories as have been told to me, and I believed them. And as I sit in this stand under oath, I believe them as well.” I had tears. I heard sniffles. He was very heartfelt in this speech.
Sanctions against Rachel Lees (pg 50-61)
Response to Sanctions by Rachel Lees
Following Megan’s hearing, all that was left was the ruling. The judge asked for ten minutes—which stretched into more like forty minutes. We all stayed in our chairs; nobody wanted to leave—or even move, really. We wanted to hear the ruling.
Mr. Dawidiuk stood up from the defense table and moved to speak to Mr. Mincieli. “I’d like to say something, if that’s okay.” Then, without waiting for Mr. Mincieli’s response, he turned to us, “As their attorney, I don’t normally allow my clients to speak directly to the opposing side, but they would very much like to say something to you, so I am doing it for them. The members of the Board just want you to know that they deeply regret that you ladies had to be here today, and for what you have had to go through these last three years. They deeply regret it.” Some of us nodded our heads; some thanked them verbally. I believed them, that their regret was real. There were some emotional moments during the hearing that they seemed to be just as deeply affected by as I was. I believe that they believe the plaintiffs’ stories.
What I regret is that they have never been willing to completely step forward in public support of the plaintiffs, and even further to acknowledge the consequences of their inaction every time they saw their leader with another young woman in his office late at night, alone. I have wondered if they’ve kept their public silence from fear of criminal charges, as well as from the real possibility that coming forward could be the death knell to the ministries IBLP is spearheading, leading to the loss of employment for the still-shrinking remnant Bill Gothard left behind when he resigned in 2013. I feel that I understand their silence, but I understood the plaintiffs, too, when they discussed this heartfelt apology later that night and essentially deemed it “too little, too late.”
The judge finally returned with his ruling. A link to it and to the entire transcript is provided here, and I encourage you to read it in its entirety. I’ll just say that, as an attorney, I was astonished by the Supreme Court Opinion style of this ruling, and, as the sister of one of the plaintiffs, I was moved beyond words at the personal nature of some of the judge’s comments. A couple of important points that he brought forth include the fact that the defense never actually brought motions for sanctions against Myers and Flowers, LLC, (Mr. Mincieli’s firm), yet Mr. Sotomayor spent a great deal of time calling Mr. Mincieli to account for his due diligence. Another point the judge made was that the complaint referred to in the motions was signed, not by one of the plaintiffs or attorneys at the hearing, but rather by Peter J. Flowers himself, who had not been called as a witness.
Judge Popejoy explained the 137 motion to dismiss, saying that “the law is basically if it is clear that the signer knew, or upon reasonable inquiry should have known that the material allegations—and I stress the word allegations in plural—of fact the signer pled were false, the Court abuses its discretion by not sanctioning the signer under Rule 137 out of reluctance to punish conduct not intended to harass any other party.” He also addressed the point Sotomayor seemed to be trying to make throughout the hearing, that the plaintiffs’ attorneys relied almost solely on the plaintiffs’ word, “Furthermore, an attorney can reasonably rely on information given by the client if circumstances are such that the client is the only possible source of information.”
He cited case law where applicable, almost as though he knew enough about Gothard after years of hearings and court filings, to expect that he might attempt an appeal against the results of this hearing, and Judge Popejoy was thus demonstrating his attention to detail to any tribunal who might be tasked with determining the reasonableness of his decision.
The judge took time to address each plaintiff’s motion, explaining in general, and then specifically, why he believed they should not be subject to sanctions. “Now, since everybody alleged that everybody was cherry-picking, I will cherry-pick to some extent some of the orders that were involved in this case.” He referenced the fact that several of the plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed their actions throughout 2017, and that, within the statutory thirty days of those dismissals, Gothard had not elected to file any 137 motion for sanctions in regard to them. Furthermore, he stated that when the case was voluntarily dismissed on February 26, all discovery ended on that date, “because there is no case that is pending.” The judge denied the defendant’s motion for sanctions and fees, and required only that Rachel Lees preserve her journal without destroying it, since that was the only document that wasn’t in anyone’s possession but hers, should it be properly subpoenaed in future actions.
Judge Popejoy mentioned the #metoo movement and the general culture shift, saying, “The law is very fluid at the current time in regard to allegations such as those that were brought here. The law is very fluid in regard to dealing with statute of limitations in regard to same, and when people know or don’t know what is going on, and what happens with memory or not memory, and when is the first time they could have brought it and not brought it, and the like.” He emphasized that “any attorney can file a lawsuit after the statute of limitations has run,” though whether it would be successful is another thing. He also addressed the well-used phrase “repressed memory” saying that “repressed memory is not a cause of action. It is not, per se, a medical condition. It is a symptom. It is something that can happen as a result of certain things in this world that can cause us stress.”
And here is where Judge Popejoy gave the plaintiffs a personal gift—he offered them a story from his own life, and effectively “stepped down” for just a moment off his bench to sit with them in virtual solidarity, “In 1979, I found my mother eight days after she died, after she had committed suicide. And I called my father who had recently divorced my mother, and he said, ‘It’s your problem now, kid, not mine,’ and hung up the phone.” The judge paused for a moment, and took a breath. I felt stunned. “I don’t have any repressed memory about that, obviously. I am sitting here today, dealing with it, one way or another. But lots of things can happen, and lots of things can trigger repressed memories.”
Judge Popejoy looked over his audience and then down at his notes again. “It is not a condition, a medical condition. It is something that ostensibly might result or might be a symptom, or might come into play at some time in various people’s lives as to what is going to happen or not happen or how they deal with things in the world one way or the other. And with it being a symptom, these individuals can testify as to whether they felt they had that symptom or didn’t feel they had that symptom…there might be any number of things that are repressed and other things that aren’t repressed. Someone can have a good memory. It doesn’t mean they remember everything. And as I have heard from some of these women testifying today, things came up at certain times, things would be ‘unlocked.’ Things would be ‘triggered’.” You could have heard a pin drop. I learned from Jon Mincieli later that he had never, in all his years in this courtroom, heard Judge Popejoy share a personal story about himself on the stand.
Later, when discussing Rachel Frost’s motion, Judge Popejoy said, “again the whole repressed memory coming about, but here in February of 2014 is when it was ‘unlocked.’ And everybody had lots of fun—and I use that word obviously in jest, I suppose—as to whether it was a repressed memory or a suppressed memory. And repressed memories are different from suppressed memories, but the terms were being used interchangeably in the questions, the answers, and the like.” Thank you! Gosh, I wish somebody had been called out on that sooner.
When it came to the plaintiffs’ lack of diagnoses before filing, the judge said, “I don’t think that when you file an initial complaint and when you have a totality of plaintiffs who are discussing various issues that they have, various issues that have come up prior to the filing of the complaint and the like, that they necessarily have to have a medical diagnosis prior to coming in to filing the complaint…So the fact that medical treatment was not sought until some later date is not a death knell to this complaint based on 137 motion for sanctions.”
As to the assertions by Mr. Sotomayor that the plaintiffs’ personal conversations showed that the allegations were filed for the improper purpose of seeking to destroy the reputation of Gothard: “No, it is not clear and nothing was made clear today in regard to that one way or the other. Did all of these women have a concern about Mr. Gothard and were they concerned about his reputation and maybe would they like to see him not continue on in the position that he is in? They may well be. Was that the only basis for them to bring this lawsuit? There is no proof that substantiates that in any manner, shape or form, and their allegations of emotional distress and sexual contact and the like are sufficient for them to have a reason as to why they might want Mr. Gothard not to stay in the position that he is in.” Mic drop. He gets it. That was the thought that kept running through my head at this point.
Then Judge Popejoy addressed a part of the motions for sanctions that hadn’t made it very far into the hearings. “Further on, it says on page 7, ‘Gothard did not engage in any sexual conduct.’ Well, sexual conduct—as I’ve said—is fluid. Was it or was it not? Does it rise to the level of ‘unwanted conduct of a sexual nature?’ Maybe it did; maybe it didn’t. Holding hands, receiving hugs, can be sexual conduct…Did it rise to that level or not? I don’t know. We didn’t get there. Was it enough to find an objective basis to file a pleading? Yes, it was.”
During the hearings, Gothard kept appearing to try to hand Sotomayor a stack of what looked like letters or postcards. Sotomayor didn’t use them during his examinations, but the judge brought it up in his ruling while discussing Rachel Lees’s motion. “There is also a general theme running, and I just note it in this, but it may be in one or two of the others that was raised, that the allegations refuted by their own words with cards, letters, prayers, invites, and everything else. Well, you know, that is one of the things that is severely fact-based as to—are those cards, letters, prayers, and invites true expressions of what someone was feeling or not feeling? Are they expressions that are somewhat manufactured in an environment that they are in?” He gets it; he gets it! “You know, like maybe if I go out to dinner with all the appellate judges, I am going to sit there and say, ‘Wow! You guys are all really good, and I really like what you do all the time!’ And yet, on my own I would say, ‘God, I disagreed with half the things they reversed me on. I can’t believe they did that.’ Who knows on that.”
When he got to Megan’s portion, the judge spoke a line that has run through my head and my heart on a loop since the hearing. The reason for bringing up Megan’s employment over the years was made clear in the motions, as she had testified that she had worked for doctors in the medical field for many years and had seen doctors in 2006 for wisdom teeth extraction and 2012 for an eye injury, yet in refusing to see a doctor during the lawsuit regarding her repressed memories, she had claimed that she could “not trust doctors or authority” as a result of her trauma. Mr. Sotomayor was trying to show that her mistrust of doctors was a made-up problem, since she both worked with doctors and saw doctors for her health.
Judge Popejoy said, “Well, that is all fine if you’re going to open your mouth, or if you’re going to open your eye, and maybe you have a concern about things. But when it comes time where you sit and you have to open your heart and open your soul, maybe there are some difficulties in regard to those that have difficulties with doctors.” There was no holding back the tears at this point. He got it. Megan and I held on to each other as he concluded. “It is a lot different going into psychological or psychiatric counseling and seeing those medical professionals, than it is going in for an operation or other things of that nature. So I don’t find the fact that she went to an eye doctor and a tooth doctor to be contradictory to her allegation that she is not comfortable seeing doctors.”
And that was it. The judge found there to have been “a reasonable basis for the pleadings” in regard to each of the plaintiffs both generally and specifically, and he asked for the eight orders to be drafted. Fifteen minutes later, the six plaintiffs were holding dismissals of their motions for sanctions in their hands. Rachel Lees’s would be sent to her later. The euphoria that flowed from the room can hardly be expressed. Not everyone was euphoric, of course. Gothard turned to his lawyer and grumbled, “Now everyone is going to think I am a freak.”
I stayed in the courtroom for a few minutes after the hearing, introducing myself to Mr. Bryant and briefly discussing the results with him. I told him that I was Megan’s sister. “She was amazing up there. And she is so intelligent!” he said.
“I know she is,” I responded. “All of these women are really smart, and yet some of them struggle to believe it because they had been told for years that they are not up to par.”
He mused, “Can you imagine what incredible things career-wise these women could have done and be doing right now had they been given the opportunity to go to college?” Yes, I could imagine. I was glad to know that he could, too.
At dinner with some of the plaintiffs the following night, before we all left Chicago for our far-flung homes, I asked them if they had anything to say publicly about the hearings, what would it be? Three of them told me exactly the same thing, at almost the exact same time, not even realizing they were talking over each other. I wrote it down. They were grateful for the individual and personal validation that Judge Popejoy gave to each motion, and they are grateful to their lawyers, who not only stuck with them to the end with zero compensation for their time and efforts, out of their conviction to the truths these women had brought into the light, but who, when given the opportunity, spoke up for them clearly and affirmatively on the stand. They felt both heard and strongly validated. When the women first brought the action against Bill Gothard and IBLP, I remember one of them telling me that if Gothard would just admit what he’s done—if he would only repent, if IBLP would only acknowledge publicly the wrongs that have been done under their watch—then this lawsuit wouldn’t be necessary. Unfortunately, not only did Gothard double down on his innocence, but I’ve wondered if he brought these motions for sanctions as a way to punish the plaintiffs for their audacity and to warn any other victims from filing against him. The judge seemed to wonder this too, in his acknowledgement that Gothard had had several opportunities to bring motions for sanctions before the voluntary dismissal, but had not chosen to do so. Perhaps Gothard had hoped for vindication. Perhaps he meant to teach them a lesson. But in the end, they had their day in court, and the plaintiffs sent the message they meant to send—that they spoke the truth, and that they deserved to be heard.
Transcript of January 10, 2019 – Morning Session
Transcript of January 10, 2019 – Afternoon Session
Share this post:
Tweet this Share on Facebook Stumble it Share on Reddit Digg it Add to Delicious! Add to Technorati Add to Google Add to Myspace Subscribe to RSS
Kari Underwood is an editor and writer for the Recovering Grace team since 2011. She is a sister to 8 siblings, the daughter of two very supportive parents, the wife of 17 years to a very hard-working man, and the mother of three kids who keep her on her toes. Kari is also an attorney with her own law practice in California.
More posts by KariU
JM, I could care less whether or not you think ...
December 16, 2024 Then I have to rule that you have no evidence for ...
December 16, 2024 Alfred isn't going to put that on his blog and if ...
December 9, 2024 I can easily say that Alfred hasn't denied it, bec ...
December 9, 2024 Alfred denied directly to me she and Sacred Honor ...
December 4, 2024 When did Alfred or Holly deny that she was Mormon? ...
December 4, 2024 Facts are this JM, Alfred denied when directly con ...
December 1, 2024 Interesting you bring up the Jinger/Jill controver ...
November 25, 2024 Here is the facts JM, Holly is a Mormon, part of ...
November 20, 2024 Because she isn't a fraud. I'm sorry that bothers ...
November 18, 2024 JM, let me be very clear to you. Holly is a fraud. ...
November 13, 2024 I don't disagree that that action is what should h ...
November 13, 2024 I have a very long-term view of Bill and IBLP whic ...
November 12, 2024 Some would say the posts here are just spin and fa ...
November 12, 2024 Curious that you would bring up "Charlotte" becaus ...
November 3, 2024 I have seen the Amazon series, and I've seen the r ...
October 29, 2024 Did you ever watch any of the Amazon series? The s ...
October 25, 2024 Yes, it does. Claims must be addressed because the ...
October 24, 2024
It is always good to feel "heard." I admire these women that, after pursuing their claim for so many years and through so much heartache, that they fell they have received some validation.Gothard will never be as influential as he once was, and I hope and pray that the other victims that suffered at his hands personally, or indirectly due to his organization, can also find some peace and validation. I attended on BYC conference when I was 18. Some of it was useful, but much of it wasn't. My church, thankfully, saw some of the flaws and didn't push it too much. Fast forward 15 years, and I was home on furlough as a missionary. I had friends who had dived in a subscribed to Gothard's whole package, and it was scary. My one set of friends really messed up their kids for a few years, and I think they still may be recovering.
Kari, you are a gifted writer! I was riveted from beginning to end. I could both visualize the proceeding and feel the emotions. The three parts reads like a best-selling riveting novel by your favorite writer, but it is not a novel but a sad true story of sinful behavior, that has endured far too long, fifty years too long. It is also a story of a vengeful act by Gothard in demanding the sanctions.
There are many things that stand out, Judge Popejoy’s story of his mother death and his father’s response. Your “Mic Drop” references were poignant points, as was the strength of each of the women responses to a bully of an attorney. What was overwhelming was the vindication that was provided, by God, to the women through a secular Judge. Something even better than a financial reward. It’s something the women of 1980 never got, but on January 10th they got a piece of it, 39 years late, thank you. I trust all the other abused bathed in that vindication too. Ruth got it firsthand a little earlier, when she met Jesus face to face 25 years ago.
One of many comments that got my attention was what Billy was overheard saying after the hearing, “Now everyone is going to think I am a freak.” This is actually a little sadder, he doesn’t get it, he is not a freak but an unrepentant sinner who as damaged the lives of countless loyal supporters and turned many away from God. His use of “freak” is an acknowledgement of the depth of his pride and desire for man’s worship, which should only be reserved for God.
What he should be concerned with is how he is viewed by God as proclaimed in Matthew 18:5-6, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” And Matthew 7:21-23, “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. 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?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”
God has His own way of working and getting us to repent, in this opportunity Bill again failed to take advantage of it. Each time Bill has rejected one of those opportunities God has taken something away from him. This time God used a unique way with a secular judge and attorneys. In Acts 17:26 the providence of God is laid out “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,” Each participant of victims, support team, judge and attorneys had an “allotted period and boundaries of their dwelling place” established by God to be a participant in this journey of life. For the purpose of FINDING HIM! I can see that in true in the lives of the women involved, sad the other side has lost their way. Great Job!
And the current IBLP is content to embrace the fortune, false teachings, and "freakishness" of Bill Gothard.
This was wonderfully written. I appreciate the effort to record what happened for us. Thank you!
Excellent, excellent. I was riveted. Thank you so, so much for doing this, for the plaintiffs, and for us who care.
Oh...we sent our daughter to Headquarters to be with Mr. Gothard back in the eighties. My husband was enamored by the idea of homeschooling. She was at a Christian college and she agreed to stop after her second year and be homeschooled with the IBLP material.
Our sweet daughter didn't want to stay at Headquarters and we brought her home, but Mr. Gothard begged us to let her stay. Phew...thank God we did the right thing. She said she was in the car with him alone a few times.
She is now married and forty-eight years old. I believe that all that we did was well-meant...but probably not God's wisdom.
There are many hurts from IBLP teachings that are not told...but they are there.
Well, if Bill is worried about people thinking that he is a "freak", he has no one to blame but himself. The proper term for an adult interested in adolescents (15-19) is Ephebophilia. He also seemed to like pubescent girls as well (11-14) which would make him a Hebephilia. Whatever went awry in his own development as a man, he will actually never get to the bottom of it. He will just blame the others, cook up continued conspiracy accusations, and never realize that he used his own position and power to take advantage of others and covered it up with spiritual mumbo jumbo.
I’m so grateful for this report and outcome. God bless this Judge and Mr Mincieli. I hope these courageous survivors will feel validated and vindicated, as they should. I don’t think the impact of the Judge relaying his own very personal experience of trauma can be overestimated. That to me is huge.
I feel sad that Gothard remains unrepentant and unable to change his ways. He surely is himself in the iron grip of a fierce and toxic shame if all he cares about is being perceived as a “freak.” The character of the type of representation he was reportedly able to retain speaks volumes, too, though not in a good way. I find it poetic that Sotomayor’s blundering got Alfred excluded from the courtroom. God has a sense of humor, and He was obviously looking out for those who genuinely deserved protection in this scenario.
Thank you for the wonderful reporting. May the Lord continue to bless you all and hold you in His care.
The potential to have always had a chance for a conscionable effort to see injustice for what it was and potentially is,is within the confines of what teeters on IBLP's total denial of active responsible roles. Framed in the context of manipulation,degradation of the vulnerable in favor of their being exonerated at any cost at any chance to continue in religious intensity,circling the wagons to protect itself from any veering off from the traditions its founder has bestowed.IBLP must go on in natural religion,void of any compassion for what it has traditionally defined as lesser beings.They will always and I mean always be suppressed.Down the corridors of time voices weren't quite silenced.The conscience,our only hope to retain and regain dignity thru repentance was never thought to be a gift.How utterly shameful.
Thank you for writing this. It was painful to read, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to hear how things went. I pray that all of the women involved, including those who were not a part of this suit, will experience steps forward into increasing meaning and fulfillment.
Does anyone have any more information on some sort of law suit Bill has filed last week in Dupage County Court against the board of IBLP/ATI?
I'm still looking for that info as well. I am having the hardest time even on Google. Oh well. . .
Did you see that recent article on DG? They wrote up a whole page about my comments. I really stirred them up over there, I guess.
JM,
I saw you last comment exchange on DG so I will reply to you here. I have not seen anything to "silence" me. As you are stating, there is no evidence that anyone was or is lying about Bill's different behaviors with staff, especially female. But there is an overwhelming testimony here, in court, on other blogs about Bill's behaviors with female staff. His current issues are linked to the early scandal involving his brother. Nothing has changed. I also consider Bill current suit a huge mistake on his part. I see Bill's current efforts as well as of those excusing him undercut everything he taught in his seminars. His Monday night, "God's design" has been turned on it's head by articles justifying hiring and surrounding himself with good looking young adults, especially female. Tuesday night "being under authority" has been turned on it's head by the fact that Bill himself is not under anyone's authority but his own. Wednesday night has been upended by current law suit that in essence is trying to take back "his" ministry as if he has a right to it and IBLP belongs to him alone. And this list goes on. Bill's repeated admonitions about "not suing" fellow Christians has been totally turned upside down and discarded. Bill has done more to undercut his own teachings than any board of IBLP that is trying to still keep his old ship afloat even though Bill is accusing them of mismanagement and take over. There does come a point in time when one realizes they need to move on and involve themselves in other things that are near and dear to one's heart. I wish you well. I appreciate the things you brought up and your experience with these types of organizations. God bless
Well thanks, Rob.
I have tried to keep a very cool head with the moderator(s) at DG, but I confess I get more frustrated with every response and every exchange. There are times I am grateful that things happen to take me away from the online scene for a week at a time. I have not been to DG at all this week as a result.
I have always considered myself a seeker of the truth. That is my standard, and the only prize I pursue. The truth is a wonderful and frightening thing. It exonerates, vindicates, and yes eviscerates the best of us, but its revelation is beauty incarnate.
In these matters, I still insist that I am trying to get at the facts, as best I can. What troubles me from DG is the absence of clear evidence, as we have all discussed. Obviously, when RG or anyone else accuses Bill of something, he can deny it. That's fair.
But when we start having corroboration from witnesses (and as far as I can tell, they did not speak to each other before sharing on RG), the picture starts to become clear.
The folks at DG do not believe a word of Gretchen's story (Charlotte). Her accusation is strong. I would naturally be skeptical myself. But it's not just Gretchen. Rachel, Dixie, and Ryan all confirm parts of her story. Dixie confirms the early morning counseling sessions. Ryan and Rachel both confirm the late nights in his office. Ryan further confirms her presence in his car alone. These three elements tell me that at least these aspects of the story are valid.
Obviously, there's some controversy here. DG claims Bill never counselled that early in the day. But again, we've got the victim and a witness (possibly others, too, since there were other girls in those early morning Wisdom Searches that have not commented). DG claims Bill was working on the ATI curriculum at that time.
Well, if that's the case, let's confirm it. Okay. So we have Bill and one other person that can claim it. But that kind of work should be more than provable. What about secretaries that would need to know about it, to know that folks were in the office available or not available to talk? What about the printers who printed the books? Wouldn't they know that folks were hard at work trying to get something to them? What about the graphics Bill used in those books? Someone would have to have made those and been available to place them for Bill to use?
It's just so odd to me that we have none of this outside Bill and the one guy he mentioned. It's good that they are trying to answer the accusation, but to me, it's falling far short. Sure, we can't actually confirm Gretchen's molestation, nor would we expect to. Those crimes are not committed in public, in plain view of everybody. But when we CAN confirm other aspects, which Bill is denying, it makes to leap to her other claims less a gigantic jump in logic.
In addition to this, DG has made many claims. There are claims about women who retracted their stories only to be pressured to include them by lawyers. And I keep saying, where is the evidence for this? This would be absolutely crucial to their case. They offer nothing. And I stand resolute in my claim that I cannot simply trust their word.
Maybe they can't show things because of privilege, or the documents were sealed. That does happen. But I keep saying, in the event of such a thing, one may still obtain an affidavit that mentions such evidence exists. That would be sufficient for me. And they have made it clear they are not interested in doing anything of the sort. So I have to conclude, as you probably do, that they are at worst making things up, and at best wishing for these things to be true.
This whole thing is a mess, and it is largely so because the folks at DG refuse to be forthcoming with their evidence, should any such evidence exist. That troubles me, because they have been decent at handling other matters, Gary Smalley's emails being the notable example. They posted those. So it's not a matter of what we think about it. The emails were there.
I hold out for the best here. I hope they will help shed some light on the situation. I hope for their sake that their claims do have something backing them. For now, I don't see it. I see nothing to silence you or anyone else who posts. That's more than unfortunate for them - it's what they have ultimately set out to do. I am more than disappointed by this exchange. But it is what it is.
I will continue to monitor the case(s) in the coming weeks. I will also keep observing the actions here and at DG. And I will keep searching for the truth.
Thank you for your kindness. I've enjoyed seeing your comments as well. God bless
Alfred Corduan's getting barred from this website was more than a justifiable move; what when it came with his brilliant sleight of hand tactics denying motives but acknowledging only as he could not do anything with testimonies he would so love to suppress.Don't anyone dare say he is objective.Such things as Stockholme's Syndrome,Gaslighting and smokescreening lies have found perhaps an apex with some of thee most heinous misogyny as the result;all wrapped up in spiritual plattitudes and religious self exhonerating lingo."This" having prompted Larne Gabriel to threaten to write a book;and why?Because in the transactions of the past,there was never a thought to deal honestly with the aftermath of battered lives and grieving hearts buried under one man's vanity and one man's alone.Corduan and co.having so much vested, can ill afford any question inside himself;any misgivings,any doubts,so on this will go.I for one will be the first to buy Gabriel's book should he so choose to write it.Where did the church ever so slowly disregard the death of the conscience?
thank-you JM. The obvious truth is that Bill's efforts to bring a frivolous lawsuit against 7 of these women failed. Bill could not disprove any of their testimonies. For someone to claim that they "spoke" to someone, un-named and un-known, stating that this unknown person came forward claiming they lied is dishonest because that would have been used in Bill's lawsuit against these women. This hasn't happen as you noted over in DG. Anyone can claim anything by stating they have talked to this or that person. It is meaningless. Private conversations are not evidence for anything whether it be with the board of IBLP or some other woman or whatever. I highly doubt any of the board is currently talking to anyone over at DG right now, especially with Bill trying to sue them. People can say anything in private conversation especially if they are being questioned or harassed or bothered by someone in an aggressive support of Bill Gothard. Without their side of any of these conversations, we don't know what was said, who said it and when. Which puts any of this evidence in the realm of gossip and rumors. Claiming that the moderator "knows" people that claim Gretchen was lying is just that, rumors and gossip and meaningless opinion. The moderator over at DG does not know Gretchen. Gretchen has always maintained that she was repeated raped by her father. I think that would cause anyone to "have problems". Instead of addressing the real problem which was her perverted father, she is sent to Bill to "fix" her "rebellion". Instead of calling the police on her pervert of a father, Bill takes advantage of her further. Stepping out of the lawsuit does not make her or anyone else a liar. She has always maintained her story and as you have looked at here, others that knew her and Bill at the time she was at IBLP can confirm. Accusing her of lying without any proof that is public and willing to come forward is just rumor mongering and spreading false accusations. There is a strange fixation on her testimony above the others, probably because it is so sick and true.
Yep. You summed up pretty much all my entire thoughts on the matter.
Good job Rob and JM on your persistence with Alfred. But he is only looking for and only believes positive things about Bill. His identity is so tied to the Gothard machine, any proof of Bill's improprieties destroys his "dwelling place" that he has built his personal life and family around, a sand foundation (Matthew 7:24-27). The same passage tells us to build our house on the "Rock" that being Jesus Christ, the hope of eternal salvation. I pray for Alfred and Bill that they will see the truth before they meet their Maker and that we all seek a life pleasing to God and growing in His Grace and the knowledge of Christ. 2 Peter 3:17-18,
"You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen"
Are you writing a book? If so, I would think it will be pretty damaging for Bill, on top of everything else.
"Good job Rob and JM on your persistence with Alfred. But he is only looking for and only believes positive things about Bill."
That is pretty much what I have gathered from my conversations with him as well. If anything accusatory is slung Bill's way, a simple "Bill denies that" is enough for him.
I am a firm believer in equality in accusations, of course. All things being equal, an accusation and a denial would cancel each other out. But all things are not equal here (I really want to say "this one can" if you catch the reference).
We have not only one accusation, but multiple, and in the case of Gretchen, three witness to confirm aspects of her story. A simple "Bill denies that" falls short due to the doctrine of preponderance. There's more on one side than the other. I think his effort to disprove her early morning counselling sessions by mentioning a current leader who worked with Bill on the ATI homeschool curriculum during that time is admirable but also questionable. If such activities did occur, they would be witnessed by more than just Bill and this one other person. So what have I left to conclude? I must logically conclude that Gretchen is the more truthful here, since she has more corroboration.
I am still frustrated by Alfred's insistence, but only because he cannot see that he has a problem. Truth is, no one cares if he likes Bill. To a degree, few people care that he still admires Bill. What troubles me is that he cannot see the holes in his own argument. It is not just weird. It's dangerous. And I hold him to such a high standard because he has indeed exercised good journalism at points. When I challenged him to produce the by-laws, he found them. I challenged him to prove Gretchen's departure from the lawsuit - he produced the order. This was good. So why not back everything else up? He either won't or can't, and it is to his detriment.
So yeah. I've pretty much said all I can on the matter, though I will still try to cordial if I do enter discourse with him again. Conversations are rarely over with me, but I do think I can move away from that one.
Than you for your kind words. I am a bit curious if you saw my exchange with him concerning the Board, the by-laws, and how those worked together to get Bill ousted. I thought that particular conversation was insightful. I would be curious if you had any thoughts on the matter.
Rob, I am writing a book I started earlier this year, along with a second one I had begun before Ruth died and recently started revising. I also have a third one planned. Each one is different and where they will go, I don't know, and don’t hold your breath, yet. I spent the last two years doing research and taking five college level theology classes, one on Biblical ethics and another on the "unseen spiritual realm (angels and demons), through my church. They all involved quite a bit of writing on topics such as Grace, Church Discipline, Church Discipline of Leadership, False Doctrine, Doctrine of Scripture, Biblical Eschatology, well over 100 pages. The professor was well aware of my background and many of the papers were aimed at my experience with Bill. It has been a profound spiritual and healing experience!
One specific truth I came away with is found in Acts 17:26-27 (ESV); "And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward Him and find Him. Yet He is actually not far from each one of us,".
This verse says God has determined the locations of where we will live and the exact time of that dwelling, for the purpose of finding Him. As I apply that to my life, I see very specific events over the past, almost 70 years, that could have only been orchestrated by the Creator of the Universe. Each one of those experiences, both good and even bad (sinful), He used to remold me towards where He wants me to be (I’m NOT there, or even close yet). I see His hand guiding me through those periods of sin and growth. He has walked beside me and guided me, even when I didn’t deserve it, all for the purpose He had planned for my life, of finding and staying close to Him. Our sin is our choice, but it becomes part of our story and message of redemption that we can share with others (This is what Bill is missing in his legalistic works-based definition of Grace). All I can say is WOW, Thank You Jesus!
Everything I write I want to Glorify God and to be a tool for people to find their redemption and healing in the saving power of the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Our salvation does not come through a church, a man or a program, they are but small tools to assist us in our progressive sanctification of being more like Christ. As the world seems to be falling apart around us and Christians are becoming more and more the focus of Satan's wrath, we should all be armed with the one truth we have, God's Word!
God bless you on your efforts. It was very wise that you took time to give yourself some classes in theology to lay a sound basis for what you are writing. That is something that the likes of Bill Gothard belittled or skewed as not important or needed. The problem with this sort of thinking is that the types of people that promote "I don't need theology" don't have a sound theology and hide it by saying "I don't need theology, I have Jesus and the Bible".
Larne,Please let me know of any release of these books.I believe,having been exposed to some oppression of religious spirits,that when you mentioned the realm of angels and demons, that Gothard operated under a spirit of witchcraft.Religious spirits have and will replace Jesus'Living Resurrection,marring human dignity,expression of feeling,expression of heart,creativity,worship in its varied forms under inspiration of the holy spirit.This with a slow death.I can't wait to read anything and I mean anything; word or statement you write.I assure you, you will give voice to the oppressed,and bring people face to face with their need to repent.Instead many Gothardites turned to "religion."The one person comes to my mind who transformed all manner of thought with her own encounter with Jesus is Akiane Kramarik.
Larne,
not sure if you saw this article on Christianity Today but if not, it is a provocative look at David and Bathsheba which re-examine the whole thing as more of a case of rape than adultery. I happen to agree with the article and when reading it, thought about Ruth and the other girls with Steve Gothard which really is more like rape as currently defined by laws than fornication or adultery. The repeated defenses of Bill as some sort of King David now has a new interesting twist when one views King David taking advantage of Bathsheba
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/october-web-only/david-bathsheba-debate-murder-rapist.html
Okay. I'm not Larne. But thanks for this sharing this. This article is great.
I definitely agree we tend to "belittle" David's sin here to make it more palatable. "Adultery" carries a much softer sting than does "rape." But I ultimately agree with both you and the article here in that it would be a form of rape as well.
I believe it may be best to approach this simply - there is no little thing wrong in what David did there. Call it whatever - adultery, murder, rape, abuse of authority. Ultimately, those names matter little. It was a terrible sin. It was murder. It was adultery. It was rape. It was abuse of authority. Any one of these would be serious in themselves, but this was a cluster-bomb of sin. Yet, we tend not to see in such terms, because we like David. We understand God called a man after his own heart. But the greatest of us do commit the worst acts at times.
It is important to be reminded of that, and for that I say thanks to the writers at Christianity Today. And yes, that does make the comparisons between Bill and King David a bit more interesting.
On a side note, I came to understand something interesting studying the life of David once, something I've not heard many people talk about.
Did you know this encounter with Bathsheba happened after the infamous "David dances and Michal gets mad" episode. Follow the sequence of events there. It's quite fascinating. David danced before the Lord, Michal saw him and was embarrassed, she later scolded him over it, and he reprimanded her for it. Chapter 6 of 2 Samuel ends saying that therefore Michal had no child until she died. What happened here?
The language may imply that she had no child because David sent her away. According to Jewish law, a man could put away his wife if he had found some "uncleanness" with her. We usually take this to mean some sexual impropriety, but it may not have been. David reacts to Michal as if she had insulted not only him but his offering of dance to the Lord. This would have given him enough claim to dismiss her.
I think by the time David sends his troops into battle, he is for the most part, wifeless. Staying in the palace instead of being on the battlefield with his troops but him in the worst position ever, the position of direct temptation. Knowing his own state, he should have taken even more precautions when he saw Bathsheba, but he didn't. It's a tragic story covered in more tragedy.
Thank-you again for your thoughts and insight. By the time David came back and was "dancing", he was not "wifeless" but had collected other wives like Abigail etc. before he encountered his first wife Michal. Likewise, he had 6 "concubines" on top of all of the other wives. I understand the thought here but it isn't exactly accurate that he became involved with Bathsheba because he was "wifeless". Michal likewise when David was on the run from her father, seemed to become married to someone else. She probably was childless due to the obvious fact that their marriage no longer included the physical aspects and the previous curses on King Saul and all of his decedents. David probably wasn't going to risk having children with her and her own attitude towards him basically ended the marriage. I'm not sure of any connection between David and Michal to what happen with David and Bathsheba. But what is clear is that after Bathsheba, there was a clear down turn and turmoil in the rest of David's life. David's sin of "rape" which is what I think it is, is repeated by Ammon with Tamar and then Absalom with the 6 concubines of his father. Kinda curious that Absalom's rebellion started over the violation of his sister Tamar yet had no problem violating 6 women publicly in front of everyone. Can't even imagine the horror those poor women suffered, especially since afterwards they were put away by David himself. Probably the bigger lesson from all of this besides the consequences of immorality is that polygamy never works and that this sort of sin and immorality leads to a vicious cycle that repeats itself over and over again.
A couple of other thoughts, Bathsheba wasn't just taking a "bubble bath" but was doing the ritual "mikvah" cleansing that devout Jewish women did after their monthly cycles. Even though her husband wasn't around, she still performed the ritual. This would have put her at her peak fertility which David took advantage of.
David's immorality with all these wives and concubines probably caused his poor health at the end of his life where he was just lying in bed shivering and the final nurse/wife was a celibate relationship.
Thank-you again for your analysis and insight.
Well, I am still collecting my thoughts on this. But the Bible doesn't say much about Abigail or those other "concubines." It does say a lot about Michal. She features prominently in David's life until this point. Abigail does not. I believe this makes the case that she was his preferred bride, being the first one he won.
No, I still think the argument still works. David surely had more than one wife, but there was one that he preferred, and the loss of that one hurt him.
There's a lot more to the Michal case, too. She was actually pledged to someone else, but Saul gave his older daughter Merab to him instead (in a situation not too dissimlar to Rachel and Leah). It is my belief that when David dismissed Michal, she took up residence with her sister Merab. The children that she presents to David later in the book are not hers but Merab's (indeed some textual scholars argue the name Michal in that passage should be Merab). The King James words it carefully, and after some study into the actual text of the passage, I agree with its wording.
I have heard that about Bathsheba as well, but I have not looked that closely into it. I do know there is some dispute about some of these issues. I have heard that some scholars have taken a different view. To me, I'm not sure I can say any fault lies with Bathsheba, but I admit I haven't looked that closely into it. I still believe the fault is David's. I think we all agree on that. I really appreciate the article's take on it. It was well done.
Comment by Bev.,Mar.8,2014,Failure to Reconcile,Part2.The urgent need for the administered intervention of God though not heeded at that time [by so many] bears such eloquent witness I give my praise to its heartfelt testimony. Eternity will bear Its own Mark in time.
As a former IBYC staff member 1979-80, what I find disturbing is the Board and the leadership's complete lack of seeking the truth. Their silence is deafening, all letters and emails go unanswered. This failure goes back to the events of the May 17, 1980 "Black Saturday" scandal and continues to today. This is very counter to the examples we find in Scripture. In Proverbs 22:8 “Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity, and the rod of his fury will fail.” Has the Board sowed injustice for not seeking out the truth? Or maybe Proverbs 12:17, “Whoever speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit.” How can you give honest evidence if you don’t seek the whole truth?
If you remember the story of David and Bathsheba, when the Prophet Nathan confronts David (2 Samuel 12) and David repents, yet in verse 11 Nathan prophesizes, “This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you…” in verse 12 he says, “You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.” Repentance clears our sin with God but David was the King and his example of leadership required a higher standard before his people. Luke 12:48 confirms this. “But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” Because of David’s sin or failure to deal with sin, four of his sons died, a plague killed 70,000, and he had to flee due to a rebellious coup.
From Genesis to Revelations we find a consistent theme of sin which takes one of two paths, repentance and redemption or rejection and judgement. Sin in the Bible is dealt with very publicly, and we have been reading about it in Scripture since first inspired by the Holy Spirit and penned by Moses 3,400 years ago.
Bill's sin and the Board's covering of that sin has led to the situation both Bill and IBLP finds themselves in today, much the same as the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah themselves in 2,600 years ago when they failed to listen to the warnings we read of in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others. This lead to the destruction of the Holy Temple, Jerusalem and the people being killed taken into captivity. Like Israel, IBLP and Bill have no one to blame but themselves for the consequences they now endure.
These people who professed the truth,but promoted the darkness of Gothardism,having at last seen its essence,but denied their roles,having carefully guarded the lie inside a hollow but ornamental sphere of influence.Now they must live in this ornamental sphere;this vacuum Gothard created.For they too helped form and create the lifeless ornament, complicit with the carcass of this man placed upon their shoulders to be paraded for a glorious destiny,but far too many will be pulled down with him; down to an ever darkening abyss.Years won't prevent the ever downward life suffocating spiral.Where is the line drawn between his destiny and those confederate with him;that is if none should repent?Where can there be a disconnect, if shared responsibility is called into account?Denied help for the helpless?Passivity when there could still be something redemptive done?Its your call you who must weigh the consequences,not mine.
I am married into a family that was deeply involved with the IBLP and the other groups over the last 40 years. Sorry, but I can’t remember all the acronyms. I see them struggling with their faith in some very foundational areas that I suspect is due to the false teachings they received. The initial clue for me that something was off was their complete inability to identify the victim in any situation and to instead vigilantly defend the abuser. Another area is that the parents are unaccountable even to their adult children. The parents have a more influential voice in family decisions than their spouses. And they have severely damaged and ruined relationships due to their staunch determination to rebuke others using their unbiblical views of divorce, remarriage, and illness. After reading your site for days, I am beginning to see through the haze. I wonder if you could point me to some resources that would help me to assist my family in sifting through all of the false teachings that they are still unaware of, most especially those that warp their view of God and themselves. Thank you.
Bill Gothard’s latest venture must be seen to be believed. He’s launching an online college called Embassy University, offering 2-year degrees, 4-year degrees and masters degrees. You can even earn a PhD! Check out the site. It is like Bill Gothard Reloaded and every bit if it oozes with Gothardism.
The program core: Nightly meditation. Learning while you sleep:
From the Q & A page:
“ How long are the semesters?
Answer: Embassy does not operate on semesters because our lives are not divided into semesters. It is measured by years. Two years of nightly meditation will result in an Associate of Arts degree. Two more years will bring you a Bachelor of Arts degree. Another two years will earn you a Master of Arts degree and the final three years will produce a Doctor of Philosophy degree. “
The cost- that’s even better. From the Q & A page:
“Are there incurred costs associated with university attendance (books, admission fees, cost of the degree being printed, donations, etc.)?
Answer:There is no charge for admission to Embassy University, or for any of its online courses, nor for the issuance of degrees. Neither is there any cost for online counselling or encouragement. The only nominal cost would be for a few essential textbooks such as the Daily Rhema Journal and the Comprehensive Counselling Course ($15 each plus shipping) Other textbooks are optional.”
So, that comes to about $30. How can you beat that? No more college loans. Of course, it is vague on what else is required and seems to keep the door open for other required book purchases. Hmmm, I wonder whose books one will be required to purchase.
The intro video is a must watch: “Learn wisdom while you sleep” “Your success in this program is guaranteed by God.”
Guaranteed success? Where have we heard that one before?
It is hard to take Embassy University seriously, but on a serious note, there is something that I am deeply concerned about. Enrollment is open to children aged 12 and up. Free counseling is being offered. Who do you think will be doing the counseling? Does anyone else have an issue with 12, 13 and 14-year-old girls being offered counseling? Are the Gothardites, what few of them are left, so gullible that they will enroll their young daughters in this?
https://embassy.university/
OMG, I shouldn't be shocked but I still am. I saw in the testimonies which basically focused on giving (which I am concluding here is his underhanded way of getting people to give to him) the Greens and Hobby Lobby. I am guessing that he is mentioning them to give himself some credibility. I wonder if he actually got their permission to mention them on his web site. This is so screwed up on so many fronts, one almost doesn't know where to begin. so basically this is a program of memorization which is suppose to give you some kind of degree and if you actually publish a book, a PhD. None of these degrees will lead you any where. But trying to reach out and include 12 year olds is really alarming.
"I saw in the testimonies which basically focused on giving (which I am concluding here is his underhanded way of getting people to give to him) the Greens and Hobby Lobby"
I totally agree Rob. There is a huge emphasis on giving, with a feel of 1980s televangelism- full of stories how people gave and then they received monetary gifts from God, connecting the act of their giving to the monetary rewards from God- from the site: "When you give God full control of all your money and set up a fund to give away, you can expect God to work supernaturally in your finances"
No you can't! You can not and should not expect that God will reward you financially when you give money away. Give because it is the right thing to do and never with any expectation that God will reward you financially. Shame on him for going there.
And, of course, after all these anecdotal stories that Bill loves to tell, about how people gave money and were blessed financially, the site makes it very convenient for you to give to Bill Gothard's ministry with an easy button to press at the bottom of the page:
From the website:
"Give to Bill Gothard's Ministry
The original and ongoing goal of this ministry is to give the world God’s way of life. This is now more possible than ever before. Your gifts will be used exclusively for this purpose."
I also thought Bill's voice on the intro video sounded weak, old and even at times, he seemed to slip on the words he was reading. He didn't sound confident either. Bill didn't sound like a robust 80 something year old as often painted by Alfred on DG. If he was trying to sell his "program" as the means for success, he did not sound it.
The aim of the program "success" matching the message of WoF people and yes, he very much sounded like the 80's tele-evangelists. Just memorize the Bible and you will be like the Greens of Hobby Lobby. There is no focus on just drawing close or knowing God. He has turned God into a candy machine and if you do this or that, you will be like the Greens. God is serving you, not you serving God and being transformed to be like Jesus, who is never mentioned on this web site.
"He didn't sound confident either. Bill didn't sound like a robust 80 something year old as often painted by Alfred on DG. "
Very true. He sounded feeble and seemed to struggle to read the words. He was a powerful orator in his youth. He clearly no longer has it. I watched a video of him speaking at a church a few years ago online and at that point he clearly had lost his oratory prowess. It would appear he has declined further. And, of course he has. You would not expect a person at age 85 to have the same abilities that they did when they were 50 or even 70. That is why people who are 85 don't run for president. People who are 70 or 74, perhaps, but no one runs for president at 85.
His age brings up another point. If he does manage to entice some gullible families to enroll their kids in his "University", will anyone consider his age in their decision? The idea of earning a PhD by memorizing Scripture might sound very enticing to some, but let's do the math. If someone enters the program, intending to earn a PhD, per the website, that would be 9 years of memorizing scripture and buying Bill's books. Bill is 85- if someone enrolls today that would make Bill 94 when they earn their PhD. The probability that he will still be alive at that point is very low. Statistically, only 4.7% of the population lives to be 90 years old.
So what happens to all these folks who invest all this time and money, expecting to earn degrees, if Bill passes away?
Do you really think that many people will sign up for this? Do you think that the Gothardites are that naive?
Degree mill? This is not a new concept. The question is: What academic body actually recognizes the degrees given?
Kevin,
I can't imagine anyone giving credence to any of these "degrees". Bill's program of falling asleep while memorizing a bible verse that he tells you to use is not an educational program whatsoever. His use of the Greens and even Bishop Ron Archer in the video do not prove this particular program. I would believe that he got both the Greens and Bishop Ron Archer's permission I suppose, but I wonder if they really realize what this "new" educational program even is. I can imagine or guess that Bill would have presented to both of them a watered down version. Ron Archer's testimony has nothing to do with Bill Gothard at all after looking into him elsewhere on the internet. I can see why IBLP dropped this program and moved elsewhere. I don't understand how the State of Florida is giving credence to it unless when they first went to the State of Florida, it was a much different set up back then. Maybe someone more familiar with Florida laws can weigh in here.
What even further bothers me personally is Bill's claim that he rediscovered "4" secrets from the Apostles that gave them power. As someone that has personally read many early Church fathers myself including many of the Ante-Nicene works, I can tell you that this is one big fat lie. There is no 4 secrets anywhere in any of these early Church writings. In fact the groups that were into "secrets" or "secret knowledge" were called Gnostics and they were and are heretics, not orthodox Christians. Bill's ideas are so far removed from anything from early Christianity that he is being totally dishonest when he claims or makes himself out to be from the "first" Christians or that he is bringing to light "secrets" from the early Church. He is lying and I've read enough of the earliest Christian writings and works to back myself up and accuse him of lying over this.
"I can't imagine anyone giving credence to any of these "degrees". Bill's program of falling asleep while memorizing a bible verse that he tells you to use is not an educational program whatsoever."
I agree Rob. I expect that there will be a few gullible individuals enroll, but it will be in the hundreds at most, not thousands. And, I think that anyone applying for a job and submitting such a degree on their resume could only be harmed by it. There are a lot of degree mills out there and employers know this and usually do a little due diligence. I have interviewed people and a degree from an obscure university raises the eyebrow. Can you imagine being in the position of an employer and seeing this on the resume? Any potential employer who does a little due diligence will discover that this prospective employee earned their degree while learning wisdom as they sleep. A Google search will quickly locate their website which talks about our three brains and nightly rhemas.
From the website:
"The most recent scientific studies confirm the Biblical teaching that every person has three brains"
Three brains? Really? Interesting that there is no reference cited for these recent scientific studies mentioned. I wonder why not? What educational institution would make such a far out claim without a citation? Just for the fun of it I did a PubMed search and found nothing about this "recent" scientific discovery. Perhaps they will post the peer reviewed study which confirms this, lol.
There is a term for such a program that requires little study and quickly grants a degree with little cost - Diploma Mill.
But Bill's program stretches even THAT a bit, doesn't it? Just two years in one course at minimal cost? This is beyond odd. I sincerely hope most folks out there with even half a brain can see right through this.
Okay. Let me throw Bill and his followers a bone here.
If he wanted to do this, and he does, here's how it should be approached:
Let him put the course together. Let him offer it the way he offers it. BUT HE MUST CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE! It can't be a "University" in any sense he wants to use. Call it "Embassy Study Program" or something. And instead of offering diplomas such as Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, and Ph. D. It ought to be something very simple and vague, like "Completion Certificate."
It's hard to argue that someone completed a course of study. Anyone who paid for it and did it can claim it. That would be innocent enough. The terms are triggering us here, and rightly so. Many of us have worked very long and hard hours trying to scrounge up enough many to complete a B. A. or M. A. program (I did mine in twelve years altogether!). Those of who did have real emotional and financial scars from that experience, but we are proud of it because we did it. We fought. We bled. We earned the right to be called by our titles.
(Yeah, I'm looking into a Ph. D. course right now. I might be experiencing all this again.)
Point is. Call me selfish if you will. But I refuse to acknowledge that anyone who simply meditates for two years has the equivalent of what I fought very hard to obtain. And someone who did another study program for two years at 15 dollars has the right to call his program a Master's and along equal footing with me. I refuse.
But if he said he had a certificate of completion, that is far less offensive to me. This sounds to me like yet another example of Bill striking out without much real knowledge of the subject. This is where I feel he ought to be kept on a leash. A much shorter leash.
I wondered why Florida was chosen as the place to operate this online university from. Here you go:
" Religious institutions that meet the requirements found in Section 1005.06(1)(f), Florida Statutes and Rule 6E-5.001, Florida Administrative Code are not under the jurisdiction or purview of the Commission for Independent Education and are not required to obtain licensure."
https://web02.fldoe.org/CIE/Religious/ReligiousInstitutions.aspx
That's right- they are not required to obtain licensure.
And what are the requirements? Check them out in the link provided. It is a joke.
And yes, Embassy University is listed as one of the organizations that has a letter of exemption on file. But, I noted something interesting. They appear to be in clear violation of one of the statutes:
Section 1005.06(1)(f) 1 states:
"The name of the institution includes a religious modifier or the name of a religious patriarch, saint, person, or symbol of the church."
It does make sense that if religious organizations are allowed to operate with an exemption, that the name should indicate that it is, in fact, an religious institution.
This is why all of the other religious organizations listed have names like:
Abba Bible College or Central Christian University.
Somehow, Embassy University slipped through without a name meeting the requirement listed above. The last I checked, Embassy was not the name of a saint or symbol of the church, unless there is some obscure definition that I am not aware of. The letters of exemption are issued annually, so it is possible that this will eventually be brought to their attention and they will be forced to comply.
Well, let's bring it to their attention. I happen to live in Florida, and I happen to work at a particular religious institution that goes OUT OF ITS WAY to insure that we do meet state and federal licensing and accreditation standards.
I will have to contact my friends in the DOE this afternoon.
JM,
You bring up good points. Like you, I worked hard for my degree. It is disturbing that someone can earn a degree in this Mickey Mouse way. I find it hard to believe that anyone would give any value to them.
And, imagine how it will look to prospective employers. I have interviewed and hired people before. I would find it interesting to see on a resume that a 21 year old claims a PhD and is using the title of doctor, which would be entirely possible given the EU policy that 12 year olds can enroll and a PhD takes 9 years of nightly meditation. If I am deciding between an individual with a traditional 2-year associate degree and a PhD earned in this manner, everything else being equal, the 2-year associate degree wins hands down. In fact, that anyone would put such a degree down on an application would almost certainly work against the applicant, particularly if the employer does any amount of due diligence, which almost all do these days.
They may get a few of the followers signing up for this, but it is hard to imagine even them falling for this. If one is looking for an easy degree- a piece of paper that says that they achieved something, there are easier ways that take less time. A Degree Mill can have various definitions. Some would use the term to describe a degree which is easy to earn, with minimal work, while another definition could be describing an organization that immediately sends you a degree without delay, based on something like stated "experience". If one just wanted a piece of paper claiming a degree and/or to be able to put this down on their resume, I would think quick answer would be their route, vs Embassy University which will take much longer. So, they lose the quick and easy degree market. And, I can't imagine any penetration into the market for those who want a traditional legitimate degree.
It's an odd organization to say the least.
Is there any way we can establish that EU is operating from Florida? I checked the website and didn't see any address mentioned. I will need to prove this when I contact the Florida DOE. Is it somewhere that I missed?
Yes, I believe so. If you look on the Florida Department of Education website, linked below, you will see that Embassy University is listed as having been granted a letter of exemption by the department. Scroll down the page and the varies exempt entities are listed alphabetically.
https://web02.fldoe.org/CIE/Religious/ReligiousInstitutions.aspx
Also, from the Embassy University website:
"Embassy University has been authorized by the Department of Education of the state of Florida to grant degrees as an independent educational institution having its own curriculum."
https://embassy.university/courses
Do Florida laws require the "organization" to be in Florida in order for this sort of approval? Since Bill is in Ill. I would think that Embassy U. would be in Il. as well. Thank-you for your insight and expertise over these matters. I would think that the Rhema journal one is required to buy is coming from somewhere.
The Embassy University website claims to be have their authority to grant degrees from Florida. From their website:
"Embassy University has been authorized by the Department of Education of the state of Florida to grant degrees as an independent educational institution having its own curriculum."
If you scroll down this page from the Florida DOE you will find Embassy University listed as one of the colleges that filed an annual affidavit and received a letter of exemption:
https://web02.fldoe.org/CIE/Religious/ReligiousInstitutions.aspx
Yes thank-you. Does the religious institution need to be based in Florida for this exemption?
It is my understanding that an organization wouldn't file with a specific state, unless that organization was operating from that state. Typically, colleges go through the state DOE first. It makes it easier to get Federal approval that way, and you are only limited in what other states have reciprocity with your home state (and that is an interesting subject in and of itself).
This venture of Bill's might be different, since it is a satellite "school." There's no central education building. The building, or whatever exists, exists soleley to print, package, sell, ship, and later track the educational items. Still, it has to be incorporated somewhere if it wants to claim DOE exemptions.
I would think Bill is in IL as well, and would operate it from IL. I'd like to see the precedent that allows a satellite school to claim exemption from a state other than its home and still be in good standing with DOE. That sounds very odd to me, and sounds sneaky. It sounds like he has an exemption in one state and is using that to say "Yes. We are accredited, in one sense."
It is very odd indeed.
Yes, it is odd.
It is one thing to be accredited and licensed. But, Florida does not require religious institutions to obtain licensure.
"Religious institutions that meet the requirements found in Section 1005.06(1)(f), Florida Statutes and Rule 6E-5.001, Florida Administrative Code are not under the jurisdiction or purview of the Commission for Independent Education and are not required to obtain licensure."
https://web02.fldoe.org/CIE/Religious/ReligiousInstitutions.aspx
But, again, they don't want these institutions offering degrees without their religious modifier, so as not to be confused with secular degrees.
Article 3
"The titles of degrees issued by the institution cannot be confused with secular degree titles. For this purpose, each degree title must include a religious modifier that immediately precedes, or is included within, any of the following degrees: Associate of Arts, Associate of Science, Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, Master of Arts, Master of Science, Doctor of Philosophy, and Doctor of Education."
So, where is the religious modified that would separate Embassy University from the secular institutions that are under the jurisdiction of the department and have rigorous standards to be met to obtain and keep their license?
What happened with Bill Gothard is profoundly sad.Scripture warns us to "Be on our guard, for the devil is like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour."
Pride is a formidable foe.. And when through our pride... God becomes "afar off" Satan can walk through the unprotected and open door. My heart goes out to those that suffered personally through his wrongdoing. I was not raised in a Christian home and had no Christian teaching. At 18 I read about the Savior in the Sermon on the Mount and accepted Christ.. in my head. The reality of salvation, and making Him Lord of my life, did not really find its way to my heart for a couple of years. Romans 7 is a horrible place to live. A friend invited me to IBLC at U Pres Church in Seattle. (This is a "chew up the meat spit out the bones" story....) At that seminar, I learned 2 things that changed my life.. What exactly sin and repentance were... And the importance of writing God's Word on by heart and allowing it to transform my life. Combined with prayer this invited the Holy Spirit to begin His sanctifying work in my life. For that I am eternally grateful! I married and we had children. When we decided to home school our children we did briefly consider ATI. However there was an element of control that didn't feel right for us,so we made our own style homeschool.No regrets. And regardless of how BG may have fallen off the path, I am still grateful for the solid foundation of meditating on and memorizing Scripture that I gleaned from that 1970 seminar. Nevertheless the Word of God was preached. Chew up the meat, spit out the bones. Like Balaam, God can use a donkey to speak to us if need be! As far as Bill goes, I do pray that he humbles himself and repents. Soon. Time is running out.
thank-you Kevin and JM. I don't see any religious modifier on the degrees as put out by Embassy University. Bill even called the PhD a "Doctor of Philosophy" which is curious since he was very outspoken and against any sort of Philosophy. This is insulting to everyone that has gone beyond the Basic Bac. and obtained Masters and even PhDs. I still can't believe Bill offering a PhD of Philosophy since I remember him so clearly in his seminars bashing and belittling philosophy of any sort.
It's likely a case of convenience. He's against the word philosophy when it works against him and for it when it works in his favor.
It would be very interesting to hear Bill address this.
I clearly remember Bill in the first seminar I attended in 1979 mentioning the late Francis Schaffer. I had just starting to read Francis Schaffer and Bill's opinion of Francis was that the philosophy that he had studied affected his mind. Francis Schaffer is one of the few evangelicals that used or touched on philosophical arguments. Bill's anti-philosophy, anti-psychology, anti-education, anti-intellect had an unfortunate big effect in the conservative evangelical/fundamentalist world. Yes, there are atheistic and wrong philosophies. Philosophy is a tool or platform, The NT writers like St. John and St. Paul used some of the Greek philosophies as platforms to build upon. The opening verses of the Gospel of John was using Platonic platform. St. Paul whose ministry was to the Greek was well versed in Greek philosophy, that is one way he reached out to them. There are web pages that do point out all the areas in the NT that used Greek philosophical platforms. Even in current debates on the existence of God are better accomplished used philosophical arguments. So I just find this so incredible that Bill Gothard that bashes the late Francis Schaffer will offer in his "university" a "Doctor of Philosophy", both of which go against what he taught and told others in his seminars.
Yep. I agree.
It is no wonder to me why Bill espoused much of the anti-philosophy, anti-psychology, and anti-intellect rhetoric. In their void, he could teach anything he wanted really. His criticism? It must come from a faulty platform. Believers, even good conservative ones, who sounded warnings? They must be tainted by one of these vices.
It is still a shock to me how so many otherwise intelligent people still cling to all this. This is the same mindset that makes conspiracy theorists such as anti-vaxxers and 911 truthers. They can't accept real truth because they have determined that truth must come from somewhere specific and be free from all such taints.
It is therefore absolutely weird that Bill now espouses these same terms, at least on the surface. The programs are anything but, for sure. But that begs the stinging question: Why call your programs by these names? A simple "Certificate of Completion" would suffice.
Bill really needs to answer this. But we all know what will happen if and when he does. He will bloviate and obfuscate, and in the process, we will be made to look like scoffers.
Yes, JM you are spot on. Things like psychology, philosophy, theology, education etc. exposes the wacky ideas Bill espoused in his seminars. This falling asleep while quoting a Bible verse to oneself is nothing new to him. He espoused that in his seminars when I attended them. His first post-ILBP attempt at ministry was his "Power Teams" which was aimed at men getting together to memorize Bible verses and "encourage" each other in that. I am deducting that this was a big flop. If one looked a little more closely at this Embassy University, he is also espousing the ideas and things of his Basic Seminar which are 7 unchangeable principals and 49 character traits etc. So one isn't just "memorizing" Bible verses to fall asleep but also being indoctrinated in the things taught in his seminars. You are memorizing the Bible verses that Bill tells you to and right along with that memorizing what Bill tells you these verses mean and say. The problem with all of that is the "promise" of Bill's that God is going to give you "Rhemas" if you do this. But the reality is that God doesn't and isn't going to give new and exciting "Rhemas" to anyone. It doesn't work like that and I would wager that anyone in this program is going to come up with empty "Rhema" journals and drop out. I'm sure that if someone got a "rhema" different from Bill and submitted it to him, he would kick them out of this program. The program itself is doomed to be a failure because the set up is unattainable from the get go. That is probably why the current management of IBLP dropped it. Bill in his desperation picked it up, thinking he now has a prize, but it is a booby prize in reality. The carrot stick of becoming millionaires like the Greens is a false promise. If so, we would be seeing thousands of millionaires due to the repeated pushing of rote Bible memorization as taught by Bill through the years. Bill himself would be a millionaire. According to Alfred, he isn't, he has no money. So the reality is that the Greens became millionaires due to other reasons, not due to rote Bible memorization via Bill's seminars.
That is very true, Rob. We often forget the practical and "normal" side of life in all these matters. The Greens were successful because they found a market, exploited their product, and made their product last. That's just good business. These things happen for lots of people pushing various products. It's not unique to their experience.
But they're Christians. So that must make a difference, right? Well, what we should take from that is that their faith helped them through moments in their journey and at times may have shaped their experience. That doesn't mean you have to have Christian faith to be successful. Steve Jobs would have never succeeded if that were so (straight to the point, he left Christianity for Eastern mysticism/Hinduism back in the 70's and never came back).
Jesus said the rain falls on the just and unjust both. That would mean the sun shines on both of them too. The point I take from all this is: these are great principles to apply to work, life, etc. They can help, probably will. But is it a guarantee? Certainly not. God does different things with different people. It would not only be presumptuous but foolish to think we can find one magic formula that produces wealth every time. It's ludicrous.
I see more in the NT that God really just wants a relationship with us. He has promised us blessings, but He doesn't specify what they are or what form they might take. Bill's teachings in that sense put more than a restrictive structure on the whole thing. They present a potentially harmful ecosystem in which children are grown - hence this site. This is all good food for thought to help us remain vigilant.
I hope you all had a great holiday season. We had a very simple but very special Christmas - just us together at our home. We love the holidays.
Interesting Q and A with someone who was raised IBLP/ATI:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DuggarsSnark/comments/eb4uqz/ama_with_ujays_motorcycle/
I’m intrigued in particular by one comment she makes. She said that Gothard sent out monthly newsletters frequently saying that his life was miraculously saved in multiple near-misses of death or injury. Can anyone else confirm this?
Happy New Year
to JM, I'm not sure with businesses like Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-a, how much of their success is due to the Christian faith of the owners and that "faith" will result their success or not. I no longer subscribe to that sort of idea that really is more of an American phenomena that a truly Christian one. Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-a are both closed on Sundays. Yet there are many more businesses that are open on Sunday's and are very successful. Now, I also know of Christian run businesses that are open on Sundays. Bronner's in Frankenmuth MI is the world's largest Christmas store and the founder and current family owners are very devout Christians, their motto "CHRISTmas wonderland" emphasizes a capitalized Christ. Chick-fil-a is not very big where I live, in fact I was not even aware of any of them in Michigan till I looked them up. Now are they successful despite being closed on Sundays which is a major shopping day? Maybe a case can be made for that, not sure. Maybe if more Christians followed that example and just didn't shop and go out to eat on Sunday, Sunday would stop being another shopping/eating out day and more businesses would be closed. I don't think it is as cut and dry as sometimes people make it out to be.
Happy New Year to all! My God bless each and every one of you in this coming year and always.
* May God
Has anyone heard any update on Bill's lawsuit against IBLP board? Discovering Grace had made much about it and had indicated that it was to be heard in court in December. December came and went and nothing about it- crickets. I think if things went Bill's way that the "moderator" would be doing the happy dance over there and handing out baklava.
I believe the oral arguments for the appeal are heard later this month on January 23rd.
I believe the appeal on Jan 23rd has to do with Bill's appeal of the ruling not in his favor against the 7 women and the charge of frivolous lawsuit. I would guess the other suit against the board might not have gone Bill's way. How is Bill affording all these law suits if he didn't have any money?
On another site it was said that the lawsuits are being financed by donors. What a waste of money, chasing frivolous lawsuits. How pathetic and desperate he has become. When it comes down to it, you have to wonder if he really ever believed in any of the things he taught.
Yes, agree. DG made a big deal about the estimate of how much money was spent to even bring him to court in the beginning. However, funding two different law suits that he is currently in right now also has to be expensive as well. This sort of complaint works both ways. Bill would have walked away when the women involved in the beginning withdrew their law suit and saved himself or those supporting him money.
To you second point about his teaching, I think he did or does believe in what he taught but there is quite a big disconnect in him from what he taught and how he ran IBLP and treated his employees there and just his own actions towards others such as brining further law suits, something anyone who has gone to his seminars knows he clearly and firmly taught against. But it goes even further, the first night about "God's design" in clearly undercut by his internet defenses that he deliberately surrounded himself with attractive young people, especially women and was called to do so. The second night on authority is upended by the clear fact that he was never under anyone himself and was even defended as such in a statement that if he was under authority, Bill could not have been free to follow the spirit. The third night on rights is obviously upended by Bill demanding his rights to come back and run IBLP which he considers "his". The list just goes on and on. Bill has done more by his own actions to undo everything he taught in his seminars, not RG, not these women, not anyone else. Bill isn't taken seriously any more in the conservative evangelical world, he isn't mentioned, he isn't referred to. He is a non-entity, just a footnote of the 70s and early 80s. Either Bill is totally delusional or so totally psychologically disconnected from himself and reality. I don't know which. Maybe both. When Bill stated to his lawyers at the close of the law suit he brought on that people would think he is a "freak", that is probably the first real honest assessment of himself he has had in a long time. Yes, "freaks" teach one thing and then turn around and do another. But the better term is "hypocrite".
Anyone know that court district or state Bill's lawsuit against the board was filed?
I found the suit against the Board, case number 2019CH000950 in DuPage County Court. The case was Dismissed with Prejudice in mid December and notice of appeal was filed December 27th. No further information available.
Wow! yes I would say this "didn't go Bill's way". With Prejudice means he can't come back and sue them again. Unless the appeal with successful which is doubt, this is done for him.
Very interesting. I wonder our friends on DG are saying about this?
I feel completely vindicated right now.
What I know about court law you could put on the head of a pin. That said since Bill was the plaintiff and not the defendant (as in last years case) does that change who the "prejudice" was against and what his recourse is???? I don't know! Just pray for the mighty hand of God to rule!
Regarding Bill's next week's appeal of the ruling from last years case against the ATI women, it appears you can listen to an audio of the hearing for free. (The hearings heard today are already online), so the hearings on the 23rd should be also later that day.
The appeal is being heard in the 2nd district appellate court.
http://illinoiscourts.gov/Media/Appellate/2nd_District.asp
JM,
Alfred's silence is deafening. All he wrote to James' question about it was that "it didn't go Bill's way". Being dismissed right in the beginning is a little more than "didn't go Bill's way". When I google searched about "dismissed with prejudice" I read that the issue or issues cannot be brought up again in a court of law. Since Bill is the one that brought on this, I would look at this as Bill cannot go back and re-sue IBLP. Maybe someone with real law experience and education can explain better than Lawyer Google. That is probably why Bill is appealing this. JM, I never had any doubts about your insight and accuracy, but yes, you should feel very much vindicated.
I will have to celebrate with the ceremonial eating of Red Robin burgers.
There will be much munching.
A Psalm for the ATI women regarding Billy's appeal hearing against them on Thursday the 23rd.
1
Hear a just cause, O Lord; attend to my cry!
Give ear to my prayer from lips free of deceit!
2
From your presence let my vindication come!
Let your eyes behold the right!
3
You have tried my heart, you have visited me by night,
you have tested me, and you will find nothing;
I have purposed that my mouth will not transgress.
4
With regard to the works of man, by the word of your lips
I have avoided the ways of the violent.
5
My steps have held fast to your paths;
my feet have not slipped.
6
I call upon you, for you will answer me, O God;
incline your ear to me; hear my words.
7
Wondrously show your steadfast love,
O Savior of those who seek refuge
from their adversaries at your right hand.
8
Keep me as the apple of your eye;
hide me in the shadow of your wings,
9
from the wicked who do me violence,
my deadly enemies who surround me.
10
They close their hearts to pity;
with their mouths they speak arrogantly.
11
They have now surrounded our steps;
they set their eyes to cast us to the ground.
12
He is like a lion eager to tear,
as a young lion lurking in ambush.
13
Arise, O Lord! Confront him, subdue him!
Deliver my soul from the wicked by your sword,
14
from men by your hand, O Lord,
from men of the world whose portion is in this life.[b]
You fill their womb with treasure;
they are satisfied with children,
and they leave their abundance to their infants.
15
As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness;
when I awake, I shall be satisfied with your likeness.
Psalm 17
Our prayers are with the women today. He is grasping at straws at this point. God willing, this will go their way and Bill will be out of their lives.
Amen, Amen!!
The audio of the appeal has been posted. You can go to the first link and it takes you directly to the audio file or the second link which takes you to all the cases since Jan. 1st and select the file from the list. Its 55 minutes long.
Having no legal background I will offer no opinion, however, the women's attorney was very sharp and Bill's attorney seemed a little out of his realm. At one point he couldn't properly pronounce "Gothard" and seemed a little unprepared. The judges' line of question seemed to be asking why the sanctions were against the women, when Bill's attorney's appeal was based on actions by the attorney. There was considerable discussion of the basis of repressed memory. The recording ended with, "we will take it under advisement".
https://multimedia.illinois.gov/court/AppellateCourt/Audio/2020/2nd/012320_2-19-0254.mp3
http://illinoiscourts.gov/Media/Appellate/2nd_District.asp
The Audio of todays appellate hearing is linked below;
http://illinoiscourts.gov/Media/Appellate/2nd_District.asp
I heard the recording per Larne's 2nd District appellate court website information.This I saw a few comments up.There was in its essence and will continue to be cloak and dagger attacks guised thru carefully orchestrated wording claiming to be so objective;disguised to look so true.In his redefining of "truth"."Truth" to bludgeon."Truth" to exploit."Truth" to mercilessly silence the hapless. That is his rationale.This has always been Bill's masterpiece of deceit.Redefining.Then Larne did what anyone appealing to the heart of God would do.There will be justice for the broken,for the oppressed,the exploited not because of our so called eloquence, but because Jesus Himself will thru His revealed Heart,DEFEND HIS SHEEP. May He become Our refuge,Our eloquence,Our shelter from the storm.I lift those Bill has exploited up to God's Throne of justice.Thank you Larne for sharing to us Psalm 17.It caused a few tears to fall.
Thanks David, I am always amazed at God's Word and the blessing it brings.
I just listened to the audio of Gothard's appeal against the women. Thanks for posting it Larne. That seemed to go very well for the women, in my observation. The complaints of Bill's attorney seemed weak and appeared to go nowhere when questioned by the judges. They questioned both sides well, teasing out the arguments for both sides. The women's attorney had reasonable answers for all of their lines of questioning. Gothard's attorney did not.
There appeared to be three major issues, all of which seemed to fall flat and go nowhere. I'm paraphrasing here after listening just once, so anyone please comment where you believe that I have any of this inaccurate or wrong.
1. They claimed that the women's attorney, Mr. Mincieli, did not do a good enough job investigating the claims of repressed memory. Gothard's problem is, as came out upon questioning, the motion for sanctions was made against the women and not against their attorneys.
2. They claimed that Judge Popejoy erred in that he should have allowed Gothard's attorney to pierce attorney/client privilege and question Mr. Mincieli about the details of conversations between him and the women. Good luck with that one. It is extremely rare for a judge to allow attorney/client privilege to be pierced. The women's attorney cited case law regarding a case in which the prosecutors were not allowed to ask the defendant's attorney if his client told him where he buried the body. It was denied. So, it is beyond a stretch to expect Popejoy to have allowed it here. The standard would have to be extraordinarily high here, in the claim that Popejoy erred in not allowing attorny/client privilege to be pierced.
3. They claimed that in defending those private conversations between them and their clients, the plaintiff's attorney had a conflict of interest, essentially representing the women and the law firm at the same time. The appellate judges teased this one out a bit, and it seemed to fall apart upon questioning. Paraphrasing, the line of questioning went something like this:
Appellate judge: You claimed that Mr. Mincieli had a conflict of interest in representing them. Did you ever make a motion to disqualify based on this?
Bill's attorney: I indicated, inaudible mumble mumble
Appellate judge: That would be a "yes" or a "no". I filed it or I didn't file it.
Bill's attorney: No
And with that the judges seemed to have no more questions for him. Until a ruling is made, you never know for certain which way it will go, but this sure seemed to go nowhere and one is left wondering what the point was of that whole appeal.
Thank-you Kevin for listening and giving what looks to be a great synopsis. I can't even imagine how they can accuse Mr. Mincieli to have a conflict of interest. If that is the best Bill's lawyer could claim, it just simply makes Bill's lawyer and Bill look like idiots. It sounds like the tactic is now go after the lawyers, not go after the women. Probably because still trying to go after the women and accuse them of lying and getting together in some grand conspiracy is going to fail. I thought the point of the appeal for Bill was to regroup his own legal fees in order to go after IBLP. Both efforts look like they are failures because I would imagine that this appeal and the other one just filed will fail. So Bill is wasting money going to court, something that was made a big deal of over on DG against the women.
Kevin,
Thanks, I concur with Rob regarding your analysis. Billy and his posse are so hung up on the social media they can't see the forest through the trees, i.e. the truth. Bill has sadly become their object of worship and direct line to God thru Bill's rhemas and lack of hermeneutics. Reading DG is like listening to a biased cable news source regarding the impeachment.
Hey guys. It's been silent for a few weeks here (and even on DG a little).
Has there been any news or developments on Bill's latest appeal attempt? Just wondering how things had gone.
I checked the Appeals court website last night and still nothing. The case number is 2-19-0254
http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/opinions/search-results.asp?q=2-19-0254
Well thanks, Larne. This is a slow slog, for sure. But I will keep checking on it at least once every week. I know we'll have stuff to talk about soon.
Ruling came out today on Bill's appeal and ruled in favor of the ladies in affirming Judge Popejoy's decision last year. I will post the link when it becomes available.
¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant sanctions under Rule 137, as defendant provided no evidence to support his assertion that plaintiffs’ complaint contained fabricated allegations of repressed memories of sexual abuse.
¶ 34 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 35 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for sanctions.
Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed.
¶ 36 Affirmed.
That's good news and actually no surprise. It didn't sound like the presentation of this appeal didn't go well. I would believe Bill's other appeal from his smack down with the suit against the board will likewise fail for him. Maybe Bill needs to stop bringing up "frivolous" lawsuits and wasting his supporter's monies. Such a farce.
Well, yes. As I have said countless times over on DG, the legal matters matter when the Board is concerned. This is the arena Bill chose to fight in. It is not going to go as he plans most likely. It can't.
I am waiting to hear that ruling with very bated breath, believe you me.
Thanks for the update Larne. Praise God! I just read the full ruling from the link provided by JM. This is completely as expected, based on the audio of the hearing.
"The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant sanctions under
Rule 137, as defendant provided no evidence to support his assertion that plaintiffs’
complaint contained fabricated allegations of repressed memories of sexual abuse."
No evidence= no case.
I pray that the women can have peace in this ruling and that Bill has exhausted his claims against them.
I also find the silence of the Gothardites, over at that other site, quite deafening.
Kevin,
Maybe, they are rethinking and repenting? Maybe, they are remembering God used the Assyrians to punish the Northern Kingdom of Israel, after centuries of warning and then He used Nebuchadnezzar to punish Judah for the same sins. Then He used the evil Cyrus to return the captives to Judah. Maybe just maybe, after forty years of warning and failure of the church or Institute to discipline Bill, God has chosen to allow him to be tried in the courts of Cyrus and had spoken through them. Remember the North Kingdom is still "lost" in that they did not repent. Judah finally remembered God and were returned to their Promised Land after 70 years. Maybe, there is a lesson in that bit of History for Bill and the Institute too.
So, there is no misunderstanding, the several women who I have met from the lawsuit are not only 100% believable but also righteous in their pursuit of this evil perpetuated against them. Their stories are just like Ruth's and others from the 1980 scandal regarding Bill. The greater church failure to discipline Bill in 1980 and beyond is what has led to the suit. These women are fearless righteous warriors of truth. I don’t want anyone to think I was putting them into the same camp as the Assyrians, Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus. It's that God uses everything at his disposal to discipline unrepentant sinners, even the courts of Cyrus.
Maybe they are thinking and repenting. But, I really doubt it. I get the sense that he is surrounded by those who have elevated him to near deity status. They seek to justify all behavior and in doing so enable him, rather than speak wisdom to him.
Here ya go...
https://courts.illinois.gov/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2020/2ndDistrict/2190254_R23.pdf
I hope Larne doesn't mind if I beat him to the punch. Here is the link for the court report:
https://courts.illinois.gov/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2020/2ndDistrict/2190254_R23.pdf
This is very interesting reading. To me, it proves that Bill even now does not fully understand these legal issues. Why he insisted on pursuing them is beyond me.
I feel vindicated here now more than ever, as I am sure the women involved in the original suit do as well. What a decision this was, indeed.
I've considered for quite some time that Bill has operated for so long as a law unto himself and that he has isolated himself from mainstream Evangelical Christianity also for a long time that he has had a break with reality and even normal. The result is this foolish and bull-headed law suits and appeals that have failed. All of which is being paid for by a handful of die-hard supporters. I really never understood how he and his supporters can accuse and claim all these women just made it all up in hysteria then have the only blogger defending him, write articles claiming Bill just was treating his female staff like family, that he was called to minister to young women because no one else was, that he is just like a fictional play character "Shepherd in the Woods", that one had to know Bill and realize that he operates in his own world, that he never had sexual intent, that his feet were tired from standing all day, that he wanted to look good like "Dress for Success". This is not ever a complete summation of the various excuses and defenses of Bill and all of them point to the facts that Bill was doing and behaving the way all of these women have claimed. The real liar is Bill, not anyone else.
I don’t mind, I checked this morning and it still wasn’t there. Thanks. I couldn’t post the copy sent to me.
I went looking for something completely different, and lo and behold, there 'twas. Talk about serendipity. It's a really good read, on par with the transcription of last year's hearing.
wow- those who endorse a certain person as having the truth sure can find ways to protect their champion ---i was over at the bill gothard fb site who actually says they are there to defend their hero --of curse i wrote my 2 cents and this was the reply to me----------------
-"Bill has sought to faithfully study and teach God’s principles from His Word. “Patriarchy” is normally a slur to speak ill of the male-lead order God set up in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments. “Legalism” is normally a slur for those that have standards stricter than we feel is necessary. Some of that may feel like micromanagement, but it is straight out of the Bible. Those that long to see the Kingdom of God come, and His will done, on earth as they read it in Scripture are drawn to Bill. Others find Bill very offensive. But . . . He will never change. You can find his new initiative at....."
Do they realize the exact problem Bill has is that he will never change? That is one of the cruxes of this whole debate. Another is that these issues are not "straight out of the Bible." That is precisely why so many of us are critical of the legalistic atmosphere found in Gothardism.
The question, "What does the Bible really say?" is not a sin. It doesn't even become close to sin. It's a search for real truth, a search that we should all take up as believers. Gothardites want little of that. They want someone to tell them the truth, and they have been so accustomed to have it delivered for them in their nicely wrapped packages that they have trouble seeing anything outside that package as good. The Wisdom Booklets sound godly. The Seminar sounds sincere. It all sounds Biblical to them. Why would anyone question this? They must have a bad spirit.
It's a mess. I was never caught up in Gothardism, but I had many friends who were. I see the same story everywhere I go. It's such a mess.
You do realize that the same person that runs DG also manages Bill's Facebook page. Their comment "he will never change" says it all.
"Those that long to see the Kingdom of God come, and His will done, on earth as they read it in Scripture are drawn to Bill."
Substitute "Bill" with "God". In their longing for the King of God, they should feel drawn to God, not drawn to Bill. This is dangerous and the repercussions devastating. It is as though they have elevated Bill to their personal deity and worship him.
I believe that I have been there, making an idol of Bill and accepting his teachings uncritically. I seem to have a lifelong tendency to let certain people insert themselves between God and myself. I also remember wishing that I could spend time with Bill, be accepted and approved by him, learn more from him. Non IBLP/IBLP approved materials were little regarded by me. I recently got rid of almost all of my fairly extensive collection of such material. At the very least, I need to avail myself of more of Scripture and other worthy people's writings.
"such material" IBLP material that is.
Acts 17:26-27 (ESV) are currently my life verses for this season,
"And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward Him and find Him. Yet He is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “‘In Him we live and move and have our being’;as even some of your own poets have said,“‘For we are indeed His offspring.’"
The first part is about God's providence, the second part is the reason, "To Seek and Find Him", not Billy or some other Christian leader, just the God of our Salvation. I threw in verse 28 for good measure reminding us we are His offspring. BTW, RG is part of God's providence to focus our eyes on our Savior not man.
There is a quote from the 11th century that I find particularly helpful with the current discussion as well as what is happening with the corona virus, "While the world changes, the cross stand firm". (St. Bruno). I would imagine with these different shut downs in places like Illinois, that Bill's remaining appeals are likewise put on hold. I would also guess with the cancellations of gatherings everywhere and with everything that IBLP would be further in a world of hurt since their bread and butter are conferences and seminars and retreats which should all be cancelled. Maybe the bright side of all these shut downs is that organizations like IBLP that are still trying to promote and teach Bill Gothard's teachings, even without him, will bleed further and closer to oblivion. One can only hope so. I don't think just moving to on-line videos will really be able to keep them going. I do realize there is more of a dark side with all the shut downs for a majority of organizations that try to do good. Just pondering what is going on and the effects, both short and long term.
Rob,
Per your comment about IBLP, I noticed on their website that they have cancelled the Big Sandy family conference, as one would expect. The conferences make up a large part of what little revenue they have these days and this will certainly slow them down.
Yes, lets hope so. However, this is the lentiest lent that I've ever lented. Not being able to go to Church on Sunday does give rise to emphasis on praying, reading, and introspection. Another Gothard heavily influenced business making negative news at this time is Hobby Lobby and the Green family. With some of the things that they have said (or reportedly said) that "God told them to remain open and ignore ordered closures" reminds me that the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree of Bill Gothard's teaching and his arrogance. With other CEO's declining their pay and bonuses for a year to help their workers (such as Texas Roadhouse), this makes the Greens look very badly. On craft blogs, I do see calls for boycotts when and if everything finally opens up. Likewise, their Bible Museum is continuing to make negative news with the revelations that their Dead Sea scroll fragments were forgeries and the return of thousand of artifacts back to the middle east because they were stolen and bought by Steve Green on the black market. (he is claiming he didn't know). Any thoughts by anyone on them? I really don't think God told the Greens anything. I just get tired of these sorts of people because it makes all Christians look bad.
Whether these facts are significant or not:
free shipping on orders of $150 or more
Embassy Media Subscription Plans 50% lower
Rise Up Course offered free in case of extra financial strain for families and individuals
Such strain will presumably cut into contributions and payments that would otherwise have occurred.
They may be borrowing a page or pages from critics such as RG. In a bulletin a while back, Journey to the Heart was touted as an antidote to rules based Christianity vs a personal relationship to Christ. (I cannot comment on the actual results of this or any other program.)
The Rise Up course is touted as a means of assisting people to use the current crisis as motivation to deepen their relationship with God and family members.
Re finances, they are also offering discounted rates to Journey to the Heart events.
I suppose that I'm burnt out with IBLP materials. I may be reacting to the apparent lack of empathy therein. I have have enough lack of personal empathy as it is!
It is impossible to predict exactly how and when IBLP will (presumably) cease. In 2017 they had a little over 58 million in assets, but this and other available information (IBLP 990 tax returns from 2001 to 2017 and anything else) is far from complete.
They plan to LiveStream the April Family Conference for free (series of evenings).
One of the truths in Lord of the Rings is no final victory over evil. Any problems with IBLP is bound to show up/is showing up elsewhere. At one of the "Learner's Exchange" classes held Sunday mornings at my church (when we were still able to meet), a woman gave a talk on Modern Day Marcionism. (Marcion is essence rejected the Old testament.) She pointed out the widespread de-emphasis of the OT among evangelicals today. Afterward a renowned theologian (J I Packer) told her that he was putting his theological mantle on her.
Marcion's heresies is much more than just a "rejection" of the OT. He also rejected most of the NT as well and only considered the Gospel of Luke and St. Paul's letter as canonical. He also made a distinction between the "god of the OT" with Jesus in the NT. Whatever this woman was trying to say, she actually doesn't know what she is talking about and is picking bits and pieces of Marcion to try and justify errors as taught by Bill and IBLP. But considering that Fundamentalist world is so divorced from actual Christian history, they get away with their distortions. St. Ireanus pretty much took Maricon to task in his tome "Against Heresies". I would suggest you read it. You have to realize that the NT is hidden in the OT and the OT is revealed in the NT. When people cut off the OT as unimportant, they cut off the NT. Bill only hunted and pecked from the OT laws to suite his twisted ideas. He did not use the OT to show how it points to Jesus. That is how the OT should be read and understood.
I was aware of the Marcion tenets mentioned: she herself mentioned them, and I refreshed my memory by reading the brief entry in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church before I wrote my comment. (I read that it was an edited Gospel of Luke that he accepted.) Since his repudiation of the OT was the only belief relevant to my illustration, it was the only one that I mentioned.
In retrospect I believe that I was taking a swipe at any who would throw out the baby (OT) with the bathwater (BG). I am not a fan of dismissing any part of Scripture (including the NT) as "not for today". While applications must vary across time and space, all Scripture has some use somehow. I will never understand the Bible perfectly nor with entire accuracy; not even the best of us can (and I'm not one of those!).
Since possible motives behind a specific action are multiple and may influence in combination, can we simply decide what someone's motive is? (The same is true of "determining" a present or future action based on a perceived attitude or motive. Possible resulting behaviors are also multiple in both type and degree and include a variety of opposite behaviors [compensation].) What if at least part of her motivation was to establish what you yourself said about the OT? (While I couldn't have thrown that first sentence out of the top of my head, it has brought back memories of what I read earlier. There was a time when I may have been at somewhat dismissive of the OT.)
I'm not following what "motives" have to do with Bible interpretation? I wasn't there to judge her "motivation" and can only go by what you wrote or stated she said which was that this person was stating that people that dismiss the OT are like Marcion and since this person seems to be from or in league with IBLP and Bill Gothard, it is pretty to deduct from what you wrote is that she was probably defending the heavy use or quoting of OT in Bill's teaching. What I said to you is that Marcion and his error are more broader than just "dismissing the OT" and he cut out most of the NT and made a distinction between the god of the OT and Jesus in the NT. She can't accuse others of being like Marcion because they have raised concerns about how Bill Gothard used selected sections of the OT. Bill abused the Bible. He turned the Bible into a how to book of making oneself successful. The Bible is more than a how to book but a who is book, pointing to God and Jesus who is the second person of the trinity. Just because someone comes along quoting the Bible like a machine gun doesn't make them "biblical". The NT is hidden in the OT and the OT is revealed and fulfilled in the NT. If one doesn't have that frame point, then all you have a free for all Bible quoting bullets falling all over the place. I'll leave you with this thought, the devil in tempting Christ quoted scripture, proof texting to the supreme. Jesus countered him with scripture back. "The Road to hell is paved with good intentions". St. Bernard of Clairvaux.
ponder this statement.
What else did she say? (From my notes)
Actual apostolic succession: they had endorsed understudies who had such understudies in turn and so on. She cited Peter Falk's chart of Ante-Nicene successions as a source of further information for those so interested.
Topical sermons are easier but more dangerous than exegetical collections of Biblical passages.
Preaching today is more from the NT, eg they are more likely to have been trained in Greek, yet most of the Bible is OT.
Hell and judgement are part of the answer to the problem of evil. Fear of evil=fear of God, need for healthy fear.
"The Old Testament is Dying"
Entertainment industry is built on gossip, but OT says to not gossip (and also says to help the needy).
OT scholars and experts are necessary, but there is a loss of them in seminaries. She spoke well of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School's OT Department: an Egyptologist and scholars in such [Semitic] languages as Ugaritic are on their faculty.
Yes, Bill opposed gossip, and one might dispute at least one way that he applied it (attempting to cover up what became the 1980 scandal), but the basic practice is Biblical. (Based on what I heard through the grapevine re what was said about me by people associated with or employed by IBLP, the restriction on gossip seems to have honoured more in the breach than in the observance!)
Her husband is an Egyptologist, and at least part of his research is intended to shed light on the Hebrew Scriptures. During one Learner's Exchange talk he pointed out that God didn't set up their worship in a cultural vacuum but incorporated elements of Egyptian culture (layout of tabernacle, sacred box carried by poles). During another he compared the Ten Commandments with Egyptian laws and morals (the former is much superior). He observed that our own culture is becoming like that of Egypt: based on consensus and order vs morality. We are becoming a shame culture: we are what others say we are.
thank-you for the review of your notes, they give a picture of the lecture. Yes, the ante-Nicene fathers and writers make abundance mention of apostolic succession. What should have been asked by those that listen to her is where is the apostolic succession for IBLP and Bill Gothard? The obvious problem is that there isn't any and IBLP and Bill Gothard represent what is specifically condemned by these early writers as someone going off on their own and claiming authority they didn't have.
The OT isn't dying in the Churches that still practice liturgical worship because both OT and NT are read together. Yes, there is a big problem in some circles with over emphasis on NT and in particular the Pauline epistles. But the answer to this trend isn't IBLP and Bill's teachings that do the reverse and focus only on certain sections of OT at the expense of the rest of the Bible and NT. Yes, in comparison the Ante-Nicene writers quote a lot of OT, but they quote OT due to the fact that the Canon of scripture wasn't finalized till 397 and OT quoted was to show and prove that Jesus is the promised Son of God and Messiah.
I'm not quite following how studying ancient Egypt helps in understanding the total of the OT. The Ten Commandments have also been compared to other ancient bodies of laws in the east.
Again, I'm not following how the answer to cultural problem is the IBLP formula of fear of hell = fear of the Lord. Fear of the Lord should be seen as reverence for God being God, not out of fear of hell. Bill is quite to fear monger.
The only Peter Falk I could find is the actor that player "Columbo". So whatever list that Peter Falk did, it is obviously not findable and actually not needed because the Ante-Nicene writers themselves talk about the chain of succession and I would recommend that you read these incredible writings yourself. You don't need an Egyptologist to do it for you.
I hope that you are all doing well and staying healthy during these challenging times.
I really found this video informative regarding healthy boundaries. And, the description of the type of manipulator at 3:13 in the video- wow!, that reminded me of someone.
How Healthy Boundaries Prevent Narcissistic & Psychopathic Manipulation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyoS-eSnp8M&feature=youtu.be
IBLP continues to sell assets:
IBLP continues to operate by selling assets. The 2018 form 990 is published. They had just over 2 million in positive net revenue for the year. Not bad, compared to the 3.57 million loss in 2017. Until one takes a closer look and sees that their revenue was bolstered by almost 6 million in asset sales for the year. If this was taken out of the numbers, they would have a loss for the year close to 4 million. How long can they keep selling assets and fund their operations this way? Probably a long time. The form reports over 60 million in assets and this is almost certainly a very low estimate, as book value will almost always be far lower than market value. It is very likely that the value of their real estate holdings is well over 100 million. One thing that Bill Gothard was skilled at was accumulating real estate assets for the organization. They just might be able to survive another 50 or 100 years by selling off the assets. Does anyone know what they sold? Was this the Australia property?
Form 990
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/366108515/06_2020_prefixes_36-42%2F366108515_201812_990_2020060817180085
I can only imagine that the Covid-19 shut downs has not helped them at all since their bread and butter was conferences. On-line can only go so far. That seems to be a lot of assets. So they are trying to selling assets to keep themselves afloat. That can only go so far. First they have to have buyers for the property and that is going to be tough in a depressed market. And two, they eventually will run out of assets to sell. It's a downward spiral. Hopefully, this whole thing will be coming crashing down.
Rob and Kevin,
They have had more than enough time to correct the errors of their ways. Its been 40 years since the scandal (5/17/1980). Maybe all we see happening both to Bill and IBLP is the result of God's perfect judgement. Just like He did to the Israelites after centuries of warning for their unrepentant sin. What they loved and cherished the most, their land and temple He took from them twice. Sad but both of those camps remain silent to their sins. Throughout the Bible both New and Old Testament God rewarded the repentant
Yes, perfect judgement. Bill is no longer the "third most" influential evangelical. I think now he is forgotten and insignificant. IBLP seems to be a front for these TV families (Duggars and Bates) and at least with the Duggars, there are cracks developing with at least some of the older married kids. Bill's court cases are just spinning wheels.
Hi Rob.
Yes, it is a downward spiral. I read somewhere, I think it may have been on another board or in an online interview, that Bill is furious that they are selling the assets to stay afloat. If you take out the revenue from the sales, the losses are in the millions per year.
I'm sure Bill and those supporting him are upset with the selling of assets and he and those supporting him imagine that if Bill is back at the helm, all of IBLP problems will go away. But I think and you seemed to have researched this, that IBLP's downward spiral began before Bill left and it is sheer lunacy to even think that Bill, now in his 80's would even be able to "turn it around" if he were back. The game has completely changed, especially in this new Covid -19 times. There has to be more than rehashing Bill's outdated and unworkable teachings and IBLP needs more that TV families like the Duggars and Bates to have a draw. Even with the Duggars, a couple of the older married kids have left the show and at least three of the older married girls are ditching the life style they were raised in according to Bill's teachings. The wheels are coming off the wagon.
Hi Larne,
Good to hear from you. Yes, they have had plenty of time to repent and there is no sign of this and those who continue to support, a dwindling handful I believe, just dig in deeper into their delusions that nothing wrong happened.
So many times throughout this, on this board and on another somewhat well known board, when people suggest repentance, the supporters usually will respond "Repent for what? There is no evidence." It is amazing to me that they say this. They seem totally oblivious to the reality that a witness, even if the witness is the victim, is evidence. There are lots of witnesses here who have given their testimonies in court and/or on Recovering Grace. How easily people cover their eyes and ears and fail to see what is laid out right before them.
God is waiting with open arms waiting for them to truly repent and turn from their ways.
Kevin,
Your comment about "Witnesses" is interesting. About a month ago I published a paper on that very topic on a new website I opened. It deals with and is titled "Rebuking an Elder", it deals with who the Bible is referring to in 1 Timothy 5:1, however, primarily it deals with 1 Timothy 5:19-20. It also defines who the Bible says a witness can be, something I call the "Witness Paradox".
There is a second paper on "Church Discipline". In the future I hope to add one on Forgiveness and one on Grace too.
https://www.rebukinganelder.com/
Kevin,
Your comment about "Witnesses" is interesting. About a month ago I published a paper on that very topic on a new website I opened. It deals with and is titled "Rebuking an Elder", it deals with who the Bible is referring to in 1 Timothy 5:1, however, primarily it deals with 1 Timothy 5:19-20. It also defines who the Bible says a witness can be, something I call the "Witness Paradox".
There is a second paper on "Church Discipline". In the future I hope to add one on Forgiveness and one on Grace too.
https://www.rebukinganelder.com/
You have done an excellent job Larne!
You state: “But what about another woman, who was raped by the same man, could she be the second or third witness? I would argue she could, by nature of the crime against her and showing a pattern of behavior of an act done in secret by the rapist with no one to hear her cries. Would this not also apply to other indecent liberties or questionable practices taken by an elder in a position of power over the victim? I would strongly argue it would by that abuse of power and rejection of a Godly standard.”
I agree completely!
A particular die hard supporter of Bill's likes to often claim that the testimony of individual alleged victims should not even be allowed to be heard, citing 1 Tim 5:19. Hearing this defense over and over, I read up on this issue and specifically as to whether Christian churches or pseudo Christian churches followed this practice of protecting leaders accused of heinous crimes with this passage. I only found one example of a pseudo church which had done so.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have long been criticized around the world for their handling of child sexual abuse cases. It was this very verse which they hid behind, 1 Timothy 5:19, to protect church leaders accused of sexual abuse, even when the alleged abuse had been committed against multiple children. Their claim; even though the abuse often had happened to multiple children, in each case there was only one witness and so the evidence could not even be heard. This is absurd, as it is the nature of such crimes that there is only one witness each time. Such a policy can allow this behavior to go unpunished for decades. But, even this institution, that many would liken to a cult, changed course in 1991. Since 1991, statements by two victims of separate incidents by the same perpetrator may be deemed sufficient to take action and impose internal sanctions against the accused.
Our God is just. If it was His intent to muzzle abused children of their witness, because their crimes were committed in private, this would be an injustice. This could not possibly be the intention of God and it is impossible that this is the proper interpretation of this verse.
Kevin,
Thank you. I had a longer reply, but it is awaiting "moderation".
Thanks Kevin,
It is simply what the Bible says, and the credit goes to the Holy Spirit who inspired the words in the Bible. I wrote the concept in a specific form and submitted it for my term paper in a Biblical Interpretation class, then rewrote it to its present format. I had the final draft evaluated by two Divinity PHDs and a PHD candidate along with several trusted friends. They agreed with it scripturally and doctrinally. I’m sure those of the authoritarian persuasion will disagree with it.
There seem to be too much emphasis on 1 Tim. 5:19 and when the emphasis should be on verse 20, "As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear." The continued purity to the faith and the required qualification status (Titus 1 & 1 Tim. 3) for those who rule and teach in the church is paramount and a continued constraint.
@Rob War
"IBLP's downward spiral began before Bill left and it is sheer lunacy to even think that Bill, now in his 80's would even be able to "turn it around" if he were back."
Yes, lunacy and an illusion that exists only in the minds of his most ardent followers. Bill left in 2014. According to the public 990 filings, IBLP lost 4.2 million in 2011, 3.5 million in 2012 and 3.5 million in 2013. So, there is no logic nor reason to their belief that the financial ship would suddenly be righted he he were to return.
If every accusation against Gothard were false, and if he really has lived a life of moral purity -- he is nevertheless a legalistic heretic. He is a hardened teacher of "another gospel." The core of his false teaching is his teaching on authority. Of course, the accusations against Gothard are true, proving that he has not lived the life he has claimed -- but since when does the Truth of God depend upon such things? People can follow laws and principles all they want -- but be doing so to establish their own righteousness. Read Galatians. Gothard and his fans are the poster children for this other gospel -- every word that comes from them, and every argument they present, makes that sadly obvious.
Psalm 34:15-22 (ESV) reading for today (The face of the Lord is against those who do evil,
to cut off the memory of them from the earth, vs 16.)
15 The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous
and his ears toward their cry.
16 The face of the Lord is against those who do evil,
to cut off the memory of them from the earth.
17 When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears
and delivers them out of all their troubles.
18 The Lord is near to the brokenhearted
and saves the crushed in spirit.
19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous,
but the Lord delivers him out of them all.
20 He keeps all his bones;
not one of them is broken.
21 Affliction will slay the wicked,
and those who hate the righteous will be condemned.
22 The Lord redeems the life of his servants;
none of those who take refuge in him will be condemned.
Psalm 34:15-22 (ESV) reading for today (The face of the Lord is against those who do evil,
to cut off the memory of them from the earth, vs 16.)
15 The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous
and his ears toward their cry.
16 The face of the Lord is against those who do evil,
to cut off the memory of them from the earth.
17 When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears
and delivers them out of all their troubles.
18 The Lord is near to the brokenhearted
and saves the crushed in spirit.
19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous,
but the Lord delivers him out of them all.
20 He keeps all his bones;
not one of them is broken.
21 Affliction will slay the wicked,
and those who hate the righteous will be condemned.
22 The Lord redeems the life of his servants;
none of those who take refuge in him will be condemned.
Indeed. Any attempt to attain righteous by adhering to principals is doomed to fail:
Galatians 2:16, ESV: "yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."
Amen
what Bill taught can be summed up with the term "moralist therapeutic Deism". If you don't know what that term is a google search will clarify. Bill isn't the only one. Basically MTD says that if one follows ABC rules then XYZ will occur and one will be healthy, wealthy and wise and turns God into a Santa Claus sugar daddy. It's not real Christianity and this mindset is a huge problem with Christians in this country. The book "God is not Nice" takes this head on. Sociologist Christian Smith also documents and writes about it and coined the phrase.
If you want to read about how a life of legalism can leave you ultimately empty, I highly recommend "Unveiling Mormonism" by Lynn K Wilder. I just finished it, and it made me truly see and give thanks for the grace of God. Lynn and her husband were Mormon converts; they did not grow up in the religion. They did, however, raise their sons and daughter in it. One of their sons was converted to the REAL Jesus during his two year mission in Florida. I won't spoil it by telling you how...All I can say is that God's grace is truly amazing, and that it's gonna be really tough for ANYONE who believes that following "principles" will earn you favor with God will be able to hold on to that belief after reading Mrs. Wilder's book. If you are short on time for reading, go on You Tube; she and her family have made several videos giving their testimony of their lives as Mormons, and the peace they found after they left it to follow Jesus.
Rob, this also sounds like a variation on the "prosperity Gospel"--I won't name the biggest advocates of it--they are all very well known. You know, if you're not rich and not without diseases, then there is something wrong with your faith (or worse, you are in rebellion against God!) I predict that within a decade after his death, NO ONE will be considering BG/IBYC et al anymore in American Christianity, except maybe the homeschooling families that are devoted acolytes of his. Totally unlike people like Billy Graham, whose life will be pointed to the younger generations as a fantastic example. {You can edit this bracketed statement out: I apologize about my last entry; I had just finished reading "Unveiling Mormonism" and was so excited about it, I just had to talk about it--even if it was online. Just wanted you to know I am not upset about not having it posted. You were right; I was wrong.}
Yes, I agree with you 100%. There are a lot of overlap between prosperity gospel and it's many variations and IBLP/IBYC in many ways. I didn't see the connections and similarities between IBLP/Bill and the prosperity teachers until I relooked at all of this years later.
Hey guys. There's a bit of a discussion going on over at Discovering Grace about the difference between a job and a ministry. Rob and I have participated in it, though my role is greatly reduced right now.
I think the contributors here could offer some insight that might be interesting, which is why I am posting this.
Some of the thoughts that are being used to defend Bill flow from other thoughts about work vs ministry. This concept seems to come up a lot in church circles, due to obvious reasons.
So my questions would be this:
Does the exist of ministry preclude any ideas of business operations? Why or why not? To what extent? And what are the ramifications of the thought processes?
At what point can a ministry no longer be considered a ministry? Is there a legal point at which the equation changes? And what should a ministry do when confronted with knowledge of its true operation?
Finally, what is the nature of a ministry anyway? Is there a litmus test to apply to determine whether something is a ministry or business? What should be the true mindset within a ministry?
I have several thoughts along these lines. I am not asking because I do not know necessarily. I want to start a productive conversation that may shed some light into the mind of leaders like Bill and operation such as IBLP. I believe the contributors and viewers here could provide something profitable.
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/franciscan-university-and-its-friars-face-a-reckoning
This article is about a somewhat similar sex abuse case involving a priest on campus at Franciscan University in Steubenville Ohio. The author knew this man. It is very similar to Bill Gothard where this priest and spiritual advisor always seemed to counsel young women with troubled pasts and home life. Just like Bill, he seem to have a number of female college students around him. The author stated that she had some uneasy feelings about him, but didn't know why nor did she connect the dots with some of the other things she saw. Her angst is towards his religious Franciscan order he belonged to and why didn't they see something and have concerns about him. This is like Bill Gothard, someone that used his position and authority to take advantage of vulnerable young women. You cannot tell me at all that a man, any man, that surrounds himself with attractive young women repeatedly in the form of "counseling" and "spiritual guidance" is up to any good. There is no excuse. From his perverted brother, to having his staff sit in his lap going way back, to all the rest, Bill Gothard is has some pretty deep seated problems and hopefully will never again be in a place to take advantage of others.
Another Bill Gothard protégé continues to make news- very serious allegations.
Josh Duggar arrested, indicted on child pornography charges
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/30/us/joshua-duggar-arrest-child-pornography/index.html
I hope TLC will finally pull the plug on these people. Just terrible and he faces 20 years minimal and if the sentences are after each other 40 years. His impulses were never dealt with properly. Michelle and Jim Bob were idiots to put themselves out there to begin with. Jim Bob was scheduled to speak at the IBLP conference when he had to suddenly leave. Just so sad. The raid happen in 2019 which the Duggars vehemently denied. Josh looses the car dealership and then sells his house to go live in a warehouse on Jim Bob's main property. a Bunch of LLC's were open in Anna's name which now are all closed down. So are the other LLC's in Jana, John David and Jeremiah's names are closed down. One's wonders if they were hiding money from the sale of his house after the raid by Homeland Security. So horrible for is 6+1 kids
Late response I know.
But I kinda take the opposite approach. The Duggars are not wicked people (no more than the rest of us, that is - Romans 3:10). They are just incredibly misguided in a few areas.
Now I will be quick to say those few areas are major ones - they produce incredible consequences. But to throw the entire family under the bus for that I worry is like cutting off your entire arm because your thumb is gangrenous.
Surely, we have to deal with a gangrenous thumb, but there is still plenty of good arm there. In the Duggars' case, there is still plenty to admire about them. They do care about their children and want them to turn out right. Where we would disagree with is in HOW to care for these children and WHAT right might actually mean.
I have no doubt they are saved individuals. I would hate to see a Christian family run through the mud because they have problems. We need to be careful here. I would agree they need to be off the air, but let's be honest, the show hasn't had the ratings it used to have for a long time. It's going to end anyway. That's the inevitability of television.
One of the biggest problems in this Duggar case is that we deal with Arkansas state law. At the time of Josh's initial problem with the molestation, he was a minor. And Arkansas state law did permit the family to deal with such issues in that manner at the time. What they did was completely legal at the time.
You'll say Arkansas is backwards and that was misguided. And you would be right. But you're talking about a place where, even given a police call, the family would be permitted to deal with it in the manner they did. Simply getting the authorities involved wouldn't have done the trick at the time. Things are very different today, and Josh is no longer a minor.
I never called the Duggars wicked people nor have I ever stated that Arkansas is a backwards State or even questioned whether or not the Duggars are even Christian. When I sat at the basic seminars many many years, Bill Gothard was up on stage doodling while he was going through Psalm One. When he got to the line "sit at the seat of scoffers", he drew a TV and a huge cheer went up and it was very clear in the rest of his seminars that one should get rid of the TV. I basically find it rather hypocritical that families like the Duggars and Bates put themselves on TV in promotion of the ideas and life style of Bill Gothard.
Secondly, reality TV is not reality. It is very staged and heavily edited. This has come out with other reality shows as well as the testimony that has often been leaked out by the Duggar children themselves.
Thirdly, you ought to read the stories and testimonies of those children who have been raised in the limelight such as childhood movie stars. royality etc. This goes back to even the early children stars like Micky Rooney, Shirley Temple, Judy Garland where the pressure of being raised in the limelight and what it brought about in their lives which is nothing good and lead to destructive behaviors in at least Micky Rooney and Judy Garland. Shirley Temple became a recluse and only immerged later in her life when her own family was grown. We see this in Jinger Duggar where she came out in her book about the mental stress and illness being raised on TV brought her.
Fourthly, I find putting oneself out there in a "hey look at me, I am wonderful" which is what reality TV does, is contrary to Gospel values of humility, living quite lives and not seeking attention. The best example is Mary, Joseph and Jesus where Jesus was raised by Mary and Joseph in a quite village, hidden and unnoticed. The latest gaff by Jed and his wife with their "joke" demonstrated how self focused and immature these people are. One doesn't crack a joke about covid when there are people who have died and businesses ruined. I feel sorry for these children and now young adults. I hope they can put their lives and faith together.
I've got to partly take issue here, Rob.
You said "I wish TLC would pull the plug on these people. Just terrible."
You were referring to the act as terrible, for sure, but that language doesn't lead me to think you believe the Duggars are good people. And I wouldn't have minded if you said Arkansas was backwards (believe me, it is in many ways). Point is, what the Duggars did was not only permissible, but in fact LEGAL at the time. Josh was a minor, and that was perfectly acceptable in the state at the time.
Having worked with TV producers myself, I understand reality TV. You are correct. You are also correct in that children raised in such situations have a number of problems. But you need to be careful. Not every celebrity experiences that. In fact, there are several who can manage the mess and treat it as any other job. Kevin Sorbo was one example.
I have to take issue with your last part too. I would certainly agree the "look at me" mentality is bad. But aren't we presuming the Duggars had that mentality when launching the show? I don't believe that was the case at all. The show actually evolved from a series of television specials produced intermittently by TLC. It wasn't the family's desire to get on TV that produced the show. It was pure ratings. I don't believe the Duggars would ever confess that being celebrities was their goal. Far from it. But they believed they could use their television show to be a shining light to others.
I think the real takeaway from this case is in what I have observed many times from Bill's influence. There is a heavy reliance on IBLP teachings to keep the family safe. They do what Bill does to keep their kids safe, away from sin. And what happens? At best, it works only to a point. That's really true for all teachings. It takes a lot of wisdom and much faith to raise a family right.
The real takeaway is that none of us are truly safe. These things can happen to any Christian family, regardless of how well the parentage was.
B Badger
Bill's oldest sister Anne Jeanette Garvin passed on last June, aged 89. IBLP has a news report about her with a link to her obituary.
Only 3 of the siblings are left: Laura Heiniger, William Gothard Jr, and David Locke "Ponzi" Gothard. Joan Christine Gothard Musil died in 2013 (cancer, I believe), aged 71. Stephen E "Horndog" Gothard died in 2019, aged 73. If anyone wants further information, they can google Joan Gothard Musil and Stephen E Gothard. On his LinkedIn page, he credits himself for Character Sketches.
The first 3 children seem to have been born a year apart (Anne 1932, Laura presumably 1933, Bill 1934). The last 3 seem to have been born 4 years apart (David was 76 when Bill was 80, ie born in or near 1938; Joan in 1942, Steve in 1946. Steve's obituary picture looks creepy, almost suitable for a horror movie and possibly a partial inspiration for a portrait of Satan.
Jeri Lofland served at Pacific Garden Mission, run by the Garvins, on Thursday nights in 1999. "Angry Annie" was estranged from Bill at this time and critiqued her brother at times.
(She may have mellowed later: Alfred Corduan recounted bringing up a past outburst of hers, and she reportedly cringed.
I am currently going thru the basic seminar again for the 5th time over a 50 years and wanted to read some background info on .r. Gothard and ran across the reference to this website. I am grieved to hear what has happened to some of the young ladies at ATI and their families.
As a person looking in from the outside, it appears to me that Mr. G had not developed or matured sexually. He has always been in the ministry, never married or had a family. I think he was insecure around "grown women" so he flirted and did inappropriate things with young girls. No sexually mature adult plays "footsies". He probably had all those rules regarding sexual behavior because he was trying to suppress his urges (eg, pulling back someone's hair and saying with clenched teeth that he loved this girls hair,) He definitely had issues and needs to bear the consequences for his actions.
As for the basic seminar principles. I love them I have used them all and they have worked for me throughout my life. I have hosted the seminars at church and the principles are on point. I never used the accompanying texts to validate the principles and that may have been a good thing. As a seminar attendee I can bear the discipline of the principles, but as an ATI staff member those extra rules would have been overbearing.
It sounds like he may have been engulfed in the power game like some of the Bible characters like Saul, David, Arab, etc. Thdy start off humble, meek, and following God and power overtakes them.The rules and regs for the staff reminded me of th Amish community in dress, health habits(eg, not eating pork, no TV, etc). There is nothing inherently wrong with any of that and it is Bible-based and I think they are just fences to keep people from breaking the laws and principles of God. Seems like there were quite a few of them and they were probably strangling some of the staff members.
I also think part of the problem was that people kinda saw or treated him like a God. I can see why people were in awe of him. The seminar presentations and his perceptions and the wisdom one could gain from them would make you think he was God sent.And I'm sure some of the staff looked at him as though he was a god. (I probably would have also in my younger days.)they trusted him implicitely.And as humans often do, he failed them just as King David did, you know, the man after God's own heart.
I know Mr. Gothard's principles were a part of my life especially in my younger years ( I'm 74 now) and the principles saved my life in many areas from destruction. I thank God for that.im glad that people are getting some grace and recovery through this ordeal. I hope Mr. Gothard has been forgiven by the victims and is prayed for. I will do the same for all that have been violated and especially for Mr. Gothard.
Is the ATI program over?
https://atii.org/
looks like IBLP shut it down.
I believe that is correct. They decided to get out of the homeschool game, and I don't blame them. If you are a homeschool parent, you have to understand the laws of the state within which you operate your program. Differing states do things very differently.
For the folks who run the program, though, things can vary even greater. If any program operates an academy where grades are tracked and progress reported, that means they have to observe not only the laws of the state wherein they operate but the federal guidelines of the Department of Education.
The ones with the big money, such as Abeka, BJU Press, and ACE (possibly) can do this. But for a program tied to a sinking ship such as ATI, that can become a massive burden.
It makes a lot of sense for them to go this route. They can keep the Wisdom Booklets as a study program, but by not actually running a home education mill, they can avoid all that legal cross-challenge.
It's a smart move across multiple lines.
This really proves that the 37 year ATI run was not a success and was substandard to boot. Josh Duggar's lawyers tried to use his homeschooling education as an excuse why he couldn't have downloaded child porn on his computer because he wasn't sophisticated enough. All the testimonies here that decry how this was a failed program. The fact the Jed Duggar can't read an analog clock in his birth video shows how substandard it was as a homeschool program. Maybe IBLP saw the writing on the wall and ditched this failure from their sinking ship. It finally died and that is good news for all its victims.
If you say that the ball is in someone's court, you mean that it is his or her responsibility to take the next action or decision in a situation.
The sad thing is. . .I don't really know what the ATI education really entailed. I never experienced it. I did go through a couple of the Wisdom Booklets once in a HS Bible course. It was very limited to just the course, and we didn't focus on the entire set. The teachers just seemed to like some of the illustrations.
My education was largely Abeka, BJU, some Alpha Omega and CLE packets (clearly the worst of the bunch), and some from some independent publishers. ATI never came into the equation.
I would say from the evidence presented that no, it doesn't PROVE the substandard quality of the materials. Just argues for it.
A proof is a very different and detailed concept mathematically, scientifically, and legally. We would have to know that the curriculum itself CAUSED Jed's ignorance of the analog clock face. That's a burden we likely can't meet.
Surely it's good evidence for it, but I would stop short of saying proof. And I might stop short of calling the program an entire failure. I'd have to know how many graduates came through the program, how many of them have succeeded, how many owe their success to the program, how many did not, and how many can argue the program hindered them, in order to render a sound decision here.
I try to be fair in all things, even when I have strong feelings about the matters.
Brother JM,
Bill Gothard designed ATI as “unschooling” unit studies intended for parents and students to open their Bibles together and live as conservative Christian families. Whether you succeed or fail depends upon your objective. For homeschooling I used ATI as my core curriculum, supplemented with other materials.
Was it success or failure? Suspend judgement until you know my kids. I also know a fighter pilot who graduated from the US. Air Force Academy after ATI homeschooling. What effect did ATI have on his career? Who knows, but he is a good, productive Christian family man. Rob may be shocked to know he probably also reads analog clocks.
I agree with your 5/13 analysis. IBLP is probably ending ATI for the reason you say.
That sounds very fair, and I appreciate it. It might not be popular to say on this site, but I am sure we would indeed find a good number of individuals who came out of ATI completely fine or better.
That's usually how these things turn out. Of course, we can't by the same measure discount the horror stories. It's just a matter of context and statistics. I'm one of those crazy about the actual numbers. And it is important to be fair in all things.
Bill Gothard seemed to like bold innovation, so with ATI he hijacked the young homeschooling movement of the 1970s to make it an extension of his seminar ministry. During the ATI era, other homeschooling flourished on its own. But ATI was Bill Gothard's baby. When he left IBLP, ATI lost its energy source and ran out of juice.
If you disliked ATI, you rejoice at that. If you liked it, you lament. My lamentation is like that wistful feeling when you put away the decorations after Christmas. It is time for the other activities of the year, but part of your heart is consigned to the attic with the boxes.
Then there are those of us who never take the stuff down.
Who could oppose Christmas year-round? It's the opposite of the Narnia curse; always Christmas and never winter!
Anyway, here in Florida we come close to never-winter. As in Irving Berlin’s song, the orange and palm trees sway. After Advent, Christmas, and Epiphany, I am finally ready to put the decorations away until the following Advent. Meanwhile, IBLP has shuttered ATI and offers the ATI Wisdom Booklet curriculum for retail sale.
Haha! Reverse Narnia curse. I love it.
I'm in Florida, too. You're right. We don't participate in winter. (We do have more than our share of hurricanes though, and that makes the insurance market particularly weird).
I have seem some doing interesting things with the tree particularly year-round. One of the trends is to leave the tree up and change out decorations on it each month or season. The tree becomes a Mardi Gras tree with yellow, purple, and green. The green remains for Patty's Day. Then we go pastel for Easter. Then red, white, and blue for Memorial Day and the Fourth. There's a log haul until the next holiday, but the tree becomes orange and black at Halloween time, then brown and orange for Thanksgiving. That brings us back to Christmas.
I have relatives who do this. And they are quite meticulous about it. I can't say I would, but there you go. It's like they took the laziness of not removing the tree to a weird level.
We fans speak in Narnia code don't we? Like some other fundamentalists, I think Bill Gothard had reservations about C.S. Lewis and the Narnia stories, but I have retained my love for Narnia from youth through middle age. Is that because I am LCMS Lutheran and not Fundamentalist?
Here's a compromise for holiday decorations: keep mini-lights displayed in your house all year, using different colors for different seasons, like liturgical colors. Compared to a tree, you get a good happiness-to-bulk ratio. My living room has spring lights displayed, soon to be succeeded by summer.
I honestly don't care what people do with their decorations. Leave 'em up. Take 'em down. I leave my lights up outside, because it was a pain to put them up. But I don't plug them in November or so.
I'd be on board with leaving mini lights up, even inside. If you like liturgical seasons, they could work great. In my Fundy Baptist circles, we don't do the seasons of the church, so there's less opportunity for that. But I am all for festive atmospheres.
What part of Florida do you live in? I'm in the Panhandle myself (far west - Pensacola).
Brother, you once mentionied on Alfred Corduan's DG that you live out there in Floribama. You were familiar with some kind of scandal or tragedy in a Gothardite church in out that way. For more than thirty years, I've been down in the Tampa suburbs. Despite my Southern Baptist background, I joined a thriving Lutheran church down here.
Well, praise you for having such a great memory! Yes, I'm in Floribama here. We often joke that my part of the state is more like Alabama then Florida. I like to take my family down to Central a lot, though. We enjoy the sights in Orlando-Kissimmee and Daytona. We have plans to venture into Tampa before too long. There's some hot springs in Weeki Wachee we want to visit.
That scandal I mentioned happened in Abita Springs, Louisiana. Good friends of mine, too. So heartbreaking.
JM, I had forgotten that you knew the people in the Louisiana crisis. How could it not be heartbreaking? When you make it to Tampa, look me up if you can. I posted my contact information below.
email: [email protected]
ph: 813-973-8057
street address:
18309 Felspar Way
Tampa, FL 33647
Indeed, the sights down here are worth seeing. You can imagine the novelty when I treated my New Jersey bride to a 1982 Florida honeymoon.
Ex-Students Reveal Abuse at ‘Christian Torture Compound’
This seems so familiar.
“At Agapé, we lovingly, patiently, and biblically teach your child the importance of submission to authority and the joys of being an obedient law-abiding citizen,”
"Such accusations led to the arrest of the school’s ex-doctor, David Smock, who faces child molestation charges related to two alleged victims."a
Again we see the frightening results from the submission to authority teaching. I would not be surprised if many of the leaders of this school attended IBLP seminars to learn about the importance of submitting to authority.
"Since last year, 19 former students have filed lawsuits against the school, alleging physical and emotional abuse, and in some cases, sexual abuse by staff and classmates."
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ex-students-reveal-abuse-christian-035647317.html
Unfortunately, as with the claims against IBLP and Bill Gothard, many of the accusations appear to be subject to the statute of limitations. The good news is that, for some of the victims, it is still within the statute of limitations. Hopefully there will be some people going to jail and justice will be served.
What, no comments on the new documentary coming out on June 2? Meanwhile I'm quietly singing "Shiny happy people holding hands"........