"If we knew that all of our secret thoughts, words, and actions would be displayed publicly so that everyone could watch them and evaluate them, it would make a profound difference in the way we live! We have an instinctive concern about what others think of us and how they will judge the things we do. If we have this much concern over what other men and women think of us and our actions, how much more should we be concerned about God’s evaluation of our thoughts, words, actions, attitudes, and motives?"
Conquering Temptations: Looking at "Forbidden Fruit" – Bill Gothard
It is with a broken heart that we focus once again on Bill Gothard, whose ministry has had a far-reaching impact in Christendom for nearly a half-century. For those who may not be familiar with Gothard, he came up with a teaching called the Basic Seminar, which has been attended by over 2.5 million according to his website. Bill Gothard's bio further states:
In order to focus completely on the Lord and the life work God has given him, Bill has never married. Each day is an exciting race to see how much can be accomplished to advance God’s kingdom.
Over the years, many have taken Bill Gothard at his word — that he chose to remain single in order to advance God's kingdom through his teaching. It has only been in recent years that a darker side of his ministry has emerged.
When we published our top posts for 2013, we included in the Honorable Mention category — Recovering Grace' Reaches Out to Those Harmed by Bill Gothard's Teachings. Last year we promised our readers we would take a closer look at Gothard, and we did so in the following posts:
Bill Gothard's Umbrella of Protection
Designed to be a Finger? Another Bill Gothard Testimony
A Mom Shares Her Thoughts About Following Bill Gothard
Those who have been hurt by Bill Gothard and his ministry have begun to share their testimonies on the internet, primarily at a website called Recovering Grace.
According to their belief statement:
Recovering Grace is a Christian organization dedicated to helping those affected by the teachings of Bill Gothard, the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP), and the Advanced Training Institute (ATI). As the foundational statement of our faith, we adhere to both the Apostles and Nicene creeds.
And here is their mission:
Recovering Grace is an online organization devoted to helping people whose lives have been impacted by the teachings of Bill Gothard, the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP), and the Advanced Training Institute (ATI). Recovering Grace provides a unique perspective in that it was founded and is operated entirely by adults who were raised as children in Bill Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute. We all have attended Bill Gothard’s seminars, and most of us served within the IBLP organization in some form or fashion. Among the members of our team are pastors, lawyers, teachers, accountants, businessmen, and stay-at-home moms. We have all taken different journeys, but we all have one thing in common: We survived ATI. (For more about who and what Bill Gothard, IBLP, and ATI is, visit our FAQ section).
To read the remainder, go here.
Last Friday Patheos re-published a post by Libby Anne under the title Bill Gothard, Sexual Predator. (Link fixed by GBTC, Oct 04, 2017) She writes:
Bill Gothard never married. In the years that I’ve been blogging, I’ve heard more than a few people comment on this. How odd that someone who makes his living off of preaching about godly family life never married! It’s not like there would have been a shortage of picture-perfect Christian women who would have been honored to marry him, after all.
Well, the reason Gothard never married is starting to come to light—and it’s very, very ugly.
Please take the time to read Libby Anne's entire post, which includes links to testimonies from the Recovering Grace website. (Warning: these posts are at times graphic).
As these testimonies and others have poured in, the Recovering Grace Team posted the following on February 3, 2014:
The GOTHARD Files: A Case for Disqualification
Dear Recovering Grace Reader,
Today we would like to prayerfully share with you some important information about what is going to be happening on our website over the next few months.
When we launched our website in July of 2011, we did so with the express mission of helping people whose lives have been impacted by the teachings of Bill Gothard through the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) seminars and the Advanced Training Institute (ATI) homeschool program. We have attempted to fulfill that mission through regularly posted articles primarily written by former students of ATI—articles that have covered a wide variety of issues such as theological discussions of IBLP teachings, personal stories of discovering grace, and bringing to light some of the darker aspects of working at an IBLP Training Center. What we truthfully did not realize at the time of our launch was the strong undercurrent of depravity displayed for decades at the highest levels of IBLP leadership. Our thought at the time was that the most viscerally damaging effects of Gothardism were spiritual, and that Bill Gothard’s worst flaws were theological and hermeneutical. As such, most of our attention for the first year of our website was focused on these areas.
In early 2012, this all changed for us when a young lady shared with us her experiences working for Bill Gothard at Headquarters. While it has long been widely known by anyone who worked there that Bill had his favorites, this young lady opened our eyes to what being a “favorite” meant: unwanted and unwarranted emotional and physical attention from a man in a position of authority to young women who could not refuse it. In other words, it was textbook sexual harassment.
So, on April 20, 2012, we published Lizzie’s story. And as soon as we did, we discovered that we had opened Pandora’s box. The emails and comments poured in like a flood, and we knew that we had stumbled across something bigger than we could have ever anticipated.
The post concludes as follows:
Guiding our release of this information will be one singular resolution that we hope will put an end to this malevolence once and for all:
"Whereas Bill Gothard has exhibited a 40-year pattern of moral failure,
abuse of spiritual authority, and mishandling of Scripture, and is therefore
disqualified from Christian ministry according to Titus 1 and I Timothy 3,
we believe that the only biblical course of action is for Bill Gothard to step down
from all ministry and leadership positions, publicly repent of the above sins,
and exhibit fruit in keeping with repentance (Matt. 3:8)."After two and a half years of publications, we hope and trust that our readership has grown to understand that this statement and this series of posts is not one born of vindictiveness, spitefulness, or gratuitousness. Our hope is that this undertaking will provide healing for the many victims and repentance to Bill’s heart. Each member of our team has donated countless hours to this project at great emotional, mental, and physical cost, and each of us has, in many ways, left our current lives to revisit a time in our lives that we could just as easily forget. But for the sake of our younger brothers and sisters in Christ who are still in danger, we refuse to look the other way and allow the abuse to continue.
Amidst all of this, it is our ultimate calling before God that drives us now as it has since our first day in July 2011: a calling to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8). It is our deepest prayer that God would use the efforts of Recovering Grace to demonstrate publicly what justice, mercy, and humility look like when exemplified in the church of Jesus Christ. We would ask for your prayers and support as we embark upon this endeavor.
In case you haven't seen Bill Gothard or heard him discuss his ministry, here is a short clip from a visit to Mexico. Yes, Gothard has worked hard to export his teaching around the world…
Thanks to the internet, the Gothard survivors are sharing some crucial information with one another and with the blogging world. At long last, the truth about Bill Gothard must be revealed. Please join us in praying to that end. For those who have escaped the 'system', you might enjoy this clip.
Lydia's Corner: Jeremiah 12:1-14:10 1 Thessalonians 1:1-2:8 Psalm 79:1-13 Proverbs 24:30-34
First Deebs!!!!!! :-p
Eagle, you have a gift!
“Too slowly I realized that I had not been invited to Headquarters as a course writer, but as a decorative object.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is from Lizzie’s story. Very well-written.
This statement is terrible, horrible, grotesque, intolerable. No word says it strong enough.
In my view, Mr. Gothard having so many fresh-faced females in his employ as objects to decorate his world (& bring him his coffee) is indicative of Christian culture at large.
I can’t tell you how many times when at a church over the years I have felt that the purpose of a woman or women up front on the platform in the role of singer was really only to be a decorative object. An ornament. It stings and hurts.
In the same way many magazine ads or catalogue photos of men and women together so often have the man as the main figure and the woman is secondary & gazing at him with interest, affection, adoration. The man takes no notice of her… he’s just there to look important, and communicate the feeling of male importance. She’s just there to prop that up. She is a prop.
They’re both props, really. In the photos and in church.
Am I the only one on hearing yet again of ‘moral failure’ to think that the apostle Paul was right to make marriage the norm for bishops/pastors/elders/deacons or whatever terminonlogy is used in a church?
This would not guarantee such things can never happen, but it would surely reduce temptation. I doubt if there are many wives who would not cotton on that something amiss is happening if her husband is getting up to no good.
The stories are actually disturbing. They appear to be within the realm of possibility.
*
My own bias, I was never a Gothard fan so it isn’t hard to suspect the worst.
*
Ken wrote:
No. Just no. Because womeb aren’t responsible for and can’t control mens abusive behavior. Especially towards other women and especially in the context of patriarchy. Also, men don’t harass apnd abuse out of sexual frustration. Married men are no less likely to be perpetrators than single ones.
burntnorton wrote:
And some men marry and abuse and expect porn from their wives thinking this behavior has God’s stamp of approval because they are keeping it in the marriage, therefore these men falsely think they are keeping the marriage bed undefiled.
There is a serious problem in Christendom. Marriage is not the silver bullet its pushers claim it to be.
The good healthy men need to rise up and teach the aberrant leaders (Gothard, Driscoll, Piper) what it ACTUALLY means to be a Christian man. This Masculine Fantasy virus has infected Christianity for far too long and has hurt far to many people. Men and women both.
uhg. moderation zone again.
do i need to wash my mouth out with soap or something?
Ken wrote:
If you look at the incidence of child sex abuse and teen sex abuse in the church, it is quite clear that marriage does nothing to prevent this sort of stuff.
Any man who uses kids or teens is not going to stop because he has a wife. This is a perversion rooted in some deep psychological mess. Marriage does not cure that whatsoever.
Challenge: read the paper for the marital status of those who get arrested for sex abuse or child porn. I bet you will see what I am saying is true.
Ken, Sadly no. Married men rape, molest, cheat, etc….regardless of their access to sex within biblical boundaries. Just read the headlines and you will quickly see what I’m talking about. @ Ken
@ Ken:
One further point: by your statement, you call into question people, who for various reasons, have chosen to remain unmarried and celibate. They do not become child and teen sex abusers by doing so.
@ burntnorton: agreed!
One funny comment removed due to the nature of the post. It was funny, though!
@ Eagle:
@ Mara:
Check email….
@ Eagle:
I didn’t mean for you to check your email although I will be texting you shortly.
Dee and Lisa – I did qualify my comment by saying marriage is no guarantee of good behaviour. Surely the thought of adultery and the guilt of breaking marriage vows would act as a disincentive for at least some men? It ought to be an absolute no-go area for a married Christian man. Add the responsibility of children and there is a further disincentive to go astray. (Would Gothard have treated someone else’s daughter how he did if he had one of his own?)
I had the spirit of 1 Cor 7 in mind in part – ‘if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry’. Those who choose celibacy presumably have taken on board the cost of their choice, which is fair enough. Marriage would still be better if they end up frustrated and this morphs into the kind of harrasment that this post is talking about.
To our Readers
We are both out of pocket for the next few hours. Due to the nature of this post, there will probably be a lot of words which trip the moderation filter. Please be patient. I will approve them as soon as I can.
Ken wrote:
In context, this verse is talking about an engaged couple moving the wedding closer because they are having trouble waiting. It says nothing to suggest that a man who is a child predator will be less tempted if he marries. Besides, do you really think wedding vows will stop a man who is an abuser? Wedding vows only stop honorable men, the type that run away when faced with tempatation, like Joseph.
@ Ken:
Ken, I don’t know where to start to comment on your observations.
Do you actually know any single adult men or women?
@ dee:
Sorry Dee couldn’t pass that up
Ken wrote:
People who do such things are seldom influenced by guilt from breaking marriage vows or ignoring the needs of their children. These people are of a narcissistic bent—their whole world is themselves and they cannot see outside of their own needs/desires.
These young women functioned as “part objects” for BG. He didn’t understand them to be separate beings but objects revolving around him, to give him what he wants/needs. If BG were married, it would have made no difference because he would have used his spouse/children in the same way, and found ways to also continue what he did/does. (Is he still doing this?)
I know this partly from reading experts and partly from experience. My pastor-father (5 kids and wife) was sexually abusive in the same ways as Bill Gothard (although my dad went further). The way he structured it, and the hypocrisy of his criticism of others was very similar too. Eerily similar.
Ken, you seem to think that normal people, if h*rny enough, will turn into child predators. Even most non-religious teenage boys, at the peak of their libido, don’t become child predators.
Also, look at all the policians, famous pastors, and other celebrities that are married and still become abusers or adulterers. Wedding vows only stop the tempted people that are honorable, not the scummy people.
dee wrote:
Yes…. I think we all know what it said too! 😉
So we have another in the seemingly endless line of ministers/priests that are sexual predators preying upon their flock. Forget Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al., these so-called ‘Christians’ are creating more atheists and anti-church Christians than the so-called ‘enemies’ of Christianity ever will. As Pogo said “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Why aren’t the ‘evangelical’ groups (SBC, TGC, etc.) doing anything to root out the sexual predators in their midst? They have no problem railing against women in the pulpit, but sexual predation of congregations gets nary a mention. “But to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear.”
@ HoppyTheToad:
You touched on it, Hoppy.
It needs to be said over and over and over and OVER again that sexual harassment and abuse is about POWER and CONTROL.
It is NOT about having s*x!*
It is NOT about whether you’re single, celibate or not.
It is NOT about whether you are married , celibate or not. 😉
It is NOT a failure of “self-control” or “frustration” due to being “tempted” to have s*x or not having s*x.
And can anyone imagine the abject h*ll of a marriage a spouse is “expected” to police their spouse’s pathological behaviors? Of course in evangelical circles, this “responsibility” falls exclusively on the woman. Gotta be a good “civilizing influence” on that brute of a male, don’t you know.
What a LOAD.
*Dorky asterisks meant solely to bypass moderation filters. Smug, mean platitudes on the supremacy of evangelical marriage and evangelical married people makes me want to swear like a sailor, quite frankly.
Rafiki wrote:
And in Driscoll circles, the wife MUST make her backside available and/or find his fruit sweet to keep the marriage bed strong and undefiled. If she denies him either/or then she is an evil, unsubmissive, and marriage destroyer. But he’s not evil for thinking he is entitled to every orifice she has. The boundary trampling is insane.
This burden of responsibility placed on women while stripping of them of any authority over themselves needs to be called out for what it is. It IS about control and is male-centric. All of this is the opposite of everything Jesus taught.
neener neener. I’m in a contest to see how many times I can trip moderation. So far I’m winning.
@ Rafiki:
Exactly. The prospect of violating your marriage vows or hurting your children doesn’t stop an abuser from sexually harassing or sexually abusing people. If they were susceptible to such internal, conscience-based influences, they WOULDN’T BE ABUSERS. What does disincentivize abuse is the relative certainty of getting caught and punished.
Based on the testimonies above, it’s very hard to know what actually was going on in Gothard’s head at the time. Perhaps he enjoyed the “thrill of the chase” he got from flirting with (sometimes underage) women, so much so that he would have found actual . Perhaps, had he been married, he would have successfully kept his wife in the dark about his preying on young women. Perhaps his wife would have known, but remained in denial or maintained an awkward silence like the centre director in Lizzie’s case. Or, indeed, the parents mentioned in Grace’s story, who preferred to cling to the delusion of Gothard’s godliness and infallibility. Perhaps he would have married a fellow-abuser who would have been actively complicit, as was the case with the Moors murderers or Fred and Rosemary West. Either way, as many here have said, it is highly unlikely that marriage would have cured him.
Moreover, neither is abuse a male preserve, as the ongoing enquiry in Northern Ireland demonstrates.
One of the factors that constantly emerges whenever a case like this is dragged into the light is the obsession with reputation. Once a “ministry” becomes prominent and successful, many people become so attracted to it that it becomes a priority to them to “protect the ministry” or even “protect Christ’s name”, as though Jesus were actively seeking marketing sponsorship from the devil.
burntnorton wrote:
Hmm…
Having read the testimonies linked in the post above, they all referred to inappropriate speech and behaviour, but not to actual forced intercourse. My point being that the abuse was all deniable, and indeed it took all of the aforementioned victims a long time to accept that there was even anything wrong.
Certainly, the evangelical market (or “church”, if you must, but that’s not a good word in this case) is ruthlessly unforgiving of overt sexual acts, even when committed by celebrities. Which might mean that the prospect of getting caught did force him at least to play a cannier game than, for instance, Hugh Hefner (who makes bank precisely because of his sexual promiscuity).
@ Nick Bulbeck:
There’s this misconception that abusers and harassers are out of control and/or don’t understand social cues. The reality is, they do understand social cues and can comtrol themselves. They choose the targets, location, and manner of their abuse in such a way as to take advantage of the unwritten social rules and cultural biases that prevent their victims from speaking out or fighting back. Then, when the victim breaks those rules by, for instance, yelling in public for him to stop or reporting his campaign of harassment to his mother or wife, the abuser bleats loudly about how she’s not playing by the rules. Gothard and other abusers are no different. They just have the advantage of making the rules they use as cover for their abuse.
Ken wrote:
One example of where the person being married didn’t help is with the Doug Phillips scandal. He was married and had some type of relationship with a young woman. This relationship went on for a while before it came out and was confronted and some even say Phillip’ wife knew about it but chose to ignore it.
What is common with both Phillips and Gothard is that they were the top leaders that could easily remove anyone that questioned. When a group is set up like this without any checks and balances then there is always the possibility something like this can happen. All this talk about how “imperfect” leaders are and then a structure is set up like this allowing one man to be a dictator.
If anyone in the organization had sensed this and confronted Bill Gothard on this Gothard would have the ability to remove that person from the organization. Thus I am sure it produced reluctance in people (either consciously or subconsciously) to not confront Gothard. Thus it was allowed to go on for a long period of time.
Similarly according to what Brent Detweiler’s account, Brent was forced out when he tried to confront C.J. Mahaney on his sin and hypocrisy.
According to one book written critical of Bill Gothard, some of Gothard’s teaching especially his teaching about not spreading a “bad report” were written in to try and suppress news of the initial sex scandal that occurred within his group. Thus besides having one man set up as a dictator, another factor is tools a group uses fear tactics to keep people from being informed of questionable actions going on in the group including a broad definition of what “gossip” and “slander” is.
Sadly that strategy has worked well for Gothard.
@ burntnorton:
Absolutely 100% spot on, excellent points. Harassers have the same power/control/humiliation M.O. as abusers, period, regardless of whether they limit themselves to verbal harassment as opposed to more brutal physical acts.
I found this statement on one of the blogs you reference:
Interesting reactions to my ealier posts – I’m really only saying that sex being a God-given thing, God has directed its use is to be in marriage alone. This is God’s answer to loneliness and the only place for genuinely ‘safe sex’. This is clearly apostolic teaching. Those who reject apostolic teaching will of course do whatever they think right and indulge their lust for power or sex as they see fit.
As an observation, it is being taken for granted that Gothard is guilty of the accusations being made against him. One is from a now atheist, hardly an objective commentator on the Christian scene. I’m NOT saying the testimonies given are not true, but that a court of law is the only place (in this life) for the truth of such allegations to be proven, also giving the accused a right of defence.
I found myself assuming his guilt, but suddenly thought whatever happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’, and need to be careful of assuming the role of prosecutor, judge and jury.
I tried to explain to my fundie brother Gothard’s “grooming” behavior. He felt It wasn’t a big deal (I guess because there was no P-V activity). He is a father of 3 daughters! I will add that my brother hasn’t heard of Gothard. I think Gothard loves the chase and can fantasize about further activity. Men like him know how to take it just short of crossing the “line” of provable abuse. However, outside of his inappropriate touching, I think his mind games with these young girls was even worse. By isolating them so young, how would they be able to understand the slippery slope he was taking them down? At the time they probably felt squeamish about it,, but didn’t know how to articulate it. I think playing footsie with an old man is creepy and crosses boundaries. Most these girls were probably taught by their parents that Gothard is a Godly man, and anything short of blatant sexual touching would not register as victimization. These young women were not taught to have a voice or choice around a “man of God”. As the fundie Mormans say, “Just keep sweet”. Ann
Ken wrote:
I had the spirit of 1 Cor 7 in mind in part – ‘if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry’. Those who choose celibacy presumably have taken on board the cost of their choice, which is fair enough. Marriage would still be better if they end up frustrated and this morphs into the kind of harrasment that this post is talking about.
You’re mistaken, but you’re also in very good company. In the conservative evangelical circles in which I run, a single person would have a better chance of winning multi-millions from the lottery than getting a job in ministry. So, much to the hurt of celibate people like myself (well, I’m not looking for employment in ministry, so it doesn’t hurt my bottom line), the church is practicing exactly what you endorse.
@ Ken:
If the main reason a person marries is to avoid lust and to gain sexual release, it will be a poor marriage. A marriage relationship not based on love is pretty worthless.
BG is a predator in my opinion, and has been for decades it appears. Marriage would have been no solution. Probably would have only harmed more people in one way or another.
Whether Bill Gothard is married or not is not relevant to these allegations of his patterned, serial predatory behavior. Many sexual predators are married. Sexual abuse is not about sex, it’s about power and control. Even if he had married, he would still be a predatory sex offender (dirt bag, scum, human filth, etc.).
I agree that marriage would not have prevented Gothard’s behavior because his desire for underage girls with long curly hair would not be satisfied within a marriage.
Being able to marry might prevent a priest who is required to remain celibate from entering into an affair with a truly consenting adult woman, but never with a minor because people whose orientation is other consenting adults are never attracted to children.
Gothard’s sexuality appears to have arrested in his mid-teens and I find it fascinating that his website says that he decided at age 15 to postpone marriage to be more effective in his ministry. This is strange since he wouldn’t have married at age 15 in any case but also because he is 80 now. What is he waiting for? It would make sense for him to say that he decided to forego marriage.
The combination of the adolescent sexuality with the power and control that he sought and got is monstrous and grotesque. He is an abuser and it is outrageous that he has been allowed to continue to behave this way for decades. It is tragic too because early therapy could have made a difference.
I even wonder if the extraordinary legalistic system that he developed is a projection of what he felt he needed to control himself.
@ Ken:
Ken, you’re missing the point. This type of behavior is rooted in a desire to exert power and abuse others, not in the normal desire we all have for sex. Which is why married men are no less likely to harass and abuse than simgle men.
As for your scolding about presumption of innocence and slur against one of the accusers for allegedly being an atheist and therefore not “objective”, spare us. There are ober 30 accusers who have reported their stories to Recovering Grace, a Christian website. The stories are, sadly, all too familiar – there is nothing bizarre or unusual about this type of abuse. Those womens stories are more than enough for the general public to reasonably conclude that Gothard is an abuser. Whether or not you could get a crimimal conviction or civil verdict in a court of law umder the rules of evidence and statutes of limitation is entirely beside the point. This isn’t a court of law, the rules of evidence don’t apply, we aren’t a jury, and we don’t owe Gothard the presumption of innocence. And note that to assume Gothard is innocent here is tantamount to believing that 30 women who have nothing to gain by lying are lying
@ Raymond:
No apologies necessary. I had a good laugh.
@ Nick Bulbeck: the flat-out emotional abuse is still *very* striking. People who do this are SO good at making the person they’re preying on doubt their own gut feelings about what is really going on. It’s a pretty extreme form of emotional manipulation and control, for all that it *appears* subtle from the outside.
I have seen it happen to others, particularly when I was in HS, where there were several faculty/staff members who preyed on students of both genders and diverse sexual orientations. Nobody stopped them; everybody (meaning other faculty/staff who could have intervened but didnt) knew what was going on, though admittedly, some of these people were less open about it than others.
When I 1st read Philip Pullman’s novel The Golden Compass, I was absolutely stunned by one of the key things that occurs at the end of the book, because he got it *so* right. (Don’t want to post a spoiler, so that is all I can say at this point.) People might bristle at Pullman’s “public atheist” reputation, but to my mind, he has very good reason for distrusting organized religion, period.
@ Mara:
“The good healthy men need to rise up and teach the aberrant leaders (Gothard, Driscoll, Piper) what it ACTUALLY means to be a Christian man. This Masculine Fantasy virus has infected Christianity for far too long and has hurt far to many people. Men and women both.”
++++++++++++++++++
I think men outside church are the healthy ones.
I have lived my whole life going to church (many different ones). Some years ago I found myself churchless for the 1st time. I developed a world outside church, made many new friends. Single people, married people, women, men, all different ages & cultures.
biggest surprise of my life: I found them to be happier, healthier, and with overall more honest character & integrity. They have nothing to prove. No checklist stamped with “GOD” to live up to. No contortionist brace to fit into. Marriages are happier, free-er, and with obvious mutual respect and kindness. And friendship was much easier and more natural.
Too many people of influence giving too many instructions in too many areas of life. Too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth.
Teach people to be kind and to treat others they way they want to be treated. Then leave them alone.
@ Ann:
I don’t know how old your nieces are, but if they are teenagers, he needs to ask them if this behavior is creepy. If they are too young, he needs to get educated on the issue of sexual harassment and SOON.
Ken wrote:
Really, an atheist cannot be objective? That is interesting coming from a Christian who might not be able to be objective about atheists.
I am a Christian but I do not believe that Christians are the only ones who can tell the truth when it comes to matters of ethics and abuse. I respect those who come here, no matter their belief structure. In fact, when we started this blog, I really wanted people who were atheists as well as those from other beliefs to come here and dialogue with us. We Christians like to live in insulated bubbles and pretend that we really have it together, more than other people. We don’t.
Why in the world would you think that an atheist cannot see abuse and call it that? Do you really think that all atheists are on a tirade, trying to make up lies to cause believers to “slip away?” All truth is God’s truth, whether stated by an atheist or a Christian.
You have no idea what anyone’s motives are unless they tell you. In fact, I bet there are some times you cannot even figure out your own motives. So, instead of judging others, respond to what they say and stop marginalizing them. This happens way too much in the church and I don’t want it to happen here.
elastigirl wrote:
elastigirl,
Once again I like the way you put things. No worthless paper, no bulldung, just hard coin on the barrel head.
Ken wrote:
Well, that’s not what you said but ok if you wish to correct your words. Ken wrote:
There is no rule in the Bible that says a court of law is the only place where guilt can be determined. The philosophy, methods and attitudes of this man are typical of an abuser. The testimonies are internally consistent as well as being consistent with each other, and are further shored up by their sheer number.
Moreover, your assumption that an atheist can know nothing shows that you have secluded yourself from the larger world and do not understand how God works.
In other news, I managed a 4k run this afternoon with no reaction from the hamstring injury that recurred over Christmas. So far, so good.
As a never-married adult myself, I just wanted to toss out a few reminders, because everytime someone like Gothard is brought up, the stereotypes against never married adults start to fly…
Most never-married adults are not perverts who prey on teens and children, nor are they attracted to children.
But never married (celibate) adults are not asexual, either. God does not remove our libido, or give us special “grace” to handle the situation. We were not “chosen” or “gifted” by God to be single. Some of us want marriage but simply have been unable to find a partner. Most of us are not losers, weirdos, or physically unattractive.
Based on studies and news reports I have seen, more married men molest kids than single men do, such as…
Characteristics and Behavioral Indicators of a Pedophile
Single celibates have a right to teach about marriage, sex, and dating in churches or where ever else.
Not having sex does not mean one is ignorant about it. I was engaged – that I’ve never been married does not mean I am ignorant about serious, committed relationships.
Married Christian couples often write about adult singleness (and dating, sex), which they are often clueless about, I may add, especially the ones who are 50 now who have been married to the same person since they were 20 – 25 years old.
If married couples are allowed to teach adult Sunday School classes and write books about adult singleness/ celibacy/ dating, so should single adult celibates be permitted to do write about the same, or similar topics.
elastigirl wrote:
You don’t have to suspect or wonder, that was confirmed in an article I saw. (I think it was on Christianity Today? Or maybe it was here, In which they are overlooked in a sea of hipsters)
Women were interviewed in the pages I read. They were former worship leaders or piano players. They said once they got past age 35 – 40, that their preachers/ churches specifically told them they were being dumped for younger women (in their 20s).
About a year ago, on other blogs, I saw discussion about how seeker-friendly churches in particular want younger, slender people on stage, so some churches do not permit anyone with a weight problem, or who is over 30 years old, to be on stage during church services.
@ Ken:
No, there is no reason unmarried people cannot or should not be preachers, leaders, and teachers.
I see nothing in the Bible saying explicitly that single adults are prohibited from serving in leadership roles (saying ‘a married man has to be husband but to one wife’ is not limiting the role to married men only, but that married guys can’t have more than one wife at a time).
Churches already ignore adult singles enough as it is, and when they do take note of adult singles, it is to assume negative things about them (such as they are sleeping around or fondling kids).
It’s incorrect to assume that all singles do not practice self control. Some single adults are more sexually pure and disciplined than some married people.
@ dee:
Dee, I suspect Ken is the same troll who likes to have fun on JA’s blog as well. Have fun with him.
@ Ken:
Post Script.
Jack Schaap Sentenced: Indiana (and Married_ Pastor Gets 12 Years For Sexual Relationship With Teen Parishioner
There are many more stories like that, of married men who prey on children or vulnerable adult women in their churches. Being married does not guarantee purity or possession of ethics.
Ken wrote:
Why would it be a “go” area for a single, childless man?
I did not choose to stay or be single. I had wanted to get married, but I find myself single – and I am still celibate. Being a single adult with a libido does not mean one is going to turn on children.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick, bless Providence laddie! My left knee went to hell some years back and ended my running days for good. Ecclesiastes come to real-life theatre.
Ken wrote:
Sorry, forgot to discuss this in my last post, but…
It’s naive to tell singles who have a sexual itch to “just marry.” How do I do that? My years of trying to find a mate on dating sites did not pan out. There are no single adult men in churches I have gone to.
Married Christians are very naive when they spit out at singles “just marry!” In order to marry, you have to date a lot of people. There are not many men in my area. I can’t conjure them into existence.
Even if you date, every guy you date could send up red flags of danger (i.e., possible abuser), or you’re just not compatible with the guy, and it is a mistake to marry any old person just for the sake of sex or just to say you’re married, because that will likely end in divorce.
Getting married is not as easy as married people think it is. Suitable single males do not fall like rain drops from the sky on to your front porch.
I think that we are having a very important discussion here. If we are to prevent sexual abuse, we need to have a better understanding of human sexuality.
So many people in the Christian community lack an understanding of sexual crimes. First, they do not occur because someone lacks a normal sexual outlet. Most rapists have a spouse or partner. You cannot ‘cure’ a rapist by marrying him off. Pedophiles do not turn to children because they lack an adult partner; they prey on children because they find them sexually attractive. You cannot ‘cure’ a pedophile by marrying them off.
Second, unlike what I read repeatedly on Christian blogs about sexual abusers, NO this could not be any of us. It couldn’t be me, for example, because I am attracted to older adult men not boys. Yes, we are all sinners, and no, there are none of us who deserve salvation, but we cannot afford to act as if all sins are the same.
If the treasurer of the church embezzles money, is caught, repents, pays restitution, and satisfies his obligations to the criminal justice system, then sure we can forgive him and welcome him back. But we know and he knows that he has a weakness there. We wouldn’t reinstate him as treasurer and subject him to temptation. So why in the world do churches think that forgiveness of pedophiles (or hebephiles or ephebophiles) means that we should give them access to our children?
We also have to think about what it means to presume that the accused is innocent. It means that we assume the victim is a liar. What does this do to a child or a young person or an adult to be suspected of being a liar by his or her own church for the months or even years it takes to bring a case to court? It just victimizes him or her further and makes the pain infinitely worse.
People need to understand that pedophiles are not usually out of control, they take their time and make plans. Many choose victims that they think won’t be believed. They don’t choose the daughter of the church’s biggest donor, they choose a girl on the bus route whose parents never come who can be ‘dismissed’ as a troubled girl (see Jack Schaap).
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Sometimes they are not, though. I’ve seen many testimonies by self professing believers who go on some Christian show and admit to having been in the dirty movie business, or of having slept around again, but they re dedicated themselves to Jesus, and then they go on (sometimes with tears) about how great their life is.
Then the host turns to the camera and goes on about how God can forgive sexual sin, and you can consider yourself a “born again virgin.”
(I’m not against people hearing God forgives sexual sin, but some pastors and ministries lay it on so thick to be lop sided about it, they neglect to mention it is still sin and is wrong.)
“Well, the reason Gothard never married is starting to come to light—and it’s very, very ugly.”
Remember, Jesus never married. Nobody in heaven will be married. St. Paul never married. 1 Corinthians 7:32-35 talks about divided priorities between one who is married and one who isn’t.
My priest, who is 80 years old, even gave away his dog because he is so busy tending to the needs of the parish.
1 Timothy 3:2 is not requiring bishops to be married. If that were the case, then neither Jesus nor Paul could be a bishop because both were unmarried!
Dee is right, this has nothing to do with being married or unmarried.
Mandy wrote:
What Ken? Have I mentally blanked this out? I can’t keep up with the trolls – lol.
Ken wrote:
That’s idealistic but does not always work out that way.
Preacher’s Wife Mary Winkler Found Guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter
Marriage is not God’s only answer to loneliness. The church body is supposed to serve as family to adult singles.
Married people often turn inwards and do not reach outside their nuclear family, to say, for instance, invite widowers over for meals on Saturday night, because they’d rather “veg out” in front of the tube with their own kids and spouse. (This has been confirmed in studies, look under the phrase ‘greedy marriages’ on Google.)
Married people/ families tending to look inward and not to reach out is one reason why Jesus warned Christians about not turning their blood relations into idols. He said not to place your mother, sons, or brothers before Him, but many evangelicals do this often.
I sometimes used to visit a site with a forum about relationships (romantic and platonic) and there were many women, usually 40s and older, who said they were married but still terribly lonely.
I remember one 50 year old woman saying even when she sat in the same room as her spouse, she felt all alone, and she wanted advice from the site readers on how to make female buddies her own age because the loneliness was killing her.
Being married does not always mean you won’t experience loneliness. Eventually, too, your spouse will die, leaving you alone again. Some spouses get dementia as young as their 40s, or in their 50s+, leaving the surviving spouse lonely.
@ Mandy:
Ken is not a “troll”. Even when he’s engaged in lengthy discussions with numerous commenters taking the other side, I can’t recall him expressing a POV not his own or purposely stirring up anger. Nor do I recall name-calling. Someone enlighten me if I’ve missed some “troll” behavior.
Marsha wrote:
I wouldn’t even be so sure of that. Some priests have affairs with women anyhow and then start protesting against celibacy.
‘Flirty’ Catholic priest says clergy should be allowed to marry as a parishioner gives birth to his son
@ Dave A A:
I don’t know if “troll” is the right word, but have you ever engaged someone online who seems to remain deliberately obtuse, or who enjoys stirring the pot just to stir the pot? I have. They’re as unconstructive in conversations as trolls, but not as obvious about it.
@ elastigirl:
I’ve also noticed it can be much easier to share problems you’re having with Non Christians, because many Non Christians are not (in the back of their minds as you are talking to them), trying to figure out what sins you must have done to bring a problem on yourself.
I have met some Non Christians who are into victim blaming or being unsympathetic too, but they usually don’t seem to be that way.
Most Christians, though, are so keyed into wanting to give you a religious sounding principle or answer for your struggle, or to blame you for it, that they end up making you feel worse.
@ elastigirl: Very much agreed here, with everything you’ve said – though I think that churches that lie outside the evangelical/charismatic world is one possible answer for many people, as they tend not to dictate behavior at people as if they were perpetual children who always need reminding about how to act.
The evangelical/charismatic world is a hothouse – a breeding ground, if you will – for some very invasive and unhealthy practices. (Mind you, I don’t mean to paint *every* evangelical/charismatic church as being like this, but still, the points remain.)
Getting outside the compound walls and breathing fresh air is a very, very freeing thing. My hunch is that many people who comment here might well end up outside evangelism altogether, given time. (Not saying that liturgical churches are for everyone, or that they’re perfect, but they have many, many strong points and emphases that are simply nonexistent inside that fortified compound that is American evangelicalism.)
I agree that Gothard’s behavior is unconnected to singleness. In defense of Libbey Anne though, I think the context of her comment is that Gothard has continually presented himself as only postponing marriage. It is just an odd thing for an 80 year old to still be saying.
*are* one possible answer, not “is.”
Daisy wrote:
Oh I agree. I was thinking of a book I once read about a priest and nun who were working together, fell in love, struggled against it, had an affair, and wound up leaving the priesthood and sisterhood to marry. Has they both been Protestants and free to marry, there would have been no problem.
@ Dave A A:
Please check your email. I hope the one that you use for your comments works. if not is there a way that I can send you an email? Nothing is wrong. I have something i want to tell you. 🙂
@ Julie Anne:
I am so glad to know that I am not the only one who forgets things and people.
Daisy wrote:
Testimony inflation is everywhere (*cough* Ergun Caner *cough*), but a fine related specimen is the greatly acclaimed ex-gay testimony. There’s nothing more exciting than an ex-Satanic high priest, ex-druggie, ex-prostitute, ex-drag queen, amen? Then you get the double whammy of effectiveness because it’s also splendid for certain pet political causes.
Mandy wrote:
Fun or otherwise, I must reject the use of the word “troll” here.
We have two Ken’s among the Regular Contributor crowd at TWW; No-Flag Ken and Flag Ken, the one in question here being Flag Ken (because – er – his name appears with a flag next to it).
Flag Ken may express views, or represent a Christian background/tradition, with which you or I disagree. But he does so honestly, is willing to keep engaging with others, and is not a troll.
@ Josh:
“Ergun Caner” has become a verb. To “Ergun Caner” is to reinvent yourself for public consumption falsely as a redeemed, formerly terribly evil person, and then to reinvent yourself again, while attacking everyone who challenges you as the evil incarnate, instead of yourself. One might say that Catanzaro is in the midst of an Ergun Caner episode.
Marsha wrote:
Priests can renounce their priesthood and return to being a lay member and then are free to marry. Your comment has nothing to do with celibacy of the priesthood.
Marsha wrote:
This is a poignant story, and opens up another avenue of discussion – since this is obviously not a case of abuse (and neither of you claimed it was) but of an equal relationship between consenting adults.
In other news that will be of particular interest to TWW Proctologists everywhere, West Ham have now kept four consecutive clean sheets in the top division for the first time in nearly 30 years.
Josh wrote:
“Ex-Satanic High Priest” a la Mike Warnke and/or John Todd (who came to blows once backstage at Melodyland over “You Stole MY Shtick!”)?
Though for redefining yourself/testimony inflation, there is one all-time prime example to measure yourself against. I bring you PSALMANAZAR THE FORMOSAN CANNIBAL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalmanazar
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
You actually have three Kens. My real name’s Ken, but now you know why I go by Headless Unicorn Guy on the blogs. Easier to keep us straight.
Daisy wrote:
What happens when you take the Weather Girls as Gospel?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geC2gHZ6m2g
dee wrote:
Four words: GRAND. UNIFIED. CONSPIRACY. THEORY.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY. Now and Forever.
The same reason Soviet S**t Don’t Stink.
(And if you define Adultery/Fornication as “Tab A in Slot B” and nothing else, you can wipe your mouth and announce “I Have Not Sinned.”)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I can’t beat the “cannibal,” but this might come close:
https://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2013/09/37214/
That just made my evening. I literally laughed out loud. 😀
Ken wrote:
Hate to break it to you, Ken, but the people dealing with adultery in my almost 2 decades as a judge (so far) are married and unmarried, Christians and non-Christians. I expect it to continue.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I thought it was because everyone loves hugs.
Tim wrote:
Thank you for this informed comment.
Far too many people believe that pedophilia, rape and other forms of sex abuse are caused by celibacy and prevented by marriage. It is vital to understand that these forms of sex are perversions, used often by people to gain power over another. It is an expression or rage and hostility. The people who indulge in these sorts of acts have serious psychological issues.
This is a far cry from some normal 22 year old guy who wants to have sex with his 20 year old girlfriend. Those feelings are normal and it is perhaps to this Paul was addressing his comment.
dee wrote:
This is just a corollary of “Salvation by Marriage Alone”.
And a Christianization of “Just get laid, that’ll solve everything.” Just in Christianese “getting laid” includes a ring and a ceremony; other than that, “married” and “laid” are interchangeable in their magic effects.
Josh wrote:
Now that just reeks of “Can You Top This?” crossed with “JUICY! Testimony”.
Josh wrote:
When this subject popped up on Internet Monk a year or two ago, one of the comments theorized this was fallout from the Reformation Wars, where having married or celibate clergy announded Which Side You Were On. Then it became “All Ministers have to be Married because Romish Papist Priests have to be Single.” Then it became “That’s the way we’ve ALWAYS done things.” Then it became the Eleventh Commandment from the lips of God Himself.
I’m going to defend Ken here and agree that there is some truth in what he says. I think sometimes people, especially if zealous or struggling with certain personal issues, can tell themselves they can live the celibate life, only to find that it’s much harder than they airily assume, or worse, they were in denial about certain issues. It’s then, much later in life, that a blow-out can occur.
I remember Screwtape in C S Lewis’s Screwtape Letters talking about two ways to tempt a Christian man, either to give him swooning passions like “Young Werther” (Goethe) or to make him harden up in self-denial for years until some sexual aberration suddenly hit him.
Having said that, we don’t know (*if* Gothard is guilty, and I yield to no man in my detestation of his system and bizarre hermeneutics) why the man did this. If it was for the sort of reasons listed by others – control, inability to commit to one woman or whatever – then marriage may well not have helped him.
Mara wrote:
Actually, you’re not even close to being in my league – I’m P.M.O., Permanent Moderation Orderly.
dee wrote:
Dee, that’s one of the nicest things someone has said to me all day.
Tim
(off topic)
Ever since Crouch Sr. died, TBN has been making some changes in their programming. Tonight, at 8:30 PM CST, Steve Furtick is on TBN, on his own show.
I don’t know if this is a one-off thing, or if he is going to be on every Tues. at this time on TBN.
Daisy wrote:
Must be going for the new generation of hucksters.
@ Tim:
Please to oblige. Thank you for your service. Being a judge is one heart wrenching job.
Just for info. the iblp.org website is up and running.
For more info. the local mental health clinic is also available.
My hands are up…..cause both resources are trying to cure the sin and it seems that the ones trying to cure live in their own sin and filth.
As I can recall, my religion professor at a LUTHERAN (that means wartburg style) had his various affairs yet her remains in the teaching position as religion professor to new freshmen at the college.
I wish God would have implanted in every human a buzzing stinger when a person was entering the realms of temptation that the buzzer would go off and then back to the “abundant life” promised by Christ.
Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
And the recipient of much grace (ROMG)
Daisy wrote:
ROFL-he’ll soon build the biggest house in US.
dee wrote:
I have no doubt 🙂
I caught the end of the Furtick show on TBN. He said he’ll back back the same time, same channel next week, so I suppose this is a weekly program from here on out.
Another off topic – I was in Ollie’s Bargain Outlet (it’s an overstock/closeout/buyout store) yesterday and saw a stack of Mark and Grace Driscoll’s “Real Marriage” in hardback for only $3.99. Guess they overestimated their popularity.
And naturally, Gothard teaches this: http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2013/03/gothard-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-victim/
What was it about Bill Gothard that convinced people that, as a single man, he was an expert on marriage and family? My parents were never into religious trends, so I never heard of him until I was an adult. Just watching his videos, he has what I call a high “creeper factor”. How in the world did he fill stadiums and sell his bill of goods?
dee wrote:
Dee – It might be a defense mechanism in order to avoid conflict. Works for me 😉
@ Ken:
Ha! The apostle Paul himself was not married and said he wished all were like him (single). Spare me the bad Reformed reading of that fact.
Celibacy to early death (martyrdom) is the way Paul preaches, funny none of the neo-Cal crowd of today wants to acknowledge that – we would be better off if a few of them lived more celibate lives.
@ Val:
Paul very carefully balances on the fence between non-marriage with its inherent celibacy and marriage with a normal sex life. If one reads the whole topic in 1 Cor 7 he gives each choice its due respect, and talks about two specific variables; what he calls “the present distress” on the one hand, and individual differences between people. And he addresses the married, the never married, the separated and the widowed.
To come away from Paul’s writing on this topic with a strong statement which can be turned into some universal law for all, whether it applies to church leadership or to the individual person, one has to do some biblical gymnastics that quickly become unconvincing.
M. Joy wrote:
Ditto! Counting my blessings that my family was never exposed to Gothard.
@ Val:
Why not also suggest shorter ones, as in martyrdom? Less opportunity to take a really crazy position on some issue, like blaming God for bridge collapses.
Tim wrote:
I’d always thought it was a thought-provoking existential paradox. After all, if such a being is headless, how can you prove or disprove they are a unicorn and not a horse?
Though you do know they’re not a centaur.
Some clarification: when I said “the apostle Paul was right to make marriage the norm for bishops” etc. I did not say nor imply singles could never have a ministry; you can always have exceptions to the norm, and I’ve know some very good ones. It does not imply ‘normal’ singles are likely to become abusers, nor celibacy leads to being a abuser – though I do think that latter could lead to temptation.
“This [marriage] would not guarantee such things can never happen, but it would surely reduce temptation” – I don’t understand why so many of you have replied to this to inform me that predators can indeed be married, and marriage of itself doesn’t prevent abuse!
“I’m NOT saying the testimonies [of abuse] given are not true, …” garners the comment that being careful not to assume Gothard’s guilt is a “slur against one of the accusers”. Surely no-one is going to assert that young girls never make false allegations, even if you think that is not the case here?
Questioning the objectivity of atheists is interpreted as “your assumption that an atheist can know nothing”. No such assumption is stated or implied. No-one in any religious discussion is ever completely objective, but some have more of an axe to grind than others.
Please be more careful in not reading into posts something that isn’t there. I have no objection to anyone disagreeing with me, but please make sure you disagree with something I actually think rather than what you think I think.
I’m not trolling, nor trying to stir things up, and I really appreciated the comments to the effect I’m not an ugly Norwegian. I’m just ordinary old me.
@ dee:
If I may reply to this one direct, my experience of interacting with atheists of various kinds periodically over several years has ranged from good-natured banter to fairly serious discussion to barely disguised hostility on their part. Visit someone like Dawkins combox and you will soon encounter the latter, a very real hostility to God, the bible and Christians. They can be extremely pharisaical and judgemental, and if you choose to engage you need a thick skin and an ability to resist the temptation to reply in kind.
Not all atheists are like that, and I don’t think because someone is an atheist they never tell the truth or are genuinely against something like child abuse. Their problem is more being able to give reasons for doing so given atheism as the starting point. But I have certainly seen atheists for whom child abuse is really an excuse to vent their anger at religion, concern for the children is at best secondary, and this is something to be aware of.
If you haven’t read the February 11th installment on Recovering Grace, go do so. It is stomach churning. How has this man been allowed to continue in his ‘ministry?’ For that matter, not that I advocate violence, but why have no fathers or brothers ever punched him out? Seriously.
Ken wrote:
I spent 5 years daily reading exChristians.net. Yes, there were hostile people. There were also very nice people as well. In fact, there are many hostile Christians in the church along with nice ones.
Just this morning I was talking to Deb about one blogger who is calling another blogger “unregenerate” which is nice-talk for going to hell. I watch ugly Christian all the time yelling about the sinful world in which we live and being quite careful not to point out their own ugliness.
The only difference between us and atheists is that we know Jesus and know why Jesus had to come. And if we know why He had to come, then we also know why there is little difference between us and others.
Ken wrote:
When you have so many reports spanning a lifetime of ministry, something serious is amiss unless you believe there is a vast conspiracy going on behind the scenes. That is why i also believe the reports of abuse coming our of the SGM subculture. Too many over too long a period os time.
Julie Anne wrote:
You’re right!
dee wrote:
AMEN! One of the wisest things you’ve ever written, Dee. I often think to myself that our anthropology is just as important as our theology (which is another way of saying what you did), and I marvel that so few preachers address this.
M. Joy wrote:
Perhaps the very fact that he’s never had to expose his theories to the harsh realities of real life. (There’s an old joke that’s been doing the rounds over here: I used to have three theories on child-rearing. Now I have three children – and no theories.) Lesley and I have often seen this on a much smaller scale, with other Christians passing on to us the benefit of their quaint theories on how to help the unemployed – a group with whom they’ve no significant experience. It’s surprisingly easy to let your own speculation run away with you to the point where you convince yourself you’re a guru.
I think your second question is the key one…
M. Joy then went on to write:
Probably the usual mix of charisma, a certain intuitive leadership gift, and good hair. By being able to convince a small critical mass of people he was worth listening to, he created a self-sustaining market for his bill of goods. But there’s an even more interesting possibility; perhaps, but for a chance encounter in which he found himself in the right place at the right time to push some book or other, we’d never have heard of him at all. Perhaps, without a big slice of “luck” at the crucial moment, he would just have been another guru in his grandmother’s basement blogging in his pyjamas. (Though actually, most bloggers blog about things they’re doing…)
dee wrote:
But that’s what The Vast Conspiracy WANTS you to think! 🙂
“If your Conspiracy Theory doesn’t fit the facts, INVENT A BIGGER CONSPIRACY!”
— Kooks Magazine
Pingback: Recovering Grace Confronts Bill Gothard | The Wartburg Watch 2014 | sheknowsnews
Daisy wrote:
Same Furtick Time, Same Furtick Channel?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6Cfy58-zPU
Ken wrote:
Thirty-four young girls. Whose stories agree with each other in significant ways. That’s a whole lot of consistent “false” testimony.
Or are you really suggesting that they’re all working in cahoots to bring down one man? A cabal of bitter, defrocked apostates on the fringes of the Internet, as it were… Say, I’ve heard that somewhere before…
Ken, go read Ruth’s story posted today and tell me if you think she was lying.
Did you catch what Bill Gothard said in the video clip? At the top of things he mentioned regarding serving God he mentioned the don’ts he doesn’t do like mistreating women or kissing any before marriage.
I’m telling you, when you hear people talk like that it should raise a red flag. Why in God’s name would you mention those two things out of all the things you could have said? He’s hiding the truth behind trying to sound honest. Ugh. I hate that!
Gothard had made a living out giving family advice, yet he himself has never married. I’ve wondered the same thing about Nancy Leigh DeMoss. Not only do I think she’s annoying, I question her motivations behind making a living out of prescribing to all women – especially married women it seems – how they should live out the tenents she preaches regarding Biblical Womanhood. The more I look at her, the more I think she’s probably hiding something, too. If I knew what she was saying was sound, I could believe she was, indeed, someone devoted to giving all her energies to spreading the gospel like Bill Gothard would have you believe. But that’s not what Gothard has been doing as we know, nor is the fruit there to prove it. I don’t believe for a minute that the Complementarianism that Nancy Leigh Demoss proclaims is rooted in the Gospel and carries with it the power to sustain a life purely by faith due to the corrupt nature of the message. I’ve observed a corrupt message, especially one that is adhered to so legalistically like in the case of Bill Gothard, produces corrupt results in it’s adherent. That is why I am strongly inclined to believe Nancy Leigh Demoss is not who she appears to be anymore than Bill Gothard is who he appears to be. Someone observed that Gothard would have had his pick of the adoring litter if he had desired to get married. And so it is with Nancy Leigh Demoss. If she believes in heterosexual relationships in the way she prescribes, surely there would have been a long list of men who would have gladly become Mr. Demoss. I know it’s speculation on my part but if the shoe fits….
Serving Kids in Japan wrote:
Yep — far surpassing the scriptural requirement of two or three witnesses.
Marsha wrote:
Ruth’s story made me weep. These experiences have long-lasting negative effects on people.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
TBN says it all. Elevation, the self avowed “Ruth’s Chris” of churches becomes “Jack in the Box.”
@ dee:
OooooI liked that. On to tweet it.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
However, back in the New Testament days, the testimony of a whole bunch of women (can remember the number. and yes, there IS a number) was equal to the testimony of one man. It is some sort of tradition or oral law or something.
But it is not so far from the way people look at things today. When you have someone like Gothard with his great following, a thousand women could come forward and they would consider Gothard’s testimony as the one to be believed.
@ Marsha:
I already have, and I don’t think (to say it again) that she is lying any more than the other witnesses.
I think the ‘Deebs’ are absolutely right to reveal such things are going on (‘Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret’). My only problem is if commenters assume guilt on the basis of allegations, because sooner or later this will backfire if false allegations are believed. This might damage the credibility of the genuine exposure of this kind of alleged heinous sinning.
Hence it is better, having done the revealing, to let the law take its course – and I do think involving the law is the legitimate thing to do rather than deal with in in-house. This at least ought to enable an objective assessment of what went on plus the appropriate punishment for the crime, taking all of the circumstances into account.
That said, just so you know where I am coming from, the former pastor of my church in England was convicted and sentenced for child abuse of his own children. He may have been actually guilty; my sister who knew and still knows the family is still convinced he was not. Changes in the rules of evidence (I believe) would now enable a defence against the evidence used to convict. He was too old and too frail to appeal. Hence I am wary of false or unprovable allegations, but by no means would ever like to see the guilty cleared.
Ladies,
I’ve often thought of sharing a story with you in the past. Last night, as I read and re-read this post, and many of the comments, once again, my heart pounded with fear and anger. I tend to be too wordy, so I’ll try to keep this concise(though I’ve already failed).
My senior year in high school, in the mid 70s, our district hired a new vocal teacher. He was also the part time music pastor at a local SB church. He was VERY BG, and encouraged/guilted MANY of us to attend a BG seminar. He formed small Bible study groups, based on age and gender. These groups became his hunting grounds for boys. And most of his ‘authority’, which he obviously abused, was biased on Basic Youth Seminars(which was what they were called back then). Parents, even those who were NOT churched, LOVED the principals, and threw their support, and affirmation behind this vile, evil man. Making his abuse TOO easy. After all, who can argue with BG and his biblical principles!? He eventually went to another church in the Pacific NW, and continued to “teach voice lessons”. The pastor there was told about the situation by the youth pastor, but he’d already laid the ground work to discredit him. But not longer after that, the pastor was confronted again, and warned that if he didn’t act on the situation, it would be made public. It ended in a Sunday night confrontation between the church, and the music pastor and his rather large support group of the gay community. The pastor, himself a VERY BG supporter, instructed the congregation to break all ties and relationships with the music guy, and ‘move on’. This man is now a very famous choral conductor of a Mens’ Chorus in that area. To me, my former music pastor, and Bill Gothard are nothing but tools of Satan.
Mara wrote:
God certainly has a sense of humor. He entrusted the news of Jesus’ resurrection to the testimony of . . . two women.
Serving Kids in Japan wrote:
But The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs, and Won’t Be Taken In.
“I am a former ATI father. We joined ATI in the mid 90’s and were part of ATI for about 10 years before God led us out.”
+++++++++
this is from a comment below Ruth’s story at Recovering Grace. Prompts so many questions. It took God 10 years before he thought to lead them out? God led them there in the 1st place into something destructive on purpose?
Makes me think one should use the words “God is leading me to” with the same caution you would normally reserve for “Please castrate me.” {a portion of a line from the film “Bernard & The Genie” [Lennie Henry, Alan Cummings])
“God is leading me”…. “God led me”…… danger — flickin’ persuasive people of influence with their God card as the backstage pass into people’s lives.
#$@*###!!!!
elastigirl wrote:
GREAT LINE, ELASTIGIRL!
I’ve heard that Russia has imported Gothardism. Has anyone else heard that?
Joy Huff wrote:
http://ati.iblp.org/ati/students/opportunities/russia/history/
jack wrote:
Yes. And there, I think, is the actual conspiracy. Somebody mentioned The Screwtape Letters earlier. In that way of thinking about this kind of thing one arrives at a conspiracy theory, right enough. The conspiracy of evil to destroy.
Thank you for telling that story. Hope you are OK. God bless.
I can feel your anger and frustration! It sounds like the guy you’re talking about is a sexual predator who needs to be exposed.
Given that Vision Forum and other patriarchal groups were heavily influenced by Gothardism, this appears to be a “like father, like son” kind of situation.
@ elastigirl:
I hear ya. And this can be painful to process. There were decisions I made that, at the time, I thought I was making because it was God who was leading me. But instead, those decisions were really being influenced by the stinkin’ thinkin’ I mistook for spiritual inspiration and guidance.
The extent to which one believes in some of those constructs that get misconstrued as “God’s wisdom” or “God’s guidance” – only to discover later they were misled or deceived – is important to understand when going through or helping someone else through the process of recovery.
I’ve discovered that there are always those people who were never interested in the truth and were only attached to the group (or whatever) by virtue of something else. When falsehood is exposed, those who had been taken in by the false claims of truth were justifiably offended and departed. Those who didn’t value truth were the ones that stayed around because what mattered more to them than anything was having something to belong to, regardless of its integrity. They found a sense of themselves as “good people” in their loyalty to the group and its leaders even after the whole thing was exposed as a fraud. And then what were they exposed as, too?
So, I don’t know. I’m just rambling here. I was going to say more but the train left the station and I’ve lost what track it was on!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
““You mean that little boys ought to keep their promises. Very true: most right and proper, I’m sure, and I’m very glad you have been taught to do it. But of course you must understand that rules of that sort, however excellent they may be for little boys – and servants – and women – and even people in general, can’t possibly be expected to apply to profound students and great thinkers and sages. No, Digory. Men like me, who possess hidden wisdom, are freed from common rules just as we are cut off from common pleasures. Ours, my boy, is a high and lonely destiny.”
This quote might be from Uncle Andrew in The Magician’s Nephew– OR– it might be from Bill Gothard…..
I found out about the initial Recovering Grace “case for disqualification” article a day or so after it was posted. Originally, I was planning to do a response post on my blog (and still might). But I’m in the midst of juggling two large editing projects, so my energy is limited for additional writing. So, FWIW, here are some excerpts from an email I sent a friend a while book, plus some info from an existing post. Hope they add some big-picture perspective to the trends I think we’ve been witness to over the past few years, that are especially highlighted in the current situation with Bill Gothard …
* * * * * * *
A friend sent me the link to the Recovering Grace post on Bill Gothard and the case for his disqualification from ministry. This is indeed sad, sickening, even. However, it is not surprising.
[…] I’ve been researching for six years now on spiritually abusive / legalistic systems and their leaders. The big picture pattern that’s become increasingly clear is how many of these organizations (training, missionary, church planting, denominations, churches, etc.) that become known for formulaic teachings, behavioral conformity, legalistic theology, and either cultural isolation or domination/control ALSO have long-term scandals that eventually come to light dealing with one or more of the following:
* Child sexual abuse, and failure to report known or suspected situations of child sexual abuse. (Clergy reporting of child abuse is mandatory in something like 40 states at this point, as there is no federal mandatory reporting law.)
* Child physical, verbal, and emotional abuse — often through an emphasis on overcontrolling and perfectionistic parenting techniques.
* Sexual harassment.
* Sexual indiscretions of various kinds.
* Embezzlement, extreme misuse of donor funds, even taking over a church’s assets and leading it into bankruptcy.
* Misappropriation/misuse of the intellectual property of people inside and outside of the organization.
* Internal cover-up of the evidence, attempts to silence people inside and outside of the organization, “stonewalling” to slow down investigations, not authorizing institutional investigations by qualified outside agency.
Critics of “spiritual abuse survivor blogs” sometimes have a legitimate beef that some just seem to be out to take down leaders they don’t like. On the other hand, the specific case studies of Christian organizations small and large where there is verifiable, documented evidence of such abuse continues to show there is every reason to bring into the light public leaders whose public and/or private actions DISqualify them from ministry.
It is a difficult business, attempting to report such situations, challenge the organizations and leaders involved to clean things up, and deal with push-back from people — some of whom turn out to be active enablers and others, silent excusers. […] It seems like there’s been an era in the Western church where disqualified leaders and their posses could seemingly hide such scandals. But that time is over, especially because of the internet — with its ability to keep compilations of key information available, and with the inability of abusive people to “scrub the net” of their misdeeds. Plus the constructive contributions of many survivor blogs with documentation and discussion. […]
* * * * * * *
To that I would add my current list of “indicators” that are warning signs of where individuals and organizations will likely have scandals emerge in the long run. These cut across theologies, though different combinations may be more prevalent in certain systems.
* Dualism.
* Reductionism.
* Patriarchalism.
* Authoritarianism.
* Perfectionism.
* Dominionism.
* Favoritism, nepotism, cronyism.
* Organization self-protectionism.
I’ve got brief descriptions for most of these indicators at this post:
http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/calvinistas/
Hope this is of some help in thinking about the bigger picture.
@ elastigirl:
You might enjoy reading Nadia-Bolz Weber’s take on Meaningless Church Jargon
here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nadiabolzweber/
@ dee:
@ Ken:
One thing I have noticed though, is: even if the head guy (say Gothard, or any hero-worshipped leader) isn’t directly implicated on sexual abuse, the authoritarian style of leadership sure draws many abusers into its fold. I didn’t read all of Charlotte’s story – time constraints – but I do notice that her dad was an abuser, and chased out of churches in the past (a common symptom of pedophilia from observation). In CJ Mahaney’s churches, the same issue: authoritarian style church, pedophiles drawn to it.
Years and years ago I read an article from a Chicago cop about pedophiles, it simply stated: everyone knows a pedophile, you just don’t know you know one. He said people always seem surprised when a pedophile is a priest or someone respected. To him, however, he said he wasn’t, in fact, that was the first place he’d look. Pedophiles know they like children, and will take a job to give them access to children. So, for example, if they are smart, they become paediatricians or priests, if they aren’t, they become a janitor at a school, for example.
OK, so what has this got to do with the Gothard (and other stories of pastors that Dee and Deb get accused of slandering when the pastor in question isn’t charged)? It is that these authoritarian churches are somehow providing the cover pedophiles need. They are drawn to them, and all the pastors need to take responsibility. Pedophiles don’t announce themselves, but they do show consistent patterns of behaviour and are drawn to institutions that give them access to children.
If a church wants to be authoritarian, then maybe there should be mandatory state-run courses all leaders need to take on how-to-spot a predator. Since they seem so flipping baffled by it when it happens under their noses. Teachers have to report anything, now pastors do to, the huge problem, in my view, is that pastors are more like Education board members rather than teachers, they aren’t front line with kids, so they don’t really have that much contact or would need to report things that often (from direct exposure – i.e. a kid saying something about a parent that would raise alarm bells). The people who need the screening and training are too low on the totem pole in these types of churches (the little woman Sunday School teacher, or helper if she isn’t allowed to teach, for example), their mentality is to “take it up the chain of command” not report it directly to the police. However, since they are at rock bottom on the chain, taking it up would be still far to low for the pastor’s to get wind of it. In these campus churches, the main pastors may never even be seen, so all these wanna be leaders are in the way – care group leaders, Sunday School directors (if they are women they are never pastors) who are likely just related to an elder by marriage or something. None of these “next up the chain” types are that well vetted, nor are they likely to report what a person beneath them heard a kid say. They may ask someone above them who will just assure them the kid’s dad is a fine man and the silly Sunday School teacher is just a frivolous female. This, is, btw a perfect setting for a pedophile – the weakest are in charge of the kids. The weak Sunday School teachers have no voice, are not taken seriously – perfect adult to leave your abused child with.
But implementing a safety system where the Sunday School teachers get taught to go directly to the police would make the young women question things. They will crouch it in “prone to hysterics” language, but what it would ultimately do is empower these young women. The LAST thing these churches want are their lowest-on-the-totem members having a sense of empowerment that could damage their churches’ reputations. No, safety to them is handled by security teams (young, buff men in Driscoll’s church) or elders (in these Gothard-type churches).
This will remain a problem for all these authoritarian ministries. Because what the public has learned is that any adult can be part of the solution, we have police (buff security guard equivalents) and leaders (governments, judges), but it is the front-line workers who can be the real keys in this fight.
As long as these guys need to feel powerful – and sell power to various church members in exchange for loyalty – they will need lower downs (can’t have too many chiefs and not enough Indians as the racist saying goes), making those lower downs free agents who can circumvent the whole authority structure and go to another authority structure (the police) would blow the system. Even if it isn’t directly forbidden, the system discourages it by choosing meek little women to be the Sunday School teachers, or women who have bought into the whole man-is-the-head mentality.
It is why so many pedophiles look for the home-schooled families. It is why so many pedophiles love the whole home-schooling culture – these kids are sheltered from other systems and submit wholly to the male-is-head.
They will, by their very nature, always be more vulnerable to attracting pedophiles than churches where most parents send their kids to regular schools (in Canada the better off, including our Prime Minister, send their kids to French Immersion, which is Public, not sure about the US). Where kids are aware of other ways to access help. Ironically in these situations the secular world is teaching these kids right (adults don’t touch you) from wrong (you have to listen to daddy, no matter what he does to you). Pedophiles can hide in plain site in those types of churches.
Ken wrote:
34 women (no longer “young girls”) whose stories are both internally consistent and consistent between them?
Plus, the rate of false confession is low in cases like these partly because the culture around them resists the knowledge, and partly because much shame is attached to the experience itself. Not that no one ever lies, of course, but it doesn’t happen all that often.
It would be irrational not to accept the likelihood of guilt here. You initially accepted BG’s guilt and only when you thought further on it, did you feel equivocation. That is interesting and might be worthwhile considering when/why.
FWIW, I know you are not a troll. I see you as being honest and I appreciate it. I hope you see me the same way. I inevitably will have more emotion towards it than you do, because I’ve experienced the abuse as well as deep denominational resistance to that truth when I told my story. That was a long time ago for me, but I feel protective of these women because I know how very difficult it is.
I also understand how difficult it is for general membership to accept that there are those among us that do such, and leaders not exempt. We simply don’t want to believe that this kind of evil exists—who would, really, unless they were forced into the experience?
But on the other hand, it shows in stark relief how far evil can go and why we are called to be wise as serpents as well as innocent as doves. It also shows in appalling detail why we are in such need of Christ.
Sad wrote:
I agree. I have much respect for you, Dee.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
My neighbor was talking about the value put on “good hair” in the Afro-Am community, how it is economically tied to Indian women’s hair for weaves, the higher success rate it allows, etc.
So you are not alone, Nick. And after all, there may be little hair left but what remains could also be fuzzy!
🙂
@ Patrice:
Too much experience to believe otherwise.
Ken wrote:
Ken, sorry I repeated what others said and without seeing your response—I didn’t read through before commenting.
I, of course, have no idea about the accusations re your former pastor, so also couldn’t say whether your sister’s analysis was correct, but there is this: when I later told my high school best friend about the abuse in my family, she flatly denied that it could have happened. That is how carefully hidden my sibs and I kept it, out of fear of man and God.
(My friend later was apologetic. She is a good woman, but just couldn’t grasp it at the time, and it was very painful for me.)
@ dee:
Yah, but most people with tons of experience don’t learn what you do because you keep an open heart, too.
So just accept it, you are tres kewl wize! So much so that no puffy head results from it. w00t
Patrice wrote:
My mother will be pleased. 🙂
M. Joy wrote:
Why do so many churches not permit never married over 30 adults to lead/teach adult singles classes in churches and always insist they be filled by a married person?
Val wrote:
Well, some of them kind of do, like Driscoll. It’s not that I am totally disagreeing with your view, but, there is a danger going too far down that path, IMO.
Driscoll recently did a blog saying several false things about singles/ celibacy. One thing he said is that God calls (false) only a fraction (false) of people to be single, and at that because God will send them to a young death, (e.g., serving as a missionary in remote jungles to be eaten by natives for stew after giving out gospel tracts) (false).
The fact is a ton of adults today, including Christians, have never married (via choice or circumstance), and many of them are not living dangerous lives in third world nations but working 8 to 5 jobs and living in homes or apartments in the ‘burbs. I’m sure many such singles will live to ripe old ages before they die.
Nancy wrote:
Thank you, yes, that sounds like my view. Many Christians I come across tend to go to far either direction (either too pro singleness, or too pro marriage, or, too anti singleness, or too anti marriage), which creates all sorts of problems and issues for adult singles, especially ones like me, who would like to marry.
I’m either told (by Christians) to be content where I am in my singleness and not try to get married (because people say Paul said wanting marriage is bad/ wrong/ selfish), or, I am told in Christian blogs and books I am “less than” or lacking or flawed because I am single, and God hates singles and singleness and God commands all women to marry and have children.
I don’t know why Christians cannot take the middle road and treat singles with respect as long as they are single, but also support their choice to want to get married some day (if they want marriage – some do not, but there are many who do). Christian singles like that get condemned for being single and for wanting marriage.
Ken wrote:
Married men who have regular sex with their wives still prey on kids, or sometimes sexually abuse their wives.
Celibacy does not always or necessarily “lead to temptation,” but sometimes, it can be argued (as I just did) that regular married sex can and does.
@ Ken:
I do agree with some of your comments about atheists in that post. I have come across ones like that too (the very hostile, militant ones). I normally don’t bother to engage them in dialog, because it’s unproductive.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
😆 It did occur to me after I left this blog last night that my Furtick “same time, same channel” line (which he said something similar to on his show himself) did bring to mind the old, campy Bat Man show, “Same Bat Time! Same Bat Channel!”
Evie wrote:
This goes both ways. As an adult over 40 who has never married, I keep wondering why 50 year old Christian men (or women) who got married when they were 20 -30 get to teach singles about dating, sex, romance and how to be single.
I was engaged, so I’m not clueless about long term, serious relationships. I actually don’t see why single people should not be permitted from teaching or commenting about marriage and such topics.
I don’t think the pertinent point is that Gothard never married. It’s that a man (married or single) was often alone with much-younger women quite a bit, playing footsie with them, and so on.
@ jack:
I’m very sorry you went through all that. 🙁
Daisy wrote:
They’re just the funhouse-mirror reflections of the Tony Mianos and bullhorn-on-the-street-corner Fundie preachers.
@ Val:
That was a very good post, I’d just add that it’s true for other types of people who seek to harm others, such as men who like to abuse women, con artists, etc.
Daisy wrote:
My church doesn’t have such a rule, nor do they separate adults into classes of single and married. I think I’d hightail it out of any church that didn’t allow singles to teach. We have three adult Sunday school classes, of mixed ages from 20’s to 80’s. One of the best Sunday school teachers I’ve heard was a single lady in her 60’s.
In the past I’ve posted under the name Steven. I will now use Steven Troy to avoid any possible confusion in the future :-).
The Gothard story is certainly sad. Aren’t they all? But how many do we have to read before we get it? Do not entrust your children/youth into the hands of anyone in a church. Is that extreme? Yes. Do we need to take extreme measures. Yes, anything to protect the kids. You might think this extremely also if you had sat around a conference table behind closed doors and listen to “spiritual leaders” discuss damage control when abuse occurred during Vacation Bible School. Shocking but they pulled it off. The abuser was a young man. A brilliant young man. He aspired to be a pediatrician. I never found out if he achieved his dream.
Off topic, but Dee and Deb, do you have any plans for addressing the tithing issue in the future. Talk about another kind of abuse!
@ Joy Huff:
It wouldn’t surprise me, Joy. Firstly, the authoritarianism of his teachings would appeal to some elements in Russian authority, perhaps understandably as they have had to find a replacement for the lost religion of Leninism since 1991. Secondly, despite crackdowns on “non-traditional” religions (the Orthodox church isn’t keen on any other Christian denomination competing with them), a lot of faiths around the world still view Russia as a market, for want of a better word. Thirdly, people that don’t buy the Gothardist independent fundamental Baptist theology will still be impressed by the apparent discipline instilled in youngsters. The less attractive fruit will only come later, in my opinion.
However, I think if enough Russians were aware of the theological roots of Bill Gothard’s teaching, the Orthodox church might make things difficult for Gothardism over there.
Daisy wrote:
Oy vey. Is it just me, or does this seem like a duplicitous way to have plausible deniability while shaming all of the singles who pay attention to his teaching. Most presumably would not feel called (excuse me, I meant Called™) to the mission field, so this teaching would effectively condemn them for not getting married already.
Heck, the biggest danger I face from my small town middle class celibate existence is probably a heart attack, but then I’m also not known for giving a rodent’s donkey what Mark Driscoll thinks about anything.
Steven Troy wrote:
This blog regularly discusses that topic, and sometimes other ones:
FBC Jax Watchdogs
@ Josh:
Another reason it’s silly to teach that the only reason for celibacy is because single adults are supposedly called by God for singleness and will die young: you have people who marry, and their spouse divorces them when they are 35, 45, or who develops dementia as young as 45 (or older). Maybe you’re 50, and your spouse dies of cancer or heart attack.
Maybe your spouse is in the Marines, Army, or Navy and is sent on deployment for 12 months or longer at a time.
Maybe you are married and your spouse comes home from work each night, but due to having some kind of psychological or physical illness he or she cannot “perform” or does not want to.
Maybe your spouse is too mentally (or physically) exhausted for caring for elderly parents or a mean boss at work, so weeks or months go by, and they just want to roll over and go to sleep.
One reason celibacy is not just for singles but a discipline for all people (even the married ones) is that if you’re a married person, you might find yourself in a position where you cannot have sex with your spouse.
I hope if one thing comes out of all this, it’s that people wake up and stop swallowing the teachings of these men who develop a “following”. (Gothard, Phillips, Pearl, Ezzo, Botkin, etc…..) If there are any young parents out there reading this, no religious guru can define what your family should look like. All of these rules of conduct, umbrellas of authority and lists of do’s/don’ts is baloney.
The little religious fiefdoms these men create are businesses. Indeed, there are money changers in the temple.
@ Steven Troy:
check out this blog: http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/
(off topic)
I have not listened to this yet, but it looks like it might be interesting:
Hour 1- Dr. James Duncan from Anderson University talks about the tactics Steven Furtick uses to sell books. (on Janet Mefferd)
An Attorney wrote:
Watchdog is always on the ball.
Great post val!
In the book of acts it says they picked 7? men filled with the Holy Spirit and wisdom to be over the distribution of food for the poor. if it was that important to have qualified leadership over food distribution why do churches not think it is even more important who is over watching and teaching the children?
I recently re-read a book called men who hate women, and the women that love them, by dr susan forward. the book is about mysoginysts and the startling thing i noticed is that if you make a list of behaviors men like that use to control women you can compate it to the “doctrine” of complimentianary based churches and it is almost identical. when people or institutions adopt this mindset then women and children are devalued enough that men can rationalize abusing them. not all men do this of course but it lays a foundation that is ripe to be used by abusers. if men and women are equal but the man is a little higher than it is a mockery of the word equal.
@ Daisy:
I don’t know why it’s so wrong to lead in ministry when unmarried. After all, being unmarried didn’t disqualify Paul or Jesus Himself from ministry. Having worked for both Bill Gothard and Nancy Leigh DeMoss personally, I can attest to the questionable and inappropriate behaviors he is accused of. I can also say with certainty that Nancy DeMoss has made every effort to live above reproach and has taken great care to include other (married) voices in her ministry and radio program. She has never claimed to be the sole authority on anything and works under the guidance of a full-time board of directors. The key to being sexually pure in ministry isn’t to simply get married but to truly live a life that revolves around a strong relationship with God “for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth”. Ephesians 5
Evie wrote:
I don’t know why it’s so wrong to lead in ministry when unmarried. After all, being unmarried didn’t disqualify Paul or Jesus Himself from ministry. Having worked for both Bill Gothard and Nancy Leigh DeMoss personally, I can attest to the questionable and inappropriate behaviors he is accused of. But be careful about attributing his actions to all singles. I can also say with certainty that Nancy DeMoss has made every effort to live above reproach and has taken great care to include other (married) voices in her ministry and radio program. She has never claimed to be the sole authority on anything and works under the guidance of a full-time board of directors. She has expressed that she hasn’t felt the Lord leading her towards marriage and has found contentment in being single. The key to being sexually pure in ministry isn’t to simply get married but to truly live a life that revolves around a strong relationship with God “for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth”. Ephesians 5
@ brad/futuristguy:
Excellent stuff Brad. Your research is so relevant.
Daisy wrote:
Excellent points!
I guess what I’m suggesting is a chicken vs the egg situation.
I’m familiar with the general sense of Gothardism. I attended an Institutes conference, seminar (whatever) my first year (I think) of becoming a Christian, and I was very impressionable. I took it all in. I can trace the whole hierarchical Umbrella of Authority mindset back to that. I’m sure that where those seeds got planted that were watered later by books I read (“How to be the Wife of a Happy Husband” – horrible. It included an illustration of the “Umbrella”) and fellowship groups I was drawn to, in part, because they believed in and practiced this kind of hierarchical arrangement between men and women.
I’ve come to believe this teaching, in and of itself, is corrupt. By nature, it is corrupt. And those who are out front promoting it the most vigorously are corrupt, too. Does the teaching cause the corruption or are certain individuals attached to it because they’re corrupt, and it becomes an easy hiding place for their corruption?
I mentioned Gothard & DeMoss together mainly because of how they stand out as leaders in the realm of Complementarianism doctrines, which they apply through their ministries to both single and married people. And I would say both of them (especially DeMoss) are focused on women, as if rehabilitating women is the key to the establishment of Biblical order in the home, church & society. “Curing” women, and the roles of complementarianism, seem to be their answer to the fallout of the Fall.
But there’s zero power in their teachings. Zero. It presented as though it contains the “keys” (as Gothard llikes to call them) to living the Christian life but, indeed, it’s all contrary to scripture; an abboration of the truth. It’s nothing more than a form of godliness devoid of any power.
So although Gothard and DeMoss appear so wholesome, as though deriving God’s strength from their teachings, I know it’s nothing more than a facade they’ve erected to make what they sell appear good. And there’s always the real person behind the facade, because the facade isfake, and cannot be maintained indefinitely.
The more a person stands out in promoting these ideas, the more they stand out to me as suspicious characters because I know what they’re promoting is a corruption of the truth. And then so often, what we come to discover, is the individual promoting this all the time is actually involved behind the scenes in serious forms of sin. Sin, which their teachings provide them with no power to overcome. Which they must keep hidden because that would spoil the product they seek to sell, using their own lives as the living message of its effectiveness. But Christianity simply doesn’t work that way. It’s a life of faith, not programs, roles or prescriptions.
b>@ Josh:
Spot on. And could this be why John Piper is working to the harness the energies of single men and women and send then out to the far corners, inspiring them to give up their lives, because he’s aware they’re trending away (Driscoll expression there) from early marriage? Maybe he sees a whole demographic he can target, design conferences a book and write books for, and cash in so as to maintain his self-proclaimed title of Global Apostle?
P.S. I liked the TM, lol.. H.U. G., you need to start using the HTML code for that since you use it a lot!
@ Patrice:
As the Australians would say, no worries!
The main point I forgot to make about the pastor of my former church (who may or may not actually have been guilty, in the end only the Day will reveal it) was that his trial coincided with every other day revealing yet another abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. However irrelevant that might be to his case, I wonder if the jury might have been if only subconsciously prejudiced against him as a ‘Minister of Religion’ thinking they are all the same, aren’t they. There are plenty of people who are only too glad to think like that, prejudiced to believe the worst.
As far as Gothard is concerned, he has a right to a trial and defence, I think everyone would agree with that. But just because a big name Christian (or pseudo-Christian) celebrity who is authoritarian/patriarchal is accused of abuse of some kind, and the celebrity fits the profile of many other known abusers does not mean we should assume his guilt based on allegations, coupled perhaps with a dislike of the cult of celebrity. I found myself doing just that very thing, till it suddenly struck me that I could be being prejudiced in the way the jury of the pastor’s trial might have been.
I sure you would agree that even though dreadful things have gone on in the Catholic church (and others), there is now the danger of a bandwaggon that anyone who has a beef against catholicism can simply add their allegations of abuse for revenge or to pile on the agony, especially if they know there is no real way of checking up on them where they supposedly occurred many years ago.
@ Ken:
Thirty-four witnesses who are willing to say “he did it to me” is pretty powerful evidence, regardless of any externalities. I doubt that a judge would allow all 34 to testify, as that would be duplicative, but would allow a list and selected ones to testify, and might even admit their sworn statements taken in deposition if the defendant had the opportunity to attend.
Evie wrote:
This thought is so chilling.
And yet, I see it as so possible.
Driscoll is a favorite whipping boy of mine when I get disgusted with the direction popular Christianity is taking us. He’s such and easy target.
But Piper?
His neo-cal gospel has a cold-blooded, reptilian feel. Thinking about it is like walking through the herpetarium (reptile house) at the zoo.
As Christians, we are warned about wolves. But what about the snakes in the grass?
Moderation, boom boom.
Moderation, boom boom.
Mara seems to be the queen
of tripping off that screen.
Moderation, boom boom.
Moderation, boom boom.
Sorry.
Sometimes when I’m frustrated I write stupid poems in order to vent.
My skill at triggering moderation is frustrating me.
I’ll get over it.
Eventually.
My comment in moderation has something to do with this:
http://comp.uark.edu/~rcorder/St._Louis_Zoo_Herpetarium.html
@ Mara:
You could try writing a song instead. A bit like Rogers and Hammerstein:
High on a hill was a lonely Gothard ….
Speaking of cold-hearted, reptilian religion, here is a quote from Retha’s piece”
“Such a mindset comes from a heart colder than the ice on a skating rink. And the hierarchist’s cutting answer, sharper than the blades on ice skates, to the one whose needs are ignored?:”
Read her analysis of coldblooded, neo-cal, complementarianism:
http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/skating-on-thin-ice-john-ensor-on-a-slippery-slope/
@ Ken:
I like that one!
@ Ken:
🙂
@ M. Joy:
We are major fans of the Dawg!
M. Joy wrote:
Yes, he does!! The first time I saw him, I inwardly recoiled. He is…..slimy. He looks slimy. I have the same reaction to him that I have when I spy a garden slug, in fact.
Ken wrote:
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Witty. Love that! 🙂
“I don’t think the pertinent point is that Gothard never married. It’s that a man (married or single) was often alone with much-younger women quite a bit, playing footsie with them, and so on.”
Exactly!!
@ Ken:
Glad I’m not drinking beer with the foam afloat…
oooOOooOOooOOOOoooo
I’m dealing with it. Finally. At least I escaped the years of drugs, and inappropriate relationships that several of my friends have had to endure. Hatred, burns long and hot! 🙁@ Nancy:
Evie, if you’re addressing me, he WAS exposed, but no legal action was taken. The pastor made sure that it got buried, at the expense of several young boys. He’s STILL wrecking havoc in many lives.@ Evie:
Ken wrote:
Such “filking” is an old, old tradition in SF & fantasy fandom. Next time this blog moves to Cee Jay Mahaney, I have an appropriate filk of Ponyphonic’s “Lullaby for a Princess” cued up and ready to go.
M. Joy wrote:
Kind of like Michael Jackson late in his life, except with hot and cold running girls instead of Neverland’s hot and cold running boys?
Ken wrote:
Some might suggest, “If only the old goat had found him an old lady…”
I yodel in reply, “Old lady, old lady, lady WHO??”
@ Dave A A:
Wow! Bringing that old, old, oldie into this situation — fantastic to draw that connection!.
Evie wrote:
Global Apostle?
Head Apostle (HUMBLY, of course)?
Why don’t they just title themselves Epiphanes (like Antiochus) and be done with it?
Val wrote:
Where there is easy prey, the predators will swarm.
jack wrote:
“NOWHERE DO WE TEMPT SO SUCCESSFULLY AS AT THE VERY FOOT OF THE ALTAR!”
— Screwtape
Dave A A wrote:
Twins separated at birth?
And others have made the same sentiment:
“All Animals Are Equal
BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”
— G.Orwell, “Animal Farm”
“Morals are for Men, not… GODS…”
— “Where No Man Has Gone Before”, second pilot, original Star Trek
Val wrote:
I would like to point out (from experience with a manipulator in my family) that successful sociopaths (and by extension, serial rapists and pedophiles) are MASTERS at camouflaging what they are. If they weren’t, they would have been exposed long ago; we only hear of the ones “dumb enough to get caught”.
It’s been stressed on this and other abuse watchblogs that pedos “groom” their victims. From my experience with manipulators, they also groom third parties (especially authority figures) for cover and allies/defenders if anything leaks.
“But he was such a Nice Boy…” (said about serial killers)
“Go ahead and squeal, Tattletale. Nobody will EVER believe you. Because you’re The Crazy Kid and I’m the Sweet Little Angel.”
It strikes me that a deep-cover pedo might also groom scapegoats (and third parties regarding scapegoats) as further camouflage to shift the suspicion away from himself. The deep-cover sociopath/pedo picks a scapegoat — say the 40+ never-married single in church or the adult male who’s a My Little Pony fan (who all the respectable people already suspect of being a perv) and gives everyone a little plausibly-deniable nudge here and there. (He never married — look how OLD he is (dirty old man dirty old man dirty old man)… He’s a grown man — that’s a show for Six Year Old GIRLS…)
“Misteltoe killing an oak,
Rats gnawing cables in two;
Moths making holes in a cloak,
How they must love what they do;
Oh and we Little Folk too,
We are as busy as they;
Working our work out of view,
Watch and you’ll see it someday!”
— Rudyard Kipling, “The Picts’ Song” (a song of guerilla warfare)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Hey HUG.
I watched the first two episodes of MLP FIM the other night on Netflix. I told my daughter that I wanted to because I’ve actually met a Bronie and I like him and wanted to see what it was that he liked about MLP.
Apologies for spelling Brony wrong.
My bad.
Headless Unicorn Guy said:”I would like to point out (from experience with a manipulator in my family) that successful sociopaths (and by extension, serial rapists and pedophiles) are MASTERS at camouflaging what they are. If they weren’t, they would have been exposed long ago; we only hear of the ones “dumb enough to get caught””.
Yes, indeed.
You know what else about sociopaths? They are always sorry they got caught; they are never sorry that they hurt others. And they know perfectly well that what they are doing is wrong; they just don’t CARE that it’s wrong, because they LIKE doing it.
Insert picture of BG (or other sociopath of choice) here, and see how it fits right into everything we are hearing……
@ Nick Bulbeck:
When Gothard was coming into his own, the world was changing so fast in terms of morals that many Christians found security in his authoritarian principles. The only away to make the Gothard lifestyle work was to retreat from everything wrong in the world. However, there is a big difference between engaging with the culture while living righteously and fleeing to the compound. True Gothardites marinate in their own erroneous beliefs, with only Gothard to clarify the “truth.” It is a system of belief that self-perpetuates its lies.
Linn wrote:
You know, you could make a similar “reaction to future shock” argument for the rise of Extreme Islam (a la Iran and the Taliban)…
@ Nancy:
This thread is likely dead, but I was just so tied up with life I couldn’t finish the post so here goes:
Actually Nancy,
I came to this conclusion after reading many early church writers and their take and teachings. But, don’t take my point of view here, let’s look at the early church (post-apostles, maybe late ‘zero’ century). From the earliest days, even while the apostles lived, celibacy was favoured. One of the main reasons young women were killed publicly (arena’s, town squares) during the Pagan Roman Empire’s persecutions was due to them refusing to marry at all. Now, you could argue they just wanted to marry a fellow believer, yet their fathers were trying to marry them off to some random pagan business associate, but, they requested celibacy. So, the blood of the martyrs is one count against the view scripture treats celibacy and matrimony equally.
Secondly, for almost the first 1,000 years of church history celibacy was required for all callings. When a person decided to take up a calling, they were ordained (only later ordination was dropped for all but priests in the western half of the early church). So, in todays terms, not only every pastor would be required to be celibate, but also every church worker (Sunday School Directors, Music Pastors, etc.), para-church organization worker (CRU staff member, IVCF staff member, Focus on the Family staff workers, all the workers at GRACE, BJU university profs and deans etc.), christian speakers, people on the mission field, etc. Get the picture? If you dedicated your life to church work (orders), you gave up a) matrimony, b) retirement, as they were expected to work until they could work no longer (death, stroke, etc.).
Now, lets balance this with marriage. Up until the 12th Century the western church did not perform marriage ceremonies. It wasn’t church business, not even a church sacrament. Some cynics observe that when the church needed money, it made marriage a ceremony to shore up the coffers, I don’t know if that is verified, but, either way, the church wasn’t in the business of blessing marriages for over a millennium, however, it was very involved in ordaining people, and promoted celibacy.
So, when I go back and look at these carefully balanced (as you say) verses once more:
Against:
1 Corinthians 7:26
Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is (unmarried)
1 Corinthians 7:28
But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
1 Corinthians 7:33
But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world – how he can please his wife –
1 Corinthians 7:8
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: it is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
In Paul’s view marriage is of this world:
1 Corinthians 7:28
But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
Just remember, when Paul ordered believers to sleep with their spouses (these were unbelieving spouses), there was a trend in the churches to not unite themselves with unbelievers, least they become defiled (from a Jewish notion of purity in those days), so they were abstaining from sex with their partners and causing their partners to go off with other people (men were quite free to do this if their own wife was refusing them), Paul is convincing them they are not going to defile themselves with an unbelieving spouse so they shouldn’t abstain, not giving them sex-advice as we often read it. He is actually giving them purity advice.
Not the common modern view (marriage is an equally wonderful option).
He tells everyone to remain as they were before conversion, he compares marriage to circumcision – telling those who aren’t yet married or circumcised they ought to remain as they are when they convert.
So, no, if you look into the whole early church culture from Paul’s day on to the first 1,000 years of church history, you will see celibacy is far, far more sought after and esteemed than marriage is. It is a weird thought, I’m married, so I am not preaching anything, but it is very valuable to know this when modern day preachers grasp at these verses to try and make marriage something it really isn’t in the Bible.
@ Daisy:
Oh, groan, Driscoll talking about celibacy (face palm). Sounds just like something he’d say.
No, I am not preaching this, merely pointing out the Bible isn’t the best “Marriage is the epitome of Christian-life” book.
I like history, I have enjoyed learning about that fuzzy first millennium of Christianity and unearthed quite a few surprises. One of them is, marriage was not valued by the early church. The men and women we call the church fathers and mothers were almost all celibate, the reason: celibacy was a mark of a devout Christian. In my very secular corner of North America (the southern West Coast of British Columbia), Christian families stick out for their earlier marriages and “larger” families (over 2 kids is large for B.C.). But, go back a few thousand years and they would have stuck out like a sore thumb for their celibacy – remember, the women were being martyred rather than lose their chance at celibacy – that is mind boggling to our view of Christianity.
I am not preaching it, in fact, I think this is a great spring board off of questioning why they church is so involved in marriage at all. Yes, there are benefits to marriage, but, the church isn’t called to bettering people’s worldly lot, it is called to minister to all, especially those marginalized and hurting, those who will never marry as well as those who are married. The Protestant focus has been on marriage (mostly due to Luther and Calvin being disgruntled priests – yeah, I know Calvin wasn’t yet ordained before he left) not due to any sort of careful scriptural study on it. It was all part and parcel of eschewing Catholicism, legalism, and so on. From there, Protestants have built a huge belief around marriage, but if you are really honest with the scriptures, it just isn’t part of the New Testament view of the New Kingdom Christ is ushering in. Marriage is a worldly thing, not an eternal thing. It is temporary and a distraction to the work of the Lord. That is loud and clear throughout the New Testament. Sure, there were married people in the early church, in fact, during the birth of Christianity, almost everyone was married at some point in their life. The church was radical, scary and embraced celibacy. That gave the early church a lot of power. The authorities couldn’t threaten to kill their family, they didn’t have one. So, they had no leverage with the leaders. They could kill them, but they couldn’t stop the movement. What has been lost is just how important celibacy remanned to the church long after Emperor Constantine force-converted the whole Empire and the persecution of Christians stopped. Celibacy was still the marker between “faithful” Christians and everyone else. In fact, the way to have been “evangelical” for the first millennium of Christianity was to be celibate. To the point where women left their families to go join religious orders (Julianne of Norwich, for example). Widows were encouraged to seek celibacy and take orders in France until the late 1500s. Marriage, especially remarriage, was looked at as very worldly.
Val wrote:
The “Full Time Christian Ministry(TM)” of its day.
With the attendant side effect of spiritual one-upmanship.
If you weren’t a Priest, Monk, or Nun your Spiritual State was suspect.
The Medieval church went out-of-balance into celibacy and the Reformers went equally out-of-balance in the other direction. Communism begets Objectivism.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Who is John Calvin?
😉
Josh wrote:
Isn’t he that wee cartoon laddie with the pet tiger called Hobbs?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
LOL Hug!
Yes, but the pre-medievil Church (say 90 AD – 780 AD) wasn’t as one-upmanship focused as the medieval churches with their ‘cult of the virgin’ and idolization of chastity. It was really about leaving the world and seeking a live of servitude. Yes, this later changed and the whole system became very 2 tiered, but it wasn’t originally that way. In E.O., priests were always married (or had to become so).
The celibacy route was to renounce the world of status weddings, the huge focus on family that marriage required of women, and instead minister to the poor, copy scriptures, etc. The early leaders – many women – opened the world’s first hospitals, orphanages, were responsible for copying many of the scriptures – a laborious task pre-printing press- into multiple Ancient languages.
Since families were not ‘nuclear’ in Ancient Rome, taking a vow of celibacy and dedicating your life to God meant you lived with others doing the same thing, this way some could earn income, others could contribute money for land, all could support each other – this was the pre-monastic times.
I agree it later came down to a divide between celibate (more spiritual) and non-celibate (less spiritual), but there was (and is) a huge benefit to being family-less that is lost on Protestantism. That benefit was valued by the Apostle Paul and the early church, it was valued for centuries and centuries afterwards, think about missions, or dedication to a ministry. A person’s focus and energy wouldn’t be divided the way it is when there are kids or a spouse to consider. For example, Mother Theresa did way more with her life than most married people will ever manage, no matter if they are president or royalty.
Evie wrote:
Oh boy. That bothers me. It sounds plausible. I don’t like adult singles being viewed as a group to exploit, rather than as a group the church can minister to.
At many evangelical churches already, adult singles are expected to act as free babysitting services to married Christian couples, cook casseroles and pies, and set up the tables and folding chairs at church events. They are viewed in some churches as “work horses” and not much more.
In evangelical Christianity (and I’d say some other forms too), adult singles are not viewed as each a unique individual each with unique gifts, but sometimes as one big monolithic group to take advantage of.
@ Daisy:
I think the things whereof you spake are also symptomatic of a wider problem in evangelicalism, which is the widespread belief that only church work is The Lord’s Work. So you only go out to work in order to produce a tithe to fund the faction at which you “go to church” (I don’t mean you personally, Daisy, btw!). But what you do during the week isn’t the Lord’s Work; the Lord’s Work consists only of attending church, Biblereading, your Quiet Time, and persuading people to come to church.
This attitude is illustrated by a comment made to me by a Christian friend late last year; he observed that the unemployed are actually in an advantageous position because they have more time free to do “the Lord’s work” (his words).
Dee and Deb – I think Womb Tomb Swanson got us confused. Here is a little blurb I transcribed from his most recent Generations Radio podcast:
But guess what – – – I haven’t done any articles on Gothard. He may have been mentioned in comments, but I have no articles devoted to this current story. He must not be able to keep female bloggers straight. Or else he still has angst against me for going after him about the embedded fetuses nonsense.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
That view is also on display in the “be radical for Jesus” type books and sermons that have been published the last five years, hypocritically by the six figure income, clean cut, living in big homes in the suburbs or ritzy areas, American preachers who tell you unless you are doing something drastic for Jesus (like sell your home, quit your job, go live in a jungle and eat tree bark and tell the natives about the Gospel) then you do not “really” love Jesus, you are not making your life count for God, etc.
They seem to think living a normal, average life is ungodly. They forget about passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4:11
Julie Anne wrote:
(Julie Anne is quoting Womb Tomb Swanson.)
These men are unbelievable. And yet so many believe them.
@ Julie Anne:
Hmmmm. So molestation, and the cover-up thereof, is, according to Swanson, a “crack” in fundamentalism. And those who speak out and support the victims are apostates? Sounds like that scripture about calling good what is evil, and calling evil that which is good.
@ Daisy:
By way of contrast, one of my “heroes of the faith” is Andrew van der Bijl – I believe he now uses his real name, and I assume that is it – who became a missionary in the fairly traditional sense back in the 1950’s. Less traditionally, he worked behind the Iron Curtain supporting the underground churches there; his exploits bringing them copies of the Bible earned him the monicker “God’s Smuggler” (the title of his autobiography). Which, of course, is why he didn’t use his real name..!
In later editions of said book he tells the story of how, after the collapse of communism and the opening up (to a great extent) of the Soviet Union, he happened to attend an event at which he met a senior KGB officer. He offered to give the man a copy, to which the other replied: Thanks, but don’t bother – I’ve read it! Apparently just about everyone in the KGB had. Now there’s an interesting readership.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Excellent!
Julie Anne wrote:
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
(again Julie Anne quoting the lying Womb Tomb Swanson)
First, very good response from BTDT. You put your finger on what really irked me about this quote.
Here we have the lying Womb Tomb Swanson, who fabricates a horrific, traumatizing story to beat the ever living daylights out of innocent women. He stands up behind his pulpit, waving his fist, spouting untruths concerning the biology of women in order to ramrod his bankrupt doctrine down their throats while beating them to emotional bloody pulps.
This man also defends others who hold to his position of keeping women suppressed and traumatized. He does so defending those who make sexual abuse the fault of the victim. And he calls those who are calling out his lies and BJU injustices as dancing on the grave of ‘Biblical’ Christianity.
Yes, he’s calling good evil and evil good. And he is declaring that he, with all his lying and defending of unjust cronies, that HE has some superior understanding of what Christianity is while those doing what the Bible says, (calling out injustice, standing against oppressive lies, coming to the aid of the downtrodden) are dancing on the grave of “Biblical” Christianity.
Sorry. I slept on this last night and woke up more angry than before.
Why?
Because it is obvious to any casual observer that Womb Tomb Swanson wouldn’t know what Biblical Christianity was if it came up and knocked him over with a 15 lbs KJV Bible.
He is in bad need of a prayer and fasting retreat where he can focus some quality time on what the heart of God really is.
Okay, I think I’m done now.
I think.
Daisy wrote:
I think that is the negative side of revivalism. If you have lived your life more or less normally and you don’t have some terrible scandal in your past (not that you are sinless), then you don’t have some dramatic conversion story. So in that sense your faith or at least your story is of less value, or at least less interesting, than the story of someone who had many vices and then had a dramatic conversion experience. If you tell someone from a revivalist background that you don’t remember a time when you didn’t believe in God and your spiritual development has been in fits and starts without a dramatic conversion experience, the revivalist will suspect that you aren’t saved and will be suspicious of you. But if you lived a really horrible life and then had a dramatic conversion experience, then you have a good testimony – you are kind of a trophy.
Pingback: The WARTBURG WATCH 2014 -BILL GOTHARD - Christian Forums
Daisy wrote:
Make that “tell the natives about the Gospel UNTIL THEY THROW YOU IN THE STEWPOT, Ooga Booga.” (Note that the preachers screaming for you to do this or Christ will spew thee out of his mouth all stay in the States in their Furtick Mansions.)
And look at some of the names of these movements: “Acquire the Fire”. “Teen Mania”. Who is More On Fire For The LOORD Than Thou, Can You Top This? Usual result for the “small people” sucked up into this is Burnout, with or without a resulting “Take Your God And Shove It!” reaction.
And they’ve definitely never heard of St Therese of Lisieux and her “Little Way” of experiencing God and finding Holiness in everyday routine. You don’t NEED to end up in a stewpot in Darkest Africa(TM) to be pleasing to Christ. If Christ is truly Universal, He should be able to function in Suburban America as well as the likes of North Korea.
Jacob wrote:
This is another example of “Can You Top This?” bragging rights. And the denigration of anyone who can’t Top This. Encourages lying and exaggerating and fabrication just to keep up with the Real True Christians.
With a distinct undertone of a Respectable Porn Fix for Church Ladies (“JUICY! JUICY! JUICY!”). How else can Respectable Church Ladies vicariously experience all that Groovy Fun Sin that is forbidden except by hearing JUICY testimony — the JUICIER the better!
And in any case, you can’t keep up the peak levels of emotional frenzy forever, especially when you’re being pushed into Can-You-Top-This levels all the time. Not unless you start slashing yourselves with knives like the priests of Baal.
Mara wrote:
Welcome to the Herd, Mara.
You will know you have reached the Point of No Return when you start collecting custom figurines.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I’m not much into collecting.
But I like a good plot and a good story line.
Also, I’ve recently watched a documentary on Bronies that is on Netflix. I really liked it and now am a defender of the movement.
(No, ladies at work, Bronies are nothing like furry fandom. Don’t jump to creepy conclusions.)
My daughter also watched that documentary with me and she liked it as well. And I’m sure she’s also a smalltime Brony defender.
Mara wrote:
And as a Brony who was also in on the origins of Furry Fandom (at least when it coalesced into a separate fandom), I used to field questions about Brony distrust of Furries, about how Furries would turn MLP into another Furry Fandom.
My answer was there are two factors in Bronydom that were not in early Furry Fandom:
1) MLP:FIM gives a canonical baseline for Ponydom with its Magical Land of Equestria. Furry Fandom had no such baseline; everything was OCs (Original Characters) and original backgrounds. MLP has Canon.
2) Early Furry Fandom had a couple very dominant personalities, and they (with an influx of early Net/MUCKers) pretty much shaped the fandom in their own image and indulged what floated their boats. There are NO similar one-guy-dominates situation in Bronydom; the closest are the “gatekeepers” at the Equestria Daily website/blog, and they act more like a general clearinghouse of information and news.
3) That’s to say Bronydom doesn’t have its problems; there are such things as “clop” (pony porn) and “GrimDark” in the creative output, but they do not dominate the whole (as their equivalents ended up doing in Furry Fandom, again because of the couple dominant personalities in Furry’s early days). But Bronies are much more sinned against than actively sinning.
My own involvement? As far back as I can remember, I’ve always had a soft spot for talking-animal stories, “people in a different (and exotic) wrapper”, uplifting and Transcending the Animal. And this incarnation of that (MLP:FIM) has spawned a greater fan creative output (fiction, comics, original music, art, animation, costuming, you name it) than I can ever remember from Star Trek and Star Wars fandoms.
Please continue to pray for the workers at Recovering Grace. Their work has gotten a bit of traction. Hopefully the IBLP Board will not allow B.G. to evade accountability like he did in the 1980 scandal.
http://www.worldmag.com/2014/02/bill_gothard_placed_on_administrative_leave
There is an even better article about Gothard’s “Administrative Leave” posted on Religion News Service, has a short interview with one of his victims that Recovering Grace featured.
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/02/28/conservative-leader-bill-gothard-placed-administrative-leave-following-abuse-allegations/
Please pray for all involved, that Justice will prevail.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I think that when I watched that documentary on Bronies, what I was taken with was how it helped those (one in particular) who are not particularly good at social situation get out and socialize in a less threatening atmosphere than raw real life (which can be pretty raw and treacherous).
As one who has worked with those sorts, I see the value of telling the human story by means of another vehicle, like talking animals.
After all, Aesop got a lot of mileage out of it.
Sad wrote:
Yes, this is a good time to ask, as Jeri from Heresyintheheartland is doing, who exactly is the board of IBLP.
http://heresyintheheartland.blogspot.com/2014/02/who-is-institute-in-basic-life.html
Credit goes to Julie Anne for tweeting this link: http://tinyurl.com/l2t3fpd
Gothard wasn’t my particular poison, but I can so relate to what this writer says.
“Pray for us.
Pray for the women who trusted when they were most vulnerable, only to be betrayed.
Pray for the ones who are still trapped. Brainwashing is a real thing. Brainwashing is what makes you say “I’m free” when you know somewhere in your heart that you’re not. Brainwashing is what makes you silence that voice gasping for air, and listen instead to the ones that say “Do more, be more, try harder.”
Pray for those who gave their whole lives to a ministry built on sand. You can’t walk away from that unharmed.
Pray for the ones who have decades of truth and lies mixed together to sort through. There’s no easy way to do that. Even the Bible doesn’t help when you’ve been conditioned to read the Bible twisted, when you know all the right answers and they’re all wrong.”
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Matthew 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (also found in Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2)
Yes, pray for those women.
Also make sure you aren’t standing to close to the men who used, abuse, manipulated, lied to, and betrayed these women whenever God starts coming around to call them into account. These men are clueless of the judgement that they are under.
Woman blaming and victim blaming, for those who haven’t seen it yet.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2014/03/quoting-quiverfull-alleged-sexual-abuse-is-the-mothers-fault/
Also for those who haven’t seen it, Recovering Grace’s Gothard’s MO:
http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/gothards-process/
Mara wrote:
Nathaniel Darnell’s article is just vomit inducing (note that he is a former Vision Forum Ministries employee). But the comments on NLQ are priceless.
@ Mara:
I read that last night and wanted to scream!
Bridget wrote:
……………..
Same reaction here as I read it.
Never blame an adult male for their own sinful behavior. Nope……..must be those uncovered women and their uncovered daughters. And by golly, if one of you gals ges yourself smacked or your daughters are sexually assaulted, don’t go reporting it unless you have two or three witnesses to confirm it……(insert scream)
Where is the love of God and his love of the maimed and wounded in these people’s theology?
Mara wrote:
That is one of the sickest things I’ve read in a long time. Under what perverted view is that Christian?
A MUCH better read.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2014/03/bill-gothard-his-umbrella-of-protection.html?utm_content=buffer32a9e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
JeffT wrote:
This one.
RULE #1: The HEAD* is always correct.
RULE #2: When the HEAD* is wrong, refer to RULE #1.
(*HEAD usually refers to heads of households and heads of churches. But it most especially refers to heads of great and powerful ministers like Gothard, Phillips, BJU presidents, etc. When dealing with these HEADS, even heads of households and churches are wrong in order for the great and powerful HEADS to always remain right.)
@ Bridget:
@ Lin:
Yep, sick, scream worthy crappola.
Moderation, boom, boom.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Excellent piece by Wade. He is a voice of Christian sanity crying out in the evangelical wilderness.
Pingback: at least | the unspared rod
@ Lin:
I think you are legalistic and more over spiritually unsound. all abuses regardless of what position in the church needs to be reported to the proper authorities. the lord uses the legal system to deal with offenders. we are to be blameless without spot or wrinkle.
Curtis L Nelson wrote:
Perhaps you misunderstood Lin. She is quoting from a number of pastors who believe that abuse needs to have 2or 3 witnesses before it is reported. She,along with me, finds that ridiculous.
dee wrote:
Which is one of the ridiculous and dangerous loads of male bovine excrement offered up as ecclesiology in church history. In short, get someone alone and you can do whatever you want to them without fear of being held to account for it. What if our justice system operated on this principle? And funny this “rule” is only trotted out when the accused are those in authority in the church.
@ Curtis L Nelson:
Hi,Curtis. Be assured tbwf Lin was being sarcastic! From interaction with him/her on this blog, I know s/he would call the police right off.
Curtis L Nelson wrote:
………….
Curtis, apparently I did not express my thoughts clearly. I believe all abuse is to be reported to the authorities, just as in any other crime that is committed.
If my car was stolen out of a parking lot but no second witness saw it go, I am still going file a report. Unfortunately many a pastor would report their stolen car (without a second witness) but make up some bogus excuse that assault needs two or three witnesses. Makes me disgusted they think this way.
Bridget wrote:
……….
Thank you….I would for sure. (And actually did call the police in on a mother who nearly killed her child many years ago.)
With regard to the two witnesses teaching, I could be wrong but think it can be found mainly within the theonomy movement. It is preposterous, for the reasons mentioned, e.g. a man could get a woman alone and rape or abuse her — and many child mollestation cases occur in the home, in the dark, behind closed doors. Christian Reconstructionism may not have a monopoly on this teaching, but it is interesting to observe how it is used, selectively, often as in the case of wife spanking in Christian patriarchy to shut down any inquiry into evidence that may exist about abuse. Interesting too that with regard to the death penalty, theonomists often disagree on the particulars of how the two witnesses teaching would work. Some believe that the two witnesses could be two experts who testify about a forensic issue, such as DNA, while others do not, and the question of how the death penalty would be implemented in a society ruled by God’s law are legion. There may be someone here more knowledgeable about the uses of the two witnesses teaching than I, but by way of observation I agree with the previous poster that it is often resorted to in abuse cases where pastors and churches refuse to confront the issue, and resorted to selectively at that.
One comment not approved.