A guest post by Laura

Originally posted on Homeschoolers’ Anonymous

The 14 years I spent as a student in Bill Gothard’s ATI taught me many valuable lessons for my life. Here are some of the highlights:

* Parents are always right.

* Men are always right. Therefore, your father is double-right.

* Getting out from under the “umbrella of authority” means you will have many problems, including being raped. (Not sure what the warning is for boys who get out from under their umbrellas. I’m a girl so always heard the rape thing.) The fiery darts of Satan will have nothing to stop them from hitting you. We all know that an umbrella is the best possible analogy because their thin, flammable fabric is the perfect substance with which to stop fiery darts.

* If your umbrella – dad or husband – has holes, then Satan will get you unless you pray really hard that they’ll patch up their holes. If you don’t, you’ll probably get raped.

* Family is everything. Except when young people go to a Training Center or Headquarters. Then it’s okay to not be together as a family unit. Or when young people go to Apprenticeship Sessions at Knoxville and make binding vows that their parents know nothing about. That’s okay. You do not need to seek your father’s permission to make such vows that will control what you do the rest of your life. Your father’s permission is implied because he sent you to this Apprenticeship Session.

* Young people, given the option, will always choose the wrong spouse. Therefore, their parents – most of whom chose their own spouse – will choose or at least approve their spouse for them.

* If you date, you’ll have all sorts of problems and can never have a happy marriage. Dating is practice for divorce. Courtship is practice for marriage. If your parents dated and have a happy marriage anyway, it doesn’t matter – dating is still bad and you will get divorced if you date.

* You should court (aka “let your parents pick or approve your spouse”) so you don’t get divorced.

* Talking to a boy is dating him. Especially if either of you have romantic thoughts about the other one. To be on the safe side, it’s best never to talk with young men. (At some Training Centers, talking with a person of the opposite sex for longer than a few seconds, unless it was obviously work-related, was grounds for discipline and/or being sent home.)

* Even thinking about a boy is probably dating him. You should immediately confess any such stray thoughts to your father, ask his forgiveness, and make yourself accountable to him lest you be tempted to have any more thoughts about boys

* If it happens that the boy you are thinking about has already asked your father for your hand, or does so in the future, you will not be informed of this until your father deems it the appropriate time. This means you could spend years fighting attraction to the man you will eventually marry, but it’s still a sin to think these thoughts.

* If you marry the “wrong person,” then after you’re married they become the “right person,” aka God’s new will for your life. You’re stuck. Deal with it. You shouldn’t have dated him anyway, or married him without your parents’ permission. We know you either dated or married without parental blessing or both, because duh, you married the “wrong person” and you would never have done that if you’d courted and gotten your parents’ blessing!

* If your parents lead you to marry a guy who’s in the Mafia (yes, this example is in the Basic Seminar, or maybe the Advanced Seminar… it’s been a few years since I watched either of them) then you need to be submissive anyway. Because your parents chose him for you, God will bless your marriage even though he’s in organized crime and likes to beat you when he gets home. You still can’t divorce him.

* Not only should you NEVER EVER EVER marry someone who’s divorced, but you probably shouldn’t marry the *child* of divorced parents.

* The sins of the fathers will be passed down to the children unless a very specific prayer is prayed over said children. We are very blessed to live in a time when we have Bill Gothard to teach us such things. Thousands of years’ worth of Christians simply had to fight inherited sins on their own, without Mr. Gothard to show them the RIGHT way to overcome such things!

* Adoption is bad. You don’t know what “sins of the fathers” are being introduced into your home.

* Birth control is bad. God will give you as many children as you deserve. Susanna Wesley was a favorite example – she had 19 children although less than half of them survived infancy.

* If you can’t have children, then something must be wrong in your life. Clearly God gives many children to those whom he favors. He really loves Mrs. McKim. (Now I’m showing my age… these days it would be Mrs. Duggar!)

* Only have sex between days 15 and 28 of the wife’s menstrual cycle. Days 8-14 are maybe okay, but if you’re trying to be ultra-Godly, or get pregnant, wait until day 15. You want the “seed” as strong as possible.

* It’s not awkward to talk about periods and sex in mixed company when single “fellas” and single “girls” are present in the room, as long as it’s in the Advanced Seminar. Plus, we use terms like “relations” and “monthly cycle” instead of “sex” and “periods,” so we’ll all just pretend we don’t know what we’re talking about so it’s less awkward.

* Tampons will kill you. Toxic shock syndrome and all that. They’re bad. Follow God’s design for your monthly cycle and wear pads.

* Rock music is bad. It will kill your plants and cause you to be demon-possessed. It will also cause you to drink, take drugs, have sex with anyone and everyone, wear jeans, and generally rebel against everything Godly. Rock music with Christian words is even worse.

* If your family visits a restaurant or store that is playing ungodly music, you must ask the server or store employee to turn the music off. If they refuse, then the most Godly thing would be to leave the premises immediately so that your family is not harmed by the ungodly music. Plus, you’ll be a testimony of God’s principles.

* The only okay music is hymns. Classical music is okay as long as it doesn’t have a back beat. But if you’re really Godly, you’ll listen to hymns. Preferably played on a harp. The harp is the most Godly of instruments. After all, David used it to charm the demon out of King Saul. Until King Saul threw a javelin at him. Twice. During harp music.Somehow that part never got talked about when I was in ATI. Forget that. Just listen to harp music anyway.

* Cabbage Patch Kid dolls will cause you to be demon-possessed. They will also cause your mom to have her labor stall, until the doll is found & burned, at which moment, labor will resume and the baby will be born within minutes. (Another anecdote, told in the Basic Seminar I believe.)

* To be on the safe side, better not have My Little Pony, Care Bears, troll dolls, and definitely no souvenirs from Africa such as masks or figurines. You will be demon-possessed. They must be burned. Simply throwing them away is not good enough to break the demon’s power over you. It doesn’t matter if such toys are your child’s favorite toy(s), they must be burned anyway.

* Denim is bad. It’s a sign of rebellion. Even boys should wear Dockers, etc., not denim jeans.

* T-shirts are bad. They’re a sign of rebellion. Only collared shirts are allowed. Therefore, a polo shirt is acceptable attire for “fellas” or girls. A t-shirt is not. (How a girl wearing a polo shirt is not “wearing that which pertaineth to a man,” I don’t know. I never heard that addressed.)

* If you are going to rebel and wear a t-shirt, don’t ever wear one with words or a design on the front. Girls, don’t you know what when a man’s eyes are reading the words or looking at the picture, they’re really checking out your body? You’re going to get raped if you encourage men to read your chest – I mean, shirt – instead of focusing on your bright, Godly countenance.

* Beards are bad. They’re signs of rebellion. (During the 1980′s and part of the 1990′s, if the dad had facial hair, the family would not be allowed to join ATIA/ATI.)

* Men must have short hair that is obviously masculine in style. The best hairstyle for a “fella” causes you to look like your photo – complete with a navy suit – could fit right in to a high school yearbook from the 1950′s.

* Women should have long hair, with gentle curls. If God made your hair straight, then you must curl it. If God made your hair ultra-curly, then you must straighten it. Blonde is the best color. The Principle of Design (accepting your body as God made it) is suspended for hair. Mr. Gothard dyes his hair so apparently hair dye doesn’t violate the 10 Unchangeables regarding physical features or aging.

* Pants or jeans or shorts on women are so bad that I can’t even begin to stress how important this is. Men will lust after your body. You will get raped. (Girls can’t wear pants because they pertaineth to a man, even though men in Bible times wore “dresses” or robes. That was okay, though, because their robes were distinctly masculine in style, so it was still easy to tell at a distance if you were looking at a man or a woman. But pants are never okay on women because they’re too much like men’s garments so you can’t tell from a distance if it’s a man or a woman.)

* Hosiery should be skin-toned and should never have a pattern woven into it. This is an eye trap, and will draw rapists’ – I mean, men’s – eyes from your bright and shining coutenance down to your legs. He will be so busy looking at your patterned hosiery that he may very well rape you without even realizing what he’s doing, and it won’t be his fault, because you were the one wearing the eyetrap.

* The most modest attire for a woman is a navy skirt, a white blouse, and a navy neckbow. Or in later years and/or if you or a close friend have been to Russia, you may wear a black painted Russian pin at your neckline, as the ATI version of a status symbol. (Just don’t let it rain while you’re wearing your modest white blouse, or it becomes… um… less modest and more see-through… maybe *that* is why were were always supposed to be under an umbrella… and Heaven help the full-chested girl whose blouse kept wanting to gap or pop buttons in the wrong place…!)

* You must vow (not promise, but VOW) to never go to a movie theater. Bill Gothard made such a vow when he was a young man, and look how wonderful his life has been! Therefore, you MUST make this same vow.

* You should also commit to fasting regularly, at least on Sundays. Bill Gothard made such a vow when he was a young man, and look how wonderful his life has been! Therefore, you MUST make this same vow.

* You must also vow to read your Bible every day for the rest of your life. At least 5 minutes a day. Bill Gothard made such a vow when he was a young man, and look how wonderful his life has been! Therefore, you MUST make this same vow.

* You must also memorize Scripture. Preferaby by the chapter. Or the book. The most Godly of Godly people memorize the whole New Testament, *and* Psalms, *and* Proverbs. But at least start on Matthew 5, 6, & 7. And Romans 6, 7, 8, & 12. And James 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5. If you memorize random scattered verses, you aren’t Godly enough.

* Simply reading the Bible isn’t enough. You must also *meditate* on Scripture. If you meditate on Scripture, then you will get good grades in school. You will breeze through college. Bill Gothard made such a vow when he was a young man, and look how wonderful his life has been! Therefore, you MUST make this same vow.

* Public school is bad. Christian school is almost as bad as public school.Homeschooling is good. Bill Gothard attended public school, and look how… oh, wait, never mind.

* Sunday School is bad. Children’s Institutes are good. Groups of peers are bad. Young people must spend time in groups of all ages. If you insist on attending Sunday School at your church, then you should attend a class as a family, because then your children won’t be tempted to make friends with people their own age.

* Character is the most important thing in life. Education doesn’t matter – just have character. Just have good character and employers will hunt you down and beg you to come work for them. Unless you’re a girl. In which case you’d better not work for anyone but Bill Gothard or your dad, or you will have sex with a co-worker or boss. Or get raped.

* College is bad. Public school is bad. Christian school is bad. Normal homeschooling is okay but less Godly than enrolling in ATI. If a girl goes to college, she’ll almost certainly get raped. Boys who go to college will be taught about how great Satan is. After all, Bill Gothard went to college, and look how… oh, wait. Never mind again.

* The most Godly homes have Scripture posted on the walls. Generic pictures of landscapes or portraits of people were never forbidden, but if you’re *really* Godly, you’ll have Scripture on your walls. Or CharacterFirst! posters.

* It’s okay to teach in public schools, but only if you are teaching the CharacterFirst! materials. Otherwise you should avoid any and all contact with the public schooled, sex-crazed, denim-wearing, rock-music-listening, rebellious youths of the world.

* TV is bad. Horribly, horribly bad.

* The Interent is bad. But since so many of you insist on having it in your home, you should buy protection from CharacterLink. It will cost you a bunch of money every month, and won’t let you see half of the perfectly-legitimate sites you want to visit, but you must spend the money on it anyway. Especially if you have men or boys in the home. Men or boys who are allowed to touch a computer without CharacterLink installed on it will become addicted to porn and will probably become rapists. (Bet this one’s really hard to enforce nowadays, since CharacterLink is no longer owned by ATI, and iPods and iPhones and iPads and their cousins would be incredibly hard to control. I suppose ATI kids these days aren’t allowed access to such technology.)

* If you are visiting friends or relatives who turn on a TV or a computer or do anything else that goes against your Scriptural convictions, including the ones for which you have no Scriptural basis, you must stand alone. You must say, “I’ve given my life to Jesus and I can’t do that.” Sleepovers are probably not a good idea because it’s almost certain that someone will do something to offend you, at which time you must stand alone, and probably call your parents to come pick you up from said sleepover. (A sleepover where the mom decided to hold a seance was the example given. As a mother, I don’t send my children to sleepovers unless I know the parents well enough to trust my child to their care. However, in the example, the parents who sent the child there were never criticized. Rather, the child was praised for refusing to participate in a seance.)

* Whole wheat bread is the answer to all of the world’s health and nutritional needs. It only counts if the wheat was ground *that morning,* the bread was made *that day,* and you eat it *that day.* After all, “give us this day our daily bread” definitely does NOT refer to bread purchased at the grocery store, or even made the day before. White flour will kill you. Whole wheat flour will save your life. Eat lots of whole wheat bread every day. (We have to assume that Celiac Disease and gluten intolerance are the figments of evil people’s imaginations. We’ll never know, since Celiac & gluten intolerance were unheard-of back then. I suppose that if those people were eating whole wheat bread, then they wouldn’t have Celiac Disease. ‘Cause whole wheat bread is the answer to all of the world’s health and nutritional needs.)

* A desire for white bread was a major factor in beginning the French Revolution.

* You’ll know you’re getting enough fiber when your, um, bathroom business floats. (During that Wisdom Booklet and for a time thereafter, our family announced our results to each other after leaving the bathroom.)

* Don’t eat pork. Ever. It’s bad.

* Don’t eat dairy and meat together. It’s bad. No more cheeseburgers, ever. Or milkshakes with a burger. But sometimes we’ll order pizza at our Training Centers, with pepperoni toppings. That’s okay.

* Don’t chew gum. It’s a sign of rebellion since that’s what rebellious teen-agers do.

* Games are a waste of time. Unless it’s Character Clues or Commands of Christ.

* You should avoid any game that teaches you about demons or hell. Except Commands of Christ. Its picture of hell is okay.

* Dungeons and Dragons is a game that must be avoided at all costs. It will cause you to be demon-possessed.

* Folly of any kind is a waste of time and damages your testimony. Avoid all practical jokes. Avoid loud laughter. Your time would be more productively spent reading your Bible, memorizing character qualities, or fasting and praying.

* If you memorize all 49 character quality definitions, including the ones that are so similar that no one but Bill Gothard can differentiate them, then you will not only have such great character that you don’t need college to be successful in life, but you will also beat everyone else in Character Clues. Every time. Just don’t be proud of that fact, or you obviously don’t have Humility. Since very character quality has a Bible verse reference on its card, you know they came straight from the Bible.

* There are seven non-optional principles of life. Aren’t we lucky – oops, can’t say “lucky” – fortunate – no, can’t say that either – BLESSED to live in this time of history when Bill Gothard has figured out what these seven non-optional principles are? We are so much better off than people like the Apostle Paul, becuase he didn’t have Bill Gothard to help him know how to live.

* If you reject the way God made you – any of the 10 Unchangeables – then you will be bitter and have a horrible life. (“Principle of Design”)

* If you get out from under your umbrella of authority, the boogeyman will get you and you will be either demon-possessed, raped, or both. (“Principle of Authority”)

* If you don’t meditate on Scripture, your life will be mediocre at best. (“Principle of Success”)

* If you zone out during most of the Basic Seminar and fifteen years later can only remember three of the seven non-optional principles of life, then you are surely doomed!!

* Bitterness is the root problem in this world. You need to learn how to draw little checkerboard diagrams with castles, so you can remove the strongholds of bitterness that Satan has in your life, and so that you can then teach other people how to clear their checkboard souls of Satan’s castles.

* If I, as a 12-year-old student, followed these principles in my life, then not only was I qualified to teach adults how to solve their marriage and financial and business problems, but the leaders of Russia would practically fall on their faces to worship me as a Godly young lady attired in modest navy and white with a navy neckbow. Or I might even be given a walkie-talkie to carry around at Knoxville!

* “Bright eyes” are the ultimate expression of one’s spirituality. One can accurately gauge the depths of another person’s commitment to Christ by looking at their eyes. If their eyes are “dark,” then they clearly listen to rock music and therefore have given all sorts of ground to Satan and have strongholds all over their checkerboard soul. (Note: native Russian speakers have since clarified that “bright eyes” is the translation of a Russian idiom meaning that a person is happy. It has much more to do with one’s emotional state than with one’s spiritual state.)

* If someone compliments you on anything, from having “bright eyes” to playing the violin in church, you must deflect the praise. The best praise-deflectors can turn every compliment into an opportunity to thank God (for the musical talent), but of course one must also praise one’s parents (for paying for the violin lessons) and one’s teacher (for teaching so skillfully and diligently). No compliment is ever to be answered with a simple “Thank you.” That would be prideful.

* If you’re enrolled in ATI and have learned all of these Godly principles, then you don’t really need to go to church. The only reason you would go to church is to minister to others. Or be a testimony to them. Since you can’t subject your family to the evils of rock music, if your church has compromised to the point of allowing such music, you must either stand up and leave as soon as a rock beat starts, or if this is a regular occurrence, you must time your arrival at church to coincide with the end of the song service so that your family will not be exposed to the evil rock beat. If a rock beat is used during the invitation time as well, then you must leave at the end of the sermon. Because a large, floral-jumper- or navy-suit-clad family parading in and out of church to avoid the back beat is a definite testimony of God’s principles at work in your life.

* When you are in church, you don’t really need to listen to the sermon, because you know all of these non-optional principles, therefore you are wise – wiser than your teachers, which includes the pastor of your church. Anything your pastor or anyone else says that is in opposition to the teachings of IBLP/ATI is clearly wrong. If possible, such a preacher or teacher should be lovingly confronted with the truth, as taught in the big red textbooks and/or Wisdom Booklets. (Presumably one never becomes wiser than their primary teachers, their parents. Because parents are always right.)

* If you are persecuted for your Godly testimony or standards and/or for shoving such testimony or standards down other people’s throats, rejoice! And be exceeding glad! For great is your reward in Heaven.

WORLD magazine has just reported that the IBPL board of directors has placed Bill Gothard on “administrative leave.” According to WORLD, the board of directors is now investigating the allegations of sexual harassment and worse, which I reported on several weeks ago.

Only time will tell where things go from here. I sincerely hope the IBLP board of directors will take the allegations seriously and that Bill Gothard’s culture of leader worship will be broken. There is part of me, though, that worries that the board of directors will quickly and haphazardly deem the allegations false and reinstate him. After all, it’s not as though the board of directors hasn’t known of these concerns for quite some time.

Yesterday Bill Gothard resigned from the Institute for Basic Life Principles. As my regular readers know, Gothard has been under increased scrutiny due to accusations that he has sexually molested girls and young women for decades.

More on this development from Ryan Stollar of Homeschoolers Anonymous:

Last month the IBLP board placed Gothard on administrative leave. . . . There are rumors that David Gibbs, Jr. — the former president of ACE who was the longtime attorney for convicted child abuser Jack Schaap‘s church, First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana — was hired by the IBLP board to spearhead the investigation.

Today, however, David Waller — the Administrative Director of the Advanced Training Institute (ATI) — sent out an email to families involved with ATI and announced that Bill Gothard has resigned from the Institute in Basic Life Principles and all its affiliated organizations. . . .

Waller did not state if Gothard planned to return to leadership at some point. He did say, however, that IBLP and ATI will continue as is. Their upcoming conferences in Big Sandy, Nashville, and Sacramento will be held as planned. The organization also “expects to appoint interim leadership for IBLP in the very near future.” . . .

You can view David Waller’s email in its entirety as a PDF here.

How the mighty fall. First, Doug Phillips, and now Bill Gothard, both within six months. This is huge. I do have some concerns, though. I worry that these leaders may fall while their ideology does not. Yes, Bill Gothard was a problem, a big problem, but the underlying problem is actually what he taught. I worry that these individual leaders will receive all of the blame while their ideologies are allowed to evade scrutiny.

The Institute for Basic Life Principles and the Advanced Training Institute will go on, and homeschooled children will continue to be raised on the same teachings Gothard promoted. To illustrate why this is a problem, let me offer up IBLP’s guidelines for counseling victims of sexual abuse (trigger warning for abuse victims):

I can’t even begin to say how toxic this is. Okay fine, I can.

The message here is that while the perpetrator damages the body, the body is unimportant compared to the spirit, and the victim damages her spirit with bitterness and guilt. In other words, it is the victim actually damages herself far above the way the perpetrator damages her. Toxic does not even begin to describe this.

We also learn that God allows people to be sexual abused as a result of immodesty, association with evil friends, or being out from under their parents’ protection. And these are the only reasons listed. I am almost left speechless. What if someone is sexually abused by their parent? Is a child who is sexually abused to be blamed for immodest dress? The handout then calls on abuse victims to confess this guilt to God and ask for forgiveness. 

And then there is the call for victims to forgive their abusers and either turn their abusers over to God for judgement or else ask God to forgive their abusers. Earlier there was a mention of reporting abuse, with reference to Deuteronomy 22:22-24. So I looked the passage up. Here you go:

If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Yes, really. This is the passage sexual abuse victims should read? Really?

And yet IBPL and ATI will continue with business as usual, teaching these same toxic messages. I think you get my point here. Bill Gothard is only part of the problem. Business as usually is the real root of the problem. Business as usual is what allowed Bill Gothard to do what he did and get away with what he did. Business as usual needs to change. 

Yesterday Bill Gothard released a statement. Just as notable as what he refused to admit to is what he did admit to. Here is the relevant paragraph:

This emphasis on outward appearance was also manifested by bringing selected young people to serve at the Headquarters and causing others to feel rejected and offended by my favoritism. My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust. Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.

Several women have gone on record saying that Gothard kissed them or fingered them while they were working at Headquarters as teens. But the most consistent accusation across the testimony of at least several dozen women is that Gothard played footsie with them, spent long periods of time holding their hands, and touched their hair—all of which Gothard has now publicly admitted to. And if you ask me, that Gothard would feel so backed against the wall as to admit to these things rather than continuing to deny them rather confirms the the reliability of these women’s stories in general.

But why, you ask, would I assume that Gothard isn’t being honest here? Could it not be possible that the women who have accused Gothard of kissing or fingering them were making that part up to sensationalize their stories? My regular readers are unlikely to believe Gothard’s denial for the same reasons I am—Gothard has been finding ways to get away with his predatory behavior for over three decades, and that makes him therefore more than a little bit untrustworthy. But some in Gothard’s camp may be predisposed to believe that he is now being truthful.

Except.

Does Gothard honestly expect anyone to believe that a 50 or 60-year-old man could play footsie with a 16-year-old girl, hold and stroke her hands for long periods of time, caress her hair, etc., all without any “sexual intent”? Especially a 50 or 60-year-old man who leads a religious empire and teaches his followers that couples should not touch or have physical contact before marriage? Why in the world, if not with “sexual intent,” would Gothard touch these girls like this, violating not only his own rules but also the girls’ consent and their parents’ trust?

Honestly, Gothard’s claim that he never “touched a girl . . . with sexual intent” sounds rather like Clinton’s wrangling about the definition of “sexual relations.” He’s lawyering, and transparently so. He’s not being completely honest, complete transparent. He’s still making excuses and trying to wheedle out of what he did. He’s still trying to find the least offensive crime to confess to so that he can get out of responsibility for the whole that happened.

Those who claimed—and yes, I read their comments—that this whole scandal was manufactured and that Gothard was innocent and the women were making up their stories can cut their excuses, because that ship has sailed.

Bill Gothard has now admitted that he held hands with teenage girls in his employ, touched their feet, and caressed their hair, but he claims that none of that was sexual. I grew up in the same cohort and culture as these girls. As such, I think I need to share a bit more of my own story, because it sheds light on the significance of physical touch within purity culture. I haven’t shared these things because they’re quite personal and a bit embarrassing, but duty calls, so here goes.

I remember very clearly the first time I became sexually aroused.

It was the first time Sean held my hand. I was in college at the time, and Sean and I had just started dating (though at the time we called it courting). When he took my hand that very first time, something happened to my body. I became wet in strange places and had tingling feelings coursing through me. I wasn’t even having sexual thoughts—my body’s response was purely physical and automatic. Because of my complete lack of sex education, I had absolutely no idea what was happening. What I did know was that all of this had been trigged by Sean taking my hand.

Did I mention that we were both wearing winter gloves at the time? It was bitter cold and the dead of winter, and we were on a walk outside through snow drifts across campus. We weren’t even actually touching, skin to skin, and yet—and yet.

Sean was my first date, first boyfriend, first everything. I had never so much as touched a guy my own age before. No kiss, no cuddle, nothing. You have to understand that physical contact between unmarried individuals of opposite genders was thoroughly forbidden and taboo in the purity culture of my evangelical homeschool upbringing. In fact, at Gothard’s headquarters, teens were expelled for as much as looking at each other for too long. When that is your reality, even the slightest touch becomes sexual.

Because of these purity teachings, Sean and I did not have our first kiss until a full six months after we started dating. I had originally been planning to save my first kiss for the alter, but thankfully changed my mind. During those first six months, the only physical contact Sean and I had was holding hands and side hugs. Sometimes Sean and I would sit on a couch, side by side, close enough to touch. Sean would put his arm around my shoulders.

Every simple touch evoked a physical response in my body. During the hand holding, the side hugs, the sitting side by side, my body would become sexually aroused just as I had when Sean first took my hand. I turned to google to learn more about what was happening to my body. When Sean found out that all it took to turn me on was a simple touch, he would boast jokingly of his sexual prowess, or tell me I was clearly a future sex goddess. I would smile and laugh at him in turn, but I had no way of knowing whether what I was experiencing would be my longterm norm or whether it was some sort of aberration.

Today, I no longer become sexually aroused at the simplest physical touch. I can sit side by side on a couch with Sean without becoming wet and physically aroused. I’ve been married to Sean for half a decade now, and my body has become accustomed to being in a regular physical relationship. Sometimes Sean speaks wistfully of the days when he could make me sexually aroused with a simple touch, but I think he’s still relieved I finally let him kiss me.

That is how incredibly significant physical touch can be to those in the purity culture. Touch between unmarried individuals of opposite genders is not only forbidden but also, as a result, thoroughly sexualized. That Gothard, coming from that culture, could claim that he touched those girls’ hands, feet, and hair in this way, alone with them in his office and for hours at a time, but that it wasn’t sexual—that is utterly beyond me.

I can only hope no one will fall for Gothard’s rationalizations.

As a quick note for regular readers who may remember what I’ve written before on experiencing sexual dysfunction, the weirdest part of all of this was that this physical response of my body was not accompanied by sexual fantasies. In other words, my body responded to simple touch by becoming aroused, but my mind did not accompany this physical response with sexual thoughts. This became a problem when Sean and I eventually began to have sex, because it affected my ability to orgasm. As a result of my upbringing, I was somehow both oversexualized and undersexualized at the same time. 

My family never attended one of Bill Gothard’s seminars, and we didn’t use Gothard’s curriculum. We children were, instead, raised on the outskirts of Gothardism. We knew people who were followers of Bill Gothard, and we imbibed a few of his teachings (umbrella of authority, anyone?), but that was the extent of it. As things began to snowball over the past months and Gothard was exposed as a sexual predator and ultimately relieved of his leadership position, I wanted to learn more about what Gothard actually taught, in his own words. So I purchased Gothard’s “Advanced Seminar Textbook,” which was published in 1986 and can be found used on Amazon. I’m not going to blog through it page by page, but I do plan to write some posts on various sections. Today I offer my first of these posts.

In his textbook, Gothard covers his rules for periodic abstinence during marriage, which centers on a woman’s menstrual cycle (pages 175—185). Of all of Gothard’s teachings, this may be the one I’m most unfamiliar with, as it is foreign to anything taught in the evangelical church my family attended. In this post, I will cover the first pages of this section and then finish with a letter Gothard received from a follower.

To start out, here are the rules Gothard lays out as “God’s laws on abstinence”:

What Are God’s Guidelines for Times of Abstinence? 

1. During the menstrual cycle—Ezekiel 18:5-6
2. Seven days after the menstrual cycle—Leviticus 15:28
3. 40 days after the birth of a son—Leviticus 12:2-4
4. 80 days after the birth of a daughter—Leviticus 12:5

Gothard’s critics tend to do two things: they call him a “legalist” and argue that his teachings in this area come from the Old Testament and are therefore invalid, as the Old Testament is superseded by the New Testament. Here, on the first page of this section, Gothard directly counters both of these arguments.

First, Gothard urges his readers to “distinguish between legalism and godly living” and states that: “(1) Legalism is trying to earn salvation; (2) Legalism is trying to live the Christian life with the energy of the soul; and (3) Legalism is following ‘the letter,’ not ‘the spirit.’” Gothard uses Bible verses to back all of this up, focusing especially on II Corinthians 3:6. Gothard argues that he is not teaching legalism but rather godly living.

Second, Gothard pulls up each time the New Testament references “uncleanness” and uses that to claim that the Old Testament teachings regarding a woman’s menstrual uncleanness is still valid. This is a fascinating attempt, but it does not actually work, as it’s pretty clear he’s proof texting and he comes across as being unaware that the New Testament was written in a different language from the Old Testament. Still, that he at least tried is fascinating.

Now I want to turn to the first of the “Benefits of Abstinence” Gothard lays out.

1. It builds self-control.

When sex drives are misused, they become self-consuming and can never be satisfied. Burned-out lusts call for new forms of perversion, which become even greater tyrants of unfulfillment.

Okay, so here’s the thing. If I’m overeating and I know I’m overeating, and it’s making me feel unhealthy, I can fix that by moderating what I eat. I don’t need to spend time fasting to do that. In fact, fasting in order to lose weight can easily lead to binge eating when the fast is over. I guess what I’m saying is that there are better ways to foster a healthy and balanced sex life than abstaining and then (presumably) binging.

But what’s actually going on here becomes more clear with the letter Gothard prints from one of his followers, and it’s not pretty.

How a Commitment to Abstinence Transformed a Marriage

I am writing to report what has happened in our marriage since our decision to follow God’s guidelines for abstinence. To be honest, I was waiting to see if the changes in our lives were short-lived or permanent. Now after a third of a year and five menstrual cycles, I am encouraged that our decision was correct, Biblically-based, and that the Lord is blessing our marriage more than ever before.

Let me start at the beginning. Our dating relationship was based on the physical, not on the spiritual. It ended in pregnancy and then marriage. She was sixteen, I was twenty.

Depending on the state, this might not have been legal.

After we married, our sex life became a shambles. My physical drives were impossible for her to satisfy, and even with a daily physical relationship, I became involved in pornography and other impure habits.

If you’re having sex daily and yet you’re not sexually satisfying, it’s probably worth seeing a doctor or a therapist.

After ten years of marriage we attended our first Basic Youth Seminar. When you went over the consequences of defrauding in dating, I suddenly realized my problem and our marriage problem.

And exactly how do we explain all of the couples who had sex before marriage and are currently in healthy, sexually fulfilling relationships?

I asked God to forgive me for defrauding her before marriage, and for the first time in my life, I began exercising self-control.

Also for the first time in ten years of married life, we began to experience true sexual intimacy. Our relationship continued to improve, but my wife still felt forced to submit to me, and she worried daily about whether or not she would have to ‘make love’ that night.

Wait. Wait wait wait. So the whole time this guy was having sex daily, his wife was only participating because she believed her role, as his wife, was to submit to him and be sexually available. You know, the fact that she felt she had to have sex with him whether she wanted to or not might just play some part in why their sexual relationship wasn’t fully satisfying him.

I began having difficulty exercising self-control.

I really want to know what this means. Was he raping her?

Then we attended your Corporate Leaders Seminar and learned about abstinence during the menstrual period and for seven days after the period. I knew immediately that this is what God wanted me to commit to, and it scared me to death! I couldn’t picture myself being committed to anything like that!

However, God gave me the strength and encouragement to talk to my wife. We discussed it and that day, with her permission, I made a commitment to follow that principle.

Now he’s concerned about getting his wife’s permission?

The relief within my wife was almost visible. The “fear” is gone from our marriage.

Well of course her relief was almost visible! His poor wife knew she would have have two weeks of blessed relief from her husband’s constant (and unreciprocated) sexual demands!

We now have a freedom we never experienced before. We are blessed to the point that we almost feel guilty when we are around our Christian friends who are completely loaded down with problems. Our lives have been transformed by applying this and other principles from God’s Word.

You replaced consent with biblically-mandated periodic abstinence, you asshole.

A Confirming Report from the Wife

I cannot tell you how much the material on abstinence has meant to me and our marriage. I have never experienced what has been happening in our marriage since we began following the principle of abstinence.

It is indeed a miracle!!!! Through the power of the Holy Spirit, my husband has exercised real self-control in the area of our sex life. I feel so loved, cherished, and protected! I have been able to respond to him as seldom before. The difference in our relationship is difficult to describe, but very wonderful to experience. Thank you again for motivating us to choose God’s best.

Someone tell this poor wife about consent and marital rape.

I didn’t expect to be this frustrated when I opened the volume to these pages, but I am. I am really, really frustrated. It appears that Gothard is using abstinence during the period and for seven days after the period as a replacement for consent within marriage. With these teachings, women who find themselves forced to submit to sex they do not want—forced by their believe that that is the wife’s biblical role—can find relief in two solid weeks of freedom from those demands.

This is sick.

How did I miss this? Several weeks ago, Debi Pearl weighed in on the ongoing Bill Gothard scandal. And guess what? Reading her post has caused me to lose the last little bit of respect I had for her (which is really saying something).

In their books and on their blog, Michael and Debi have generally taken a hard line on the sexual abuse of children. Given this, Debi’s response to the Bill Gothard situation seem incredibly out of place. Debi should be out there with Recovering Grace and all the rest condemning Gothard and his actions and demanding that he be punished to the full extent of the law and removed from any position of religious authority. But she’s not. Instead she argues that Gothard is simply a sinner like anyone else, like you and like me, and that Recovering Grace is the the real problem here. In fact, she flat out says she is on Gothard’s “side.”

But don’t take my word for it. Read her words yourself:

Whose side are you on?

On Facebook last week I read these words: “I just rejoiced to see that huge ministry fall and I helped.”

I trembled as I read this. Shock, disbelief, and then sadness enveloped me as I realized it was not CNN with all their exaggerations, deceit, mockery and twisting of facts that brought an end to a work God used to set thousands of people free from bitterness, it was not the Homosexual websites coming together to launch war against an old man accused of things done over 35 years ago, limiting his ability to defend himself. No, it was a “Christian” website that asked believers to speak out if they had been hurt in anyway, and spew their bitterness so many could share in the rock throwing. Yes, you read it correctly, it was a Christian website propelled forward by Facebook and Twitter that defamed a ministry that helped millions come to know the Lord.

Am I saying that the man God used to raise up the standard was perfect in all his ways? No! Am I saying the ministry was successful and without error? No! Am I saying I was a part of the ministry thus am struggling to protect it from gainsayers? No! I have no connection to it.

What I am saying is that God raised up a man, a fallen sinful man, and used that man to pull together thousands of believers for a greater good. What I am saying is that someday soon we will all stand before the throne of God to give an answer. All of us. The man. The folks on the website that rejoiced in the fall. Me.

I would much rather be the man who put his whole life into doing a work for God than on the side of those listed on the website that choose to rejoice over the man’s downfall and the destruction of his ministry that God used so effectively to eliminate bitterness in the lives of so many—the same bitterness that now pervades his critics so completely.

This attack was not initiated to right an ongoing wrong or to establish justice and purity; the critics have unwittingly joined the last-days, Satanic attack on God’s people to denigrate the very name of Christ.

Millions of souls are left hanging untold, unreached, undone. God calls those to cry out in the wilderness to give them the light. So now, another voice has been quieted. And in its place I hear the rejoicing from foolish ones thinking they have done well. Yes, I tremble for them.

Whose side are you on?

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12).

As you probably noticed, my computer glitched and posted my weekly Friday post on Wednesday. Oops! If you haven’t read that post, CTBHHM: The Question of Birth Control, feel free to do so now. For today, I’m going to turn to some of Bill Gothard’s thoughts on procreation, drawing from his Advanced Seminar Textbook. Trust me, it’s ever bit as good as Debi!

What would we have lost if Jesse had had a smaller family? If Jesse had had one less child, David would not have been born. Jesse had eight sons. If he would have decided that seven sons were enough, we would be deprived of the Psalms and key portions of the Old Testament. Jesse’s eighth son was David. How would we have been affected if Jacob had had a smaller family? If Rachel had had one less child, Paul would not have been born. Jacob had twelve sons. If he would have decided that his family was complete after eleven sons, the apostle Paul would not have been born. Paul was a descendant of Jacob’s twelfth son, Benjamin.

Okay, so, I was conceived before my parents got married. They were already engaged and had a date set, so they moved the date up so my mom could still wear the dress. But now, every time I read things like Gothard’s statements here, I remember my own conception—If my parents had not had premarital sex, I would not have been born. This clearly means we should endorse premarital sex, right? I mean, it’s the same logic! If A had happened (or not happened), X would not have been born.

But that’s the problem with this logic, isn’t it? My grandmother miscarried her first pregnancy, and then quickly conceived. If my grandmother had not miscarried, my uncle would never have been conceived. Should we be grateful for that miscarriage? Someone (I forget who) once told me that her grandparents would not have met if not for the Holocaust. Should we be grateful, then, for the Holocaust?

This if/then/therefore logic is flawed because it breaks down into absurdity.

Absurd or not, this sort of logic is used to convince people to have child after child after child, whether they want a big family or not. If you don’t have another child, you might prevent a world leader or brilliant musician from existing! Then we would never have those treaties or that music! The conclusion seems to be that you should have as many children as possible, to ensure that you’re not accidentally preventing someone from existing.

But wait! There’s more!

What if I had waited three months to conceive Sally, instead of conceiving her when I did? I would have a child around the same age today, but it would be a completely different child. I will never meet that child, because I prevented her conception by conceiving Sally. I may have prevented the conception of the child who would grow up to cure cancer, for all I know! But then, if I’d waited and conceived that child, I would not have conceived Sally. Oh the dilemmas!

Can you see how ridiculous this is?

Let’s look at the next section before we call it quits:

Selfish reasons for not having children include: 

Are you ready for this? It’s going to be good, I promise!

1. We will lose our freedom. 

Couples with larger families have experienced more freedom than others have imagined. As the first children grow older and are properly trained, they assume many responsibilities in assisting the parents to care for the younger ones. Susanna Wesley, for example, was to have two hours a day of undistracted time in private devotions while the older children taught and cared for the younger.

Parenting a large family isn’t hard, because at that point you can just hand the parenting over to your older children! See! Easy! Except that I remember being on the receiving end of this, and it’s not actually all that easy for either parent or child. Even when parents outsource the parenting of the younger children, they still have a ton of responsibility on their shoulders, and yes, this limits their freedom. I’ve seen the weight of responsibility of large families drive parents to depression. And then, speaking from the perspective of one of the older children, all of that childcare and cleaning and cooking and laundry cuts down on the time available to study, hang out with friends, or just have fun.

2. We cannot afford them. 

God pays for the things He orders, and He delights to hear the prayers of children for their daily needs. The testimony of God’s faithfulness in providing for any size family is given in Psalm 37:25: “I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, or begging for bread.”

Oh so that’s why Christians never struggle with poverty. Oh wait. They do.

As children get older, the potential for home industry is significant, especially in our computer age. Many sons and daughters have more than earned their own way by developing productive skills.

So wait. Gothard is flat-out endorsing exploiting children for their labor, and not just for constant childcare or housework either. Wow. I’ve rarely seen this stated so explicitly.

3. The wife will lose her physical attractiveness. 

When God’s guidelines of proper nutrition, Biblical fasting and abstinence, and other proper health measures are followed, God renews our youth like the eagle’s. (See Psalm 103:5.)

And if you do lose your beauty, you clearly must not be godly enough.

4. They might rebel against us. 

By training up sons and daughters to be mighty in spirit and removing them from the destructive influence of peer dependence through home education, parents are able not only to avoid rebellion, but to enjoy the fellowship of their children as they grow spiritually.

See! See! I told you! These leaders promise parents that if they homeschool their children and raise them just so, they will not have to deal with rebellion. And then when they do have a child rebel—like me!—they’re not even sure what to do, because they were promised that wouldn’t happen. What went wrong? How did the child end up defective? Not cool, people, not cool.

5. They will grow up in an evil world (Noah). 

Our world has become as evil as it was in the days of Noah. (See I Peter 3:20.) Yet Noah had a family and through the help of his three sons, he was able to escape the judgment of God upon the wickedness of his day.

I’m not even sure what to say to this one.

6. The world is overpopulated. 

This destructive myth has already been discussed and refuted.

In an earlier section, Gothard argued that India does not suffer hunger because of overpopulation but rather because they have two hundred million “sacred cows” that go around eating up all the food so there is not enough left for the people. He also states that “The alarmists who use statistics to try to prove that there is a population problem fail to account for God’s judgement on nations that violate His principles.” He then talks about the importance of avoiding contact with the wicked, which rather makes it sound like he doesn’t like foreign aid, since countries with famines are (presumably) just being judged by God.

7. There may be medical complications. 

It is not wise to make decisions on the basis of probability. God deals with us as individuals, and He delights to show His power to those who obey His commandments. ” . . . No good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly” (Psalm 84:11).

If complications do come, God will give grace for them. However, many complications can be avoided by proper knowledge and careful discipline.

So which is it? Does God save his children from pregnancy complications, or does he give them grace to handle pregnancy complications? It really can’t be both at once. Either way, Gothard is throwing around some pretty big promises here, and echoing Debi Pearl’s willingness to laugh in the face of pregnancy complications and female medical problems.

So, there you have it. Have lots of children because otherwise you might be preventing the birth of a future author or evangelist, have your older children raise their younger siblings, ask them to do their part for the family budget, and seriously, you’re worried about medical complications? Ha!

I do have a question for Gothard. Why is it that he never married or had children? Is he not at all concerned about the dozen or so children he prevented from being born by not marrying? Or are his rules only for other people, and not for him?

There is a Gothard-sized skeleton in HSLDA’s closet. But before we get to that, let’s start with an excerpt from Michael Farris’s white paper, A Line in the Sand:

Although some people want HSLDA to be the police force of the homeschooling movement—removing those who miss the mark in some manner—that is not our role. Even though I have been uncomfortable with the teaching coming from each of these men for several years, it is not my place to try to remove viewpoints from the homeschooling community just because the HSLDA board or I hold a different view. Our role is to defend the freedom of everyone to homeschool. But with these recent scandals in view, we think it is now time to speak out—not about these men’s individual sins, but about their teachings. Their sins have damaged the lives of their victims, and should be addressed by those with the appropriate legal and spiritual authority in those situations, but their teachings continue to threaten the freedom and integrity of the homeschooling movement. That is why HSLDA needs to stand up and speak up. Frankly, we should have spoken up sooner. How much sooner is hard to say. There is a subtle difference between teaching that we simply disagree with and teaching that is truly dangerous. While we did not directly promote their teachings using our own resources, we did allow Vision Forum to buy ad space to promote their products and ideas. We were wrong to do so. And we regret it.

I have just two questions: First, what time frame does “for several years” imply? Second, what does “we did not directly promote their teachings” mean?

I ask these things because something has just come to my attention as a result of the investigative reporting of R. L. Stollar of Homeschoolers Anonymous—an unacknowledged elephant in HSLDA’s closet. First, some background from Stollar’s piece:

Every year the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) puts on the National Leader’s Conference, where the biggest names and leaders in homeschooling come together to network and hear educational and inspirational talks from both HSLDA’s staff as well as outside speakers invited by HSLDA. During the conference, HSLDA gives an annual award: the Lifetime Achievement Award. According to HSLDA, this honor is bestowed upon “a leader who has demonstrated valuable leadership to the homeschool community, inspired and motivated others to effective action, overcome hardships and obstacles to succeed, demonstrated a servant’s heart while exhibiting the qualities listed above, and maintained a clear witness concerning Jesus Christ and the Gospel.”

And so we come to HSLDA’s National Leaders’ Conference in September of 2010, almost exactly four years ago, where Bill Gothard was an invited speaker. Who received that year’s Lifetime Achievement Award? We can find the answer to this question, which appears nowhere on HSLDA’s website, in a comment left on a blog post critical of Farris’s white paper:

As a former board member of a state home schooling organization, I clearly remember HSLDA, during their national conference for home schooling leaders that was held just 4 years ago in Chicago giving a lifetime home schooling achievement award to none other than Bill Gothard. HSLDA gives this award annually to those that they judge to have made significant contributions to the home schooling movement. This award has gone to men like Greg Harris and the now deceased and former HSLDA attorney, Chris Klicka. HSLDA even had Gothard conduct a Sat afternoon session at their conference that was geared toward fathers and sons…just 4 years ago!

That’s right, HSLDA gave their 2010 Lifetime Achievement Award to Bill Gothard. That’s right, the award that signifies not only significant and important leadership in the Christian homeschool movement but also a clear witness of the gospel. So much for Farris’s condemnation of Gothard’s beliefs as dangerous and unbiblical.

Hence my questions: When Farris said he had been “uncomfortable” with Gothard’s teachings “for several years,” what timetable does that imply? Clearly fewer than four. But this is odd, because I am unaware in any change in Gothard’s teachings during that time. What suddenly changed his mind, so soon after awarding Gothard HSLDA’s prestigious Lifetime Achievement Award and asking him to speak to HSLDA’s exclusive and selective National Leadership Conference? Second, when Farris said HSLDA “did not directly promote” Gothard’s teachings, had he forgotten about the 2010 conference and awards, or is he operating on a different definition of “promote” than other people? Would Farris argue that giving an award that singles out an individual as a valuable homeschool leader and clear witness of the gospel does not amount to “promoting” that person or his teachings? Would he argue that those attending his conference would understand that HSLDA did not intend to “promote” the teachings of any of the speakers they invited.

Yes, I have questions, and plenty of them.

Farris would do better in his new endeavor if he would be more honest about his involvement in promoting the leaders he is now criticizing. Mischaracterizing the past isn’t going to do him any favors. What is that they say? Honesty is the best policy, right? Come on, Farris. You can do better.

I’ve been under a lot of stress lately and I’m really tired. But I try to put up a post each day to keep things active and maintain the community here, so today you get more from the Bill Gothard textbook I got my hands on. He’s just so out there that blogging against his teachings is easier than many other topics, somehow. It’s also familiar, in a way. So today you get to find out how pastors and secretaries can be enemies to good, godly marriages.

Both of these passages are from the chapter titled “How To Build the Spirit of a Marriage” in Gothard’s Advanced Seminar Textbook. First, Gothard discusses some of the things wives can do wrong. I want to address one specific one.

When She Resists His Leadership

Most men are very fragile when it comes to being the spiritual leaders of their families. One criticism or sarcastic remark can cause a husband to give up his God-given spiritual responsibilities.

I really don’t think these people know what “leadership” is. People who are leaders do not simply “give up” in the face of criticism.

For this reason, it is essential that the wife look for ways to reassure her husband in this area. When a wife is aware that she has wounded her husband’s spirit in this area, she must quickly ask his forgiveness and assure him that she wants him to take the spiritual leadership of the family.

So, if you criticize something your husband does and he gets sulky about it, your response should be to apologize and ask his forgiveness. Look, if a person responds to criticism by sulking, they’re not demonstrating their ability to be a leader.

Many wives unknowingly discourage their husbands in spiritual leadership by looking to other spiritual leaders for counsel. The following testimony illustrates the importance of wives working through their husbands to find Scriptural answers.

So, I have a question. If Gothard doesn’t think wives should look to other spiritual leaders for counsel, why the blazes is he giving them counsel? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?

And now Gothard offers a story:

How a pastor avoided a spiritual casualty by having a wife ask her husband a question

Three years ago I received a phone call that was to change the emphasis of my ministry and the lives of those in my church. The phone call was from the wife of one of my elders. She didn’t understand a difficult section of scripture.

Until then, I had always tried to answer any question any person asked me about the Bible. I believed that this was one of my responsibilities as a pastor, but that day, God prompted me not to answer her question. Here is the reason why.

I believe that a husband is to assume the leadership of his family, and a wife is to be submissive to that leadership. No husband can be a leader unless he has a follower. It is not a matter of abilities, it is a matter of leadership. The wife who has more ability should work to make her husband more successful. I have preached this message from the pulpit, and I have counseled couples to do this, but God showed me that my practice was not consistent with my belief.

So I didn’t explain the passage of Scripture to her. Instead, I asked her, “Have you asked your husband about this?” She replied, “No. He wouldn’t understand it either.”

Okay, wait. A pastor (presumably) spends his life studying scripture and theology so that he can answer his parishioner’s questions. And now this pastor decides he will only answer male parishioners’ theological questions? He will, point blank, refuse to answer theological questions from married women? Can I tell you how wrong this rubs me?

I told her that I had been meditating on I Timothy 2. I explained how her question was a special opportunity for her. She could use it to illustrate to her husband a genuine humility and a learner’s spirit.

She hesitated, so I gave her the wording. “Honey, I’m having a difficult time understanding this section of Scripture. Would you help me with it?” I waited as she gave serious thought to this new idea. Eventually she asked, “What if he says no?”

I told her what to do if that happened. I reminded her that her husband’s “no” would be another opportunity for her to demonstrate confidence in God and in her husband. She was to say, “If you aren’t sure of the answer, would you ask someone else for me? I really do want help, and it would mean a lot to me if you explained the answer to me.”

Again there was silence at the other end of the phone. Then she said, “I’ve never thought about asking my husband to help me understand Scripture, but it makes sense. I’ll go to him for help and trust God for the outcome.”

So let’s take this idea to its natural conclusion. In essence, a wife is to follow and believe her husband in theological matters, and no other—not even herself. I am reminded of something my mother told me when I was unmarried and forming my own beliefs as a young adult: “If you have a theological question, you are to ask your father and then accept what he says.” Brain? What brain? Just close your eyes and follow your spiritual authority. Because that could never go wrong, oh no!

Before she hung up, I explained five things she would accomplish by doing this.

1. She would be looking to her husband and not to the pastor for primary spiritual guidance.

2. She would encourage other women to do the same as they saw that her husband was her spiritual leader.

3. She would motivate her husband to be her spiritual leader. She would help him gain the confidence to become what God intended him to be by saying, “I’m counting on you and no one else for my spiritual leadership.”

4. She would strengthen her marriage rather than weaken it.

5. She would prevent herself from becoming spiritually proud of her own Bible knowledge.

Because a wife having too much of her own “Bible knowledge” is a dangerous thing.

I didn’t hear from her again, but a few weeks later I saw her husband. He told me the following:

“You will never known how much your advice to my wife has changed my relationship with her. She didn’t know it, but I was within an inch of giving up the Christian life.

“My work is very demanding. I don’t have large slots of time when I can study the Bible and memorize Scripture. At least, I don’t have as much time as my wife does. Our children are gone now. My wife can spend the entire day reading the Bible, leading a prayer group, or attending Bible study. I resented her knowing more about the Bible than I did. She was so far ahead of me that I knew I could never catch up with her.

“I didn’t want to be an elder in the church anymore. I didn’t want to hear another sermon about being the spiritual leader. I had decided that the competition was too great. I was going to give up and let my wife be the spiritual leader in our family. I thought she wanted it to be that way anyway.

“I couldn’t believe the difference in her after she talked to you. I was absolutely amazed! For the first time, I sensed my wife wanted me to help her understand the Bible. She didn’t want to be my teacher anymore.

“God used her question and her submissive spirit to put the right kind of pressure on me. Now it’s a pressure that motivates me rather than defeats me. My wife still knows more about the Bible than I do, but I’m learning fast. I’m concentrating on those passages which will help me be a better leader. I’m very happy. My wife needs me now in a way that she has never needed me before.”

This experience has given me, as a pastor, a new appreciation for the teaching of I Corinthians 14:35—that if a woman has a question in church, she should go home and ask her husband for the answer.

Okay, I call bullshit. The man was an elder. And besides, “I was within an inch of giving up the Christian life” is totally different from “I was going to give up and let my wife be the spiritual leader in our family.”

Maybe if they could jettison the idea that the husband is supposed to be the spiritual leader, this couple could have done the divide and conquer thing in a way that worked out well for them both. The husband could focus on work, the wife could do all sorts of Bible study and, I don’t know, maybe get a wild hair and study ancient cultures and various understandings of different passages, and then she could share this with her husband. I guess I’m just struck by how threatened the husband was by his wife’s knowledge of the Bible. It’s okay for someone else to know more about something than you do. It happens. That’s life.

But I suppose I’m most disturbed by this idea that a pastor’s de facto response to a married woman asking a question should be to say “Go ask your husband.” And then, of course, there’s the idea that the wife should never get ahead of her husband in her knowledge of scripture and theology. It’s as though she shouldn’t have a brain here—or rather, should simply turn her brain over to her husband for programming. But in this case, why should women go to church at all? Why not just have men sit through the pastor’s sermon and then head home to their wives to instruct them privately?

Gothard’s textbook is full of instructions for wives. They should do this, but not that—act like this, but not like that—and so on. If a wife is to look to her husband as her spiritual leader, isn’t Gothard’s interest in instructive wives (including in matters of theology) hypocritical? For example, in another passage he goes through when couples should and should not have sex, and instructs wives in how to go about showing their husband their right of these prohibitions. Isn’t that contrary to what Gothard says above about not having other spiritual leaders, and instead simply asking your husband?

Now that we’ve seen how pastors can threaten marriages, let’s turn to secretaries!

Special Steps in Selecting a Secretary

One of the greatest dangers to the spirit of a marriage is the unwise selection of a secretary or an improper working relationship with her. The factors involved in the decision to hire a secretary are of such importance that special time and attention must be given to them.

Each of the following guidelines has been confirmed by both husbands and wives as being vitally important in selecting and working with a secretary.

Are you ready? Let’s get started!

1. Make sure that the secretary you hire is not likely to look to you to meet her emotional needs. 

Attempting to meet the emotional needs of a secretary is sure to produce insecurity in your wife, if not jealousy and resentment. A secretary’s basic emotional needs must be met by her parents if she is single, by her husband if she is married, and by God if she is widowed.

I’m not exactly sure how you ascertain this in the interview process. “Next question. How well are your emotional needs being met?” That doesn’t strike me as an appropriate interview question! Notice too Gothard’s assumption about where women are to have their emotional needs met. Boyfriends (or girlfriends) and close friends don’t make the cut.

This all said, I agree that employees should not look to their boss to fill their emotional needs. Nor should bosses look to their employees to fill their emotional needs. This can create all sorts of problems for both parties.

2. Make sure that your wife meets, interviews, and approves of the secretary before you hire her. 

Technically, a secretary is working for your wife, since she is doing things to assist you that your wife is not able to do.

Um. No. I would be out of that interview so fast. I mean, seriously? “For the next part of the interview, I’m going to bring my wife in to ask you some questions.” And what is this about a man’s secretary actually working for his wife?

There are all sorts of assumptions going on here. Like, that secretaries are all female. Sure, statistically speaking most are, but I’ve actually worked at places with male secretaries on a number of occasions. Another assumption, of course, is that the husband will have a secretary at all, and that the wife won’t. True, a Gothard-following wife isn’t likely to work outside of the home, but women do have secretaries.

3. Keep your relationship with your secretary on a business level at all times. 

Do not become involved in the personal life of your secretary. If she has serious problems, refer her to her husband, her parents, her minister, or other sources of help.

Again, this mostly makes sense. Boss/employee entanglements can lead to problems. That said, I think the rules are different when it comes to coworkers. It’s not uncommon for people to make good friends at work, and to become involved in each other’s lives. The problem is more the power relations created by a boss/employee relationship.

4. Make sure that your wife can call you without going through your secretary. 

If you do not have a private phone, instruct the secretary to always put your wife through without asking questions. If you are busy, have her tell your wife what you are doing and let your wife make the decision of whether or not to disturb you.

I suspect cell phones have made this irrelevant, but okay.

5. Make sure that you never ask your secretary to meet your personal needs or perform special tasks your wife normally does. 

Do not ask a secretary to sew a button on your coat or bake you a special pie. Do not allow her to bake a cake to celebrate your birthday.

I’m not sure bringing in a cake or cupcakes for an office birthday is such a problem, but I would think that sewing on a button or baking a “special pie” is probably beyond most secretaries’ job descriptions. Not taking advantage of your secretary by asking her to “meet your personal needs” rather than simply assisting you in your professional function sounds like generally good advice.

6. Make sure that your secretary is committed to the success of your marriage.

Your secretary must help you make your wife and home your priority by shielding you from unnecessary interruptions, helping you keep appointments with your wife, and guarding you from temptations of moral impurity.

Wait. Whatever happened to that whole “do not become involved in the personal life of your secretary” thing? Does that only go one way—you shouldn’t get involved in your secretary’s personal life, but she should get involved in yours? I’m sorry, but it is not a secretary’s job to protect your marriage or “guard you from temptations of moral impurity.” It is a secretary’s job to maintain your schedule and take messages and fulfill whatever other professional responsibilities are in the job description, and I’m pretty sure you won’t find “must be committed to the success of the employer’s marriage” in that job description.

7. Make sure you praise your wife to your secretary and never discuss problems in your marriage to her. 

Appreciate your secretary’s abilities without praising her to your wife, especially if your wife does not have equal abilities in that area.

Again, some of this goes under ordinary professional conduct and appropriate boundaries workplace relationships. The power differential present between boss and employee makes that working relationship different from that between coworkers. Yes, this probably means discussing marriage problems with your employee (or your boss) is unwise, but I don’t see how it necessitates praising your spouse to your employee (or your boss). As for your wife—I’d like to think she’d be glad you have a competent secretary. And isn’t hiding things from your wife a bad idea?

It’s not that this section is wholly bad, but Gothard’s suggestion that a wife interview her husband’s secretary candidates and that a man’s secretary is actually employed by a wife both wander far away from what is usually considered appropriate. You know what is at issue here? Fundamentalist Christians like Gothard sexualize everything, and I do mean everything. Gothard is viewing the selection of a man’s secretary as a huge deal because of the chance that a man will become romantically or sexually involved with his secretary. Frankly, I’m surprised he didn’t put “Make sure the secretary you hire is homely and not at all sexually attractive” on his list.

Wait. Wait wait wait. My mind is suddenly drawn to Gothard’s own secretaries. Gothard generally selected teenage girls to be his personal secretaries, often girls only 16 or 17 years old and with no training in secretarial work. He selected them primarily based on looks, and had a specific “type.” He then groomed them and sexually harassed them, playing footsie with them, spending large amount of times alone with them, holding their hands, rubbing his hands along their thighs, hips, and hair. He became deeply involved in their personal lives, serving as confidant and counselor. He made them emotionally dependent on him. Of course, Gothard never married. Perhaps he felt that gave him license not to follow his own teachings with regard to selecting and interacting with secretaries?

I can’t even say how hypocritical this all is. And disgusting. I think I need to be done now, and go find some pictures of kittens.

Do you know how Bill Gothard was brought down?

By a blog.

Sexual harassment allegations had been made against Gothard for decades—yes, decades—but he was very good at silencing them, and at convincing his associates that he was blameless. Then a couple of years ago a variety of young adults who were raised in Bill Gothard’s ministry came together to create a blog: Recovering Grace. They used this blog as a forum to criticize Gothard’s teachings and practices, and to discuss the harm these things had done in their lives. But then came the allegations of sexual harassment, which took the Recovering Grace team by surprise, and yet rang true.

And so, Recovering Grace became a place for Bill Gothard’s young female victims to share stories of sexual harassment at his hands, generally under pseudonyms. The Recovering Grace team did what they could to verify these stories, but they were neither lawyers nor mental health professionals. They were simply ordinary people willing to finally listen to these women’s stories and do what was necessary to hold Bill Gothard accountable for his abuse.

Bill Gothard resigned from IBLP because Recovering Grace—a simple blog—finally drew enough attention to his abuse to convince people to listen. And so Gothard lost control of the narrative he had controlled for so long.

Could Gothard’s victims have perused legal action at the time the abuse occurred? Well sure, but what evidence did they have? Who would support them? And besides, pursuing legal action would likely mean being sanctioned by their families—and without the others’ stories, they thought themselves alone, and Gothard himself convinced many them to question their own senses and judgement of what had happened. It was only when the internet—and a blog—brought them together that Gothard’s victims became to see the patterns and commonalities in his abuse.

Could Gothard’s victims go to the police today, and pursue legal action? Some of them could, perhaps, but for many of them the statute of limitations has passed. And those who still could pursue legal action are faced with the prospect of pursuing a case based on very little evidence—a case against a wealthy and powerful man, no less. Doing this would involve reopening old wounds and and resurrecting painful memories. And besides, the things Gothard did are hard to prosecute legally. None of Gothard’s victims allege rape. instead, they allege subtle and longstanding harassment and emotional manipulation that often looked like no more than sitting side by side on a couch, with thighs touching, and constant attempts at footsie.

Is it any wonder that none of them, to my knowledge, have attempted such a lawsuit?

Counselors can help, and in many cases have, but this is personal and private. Victim support groups are likewise personal and private. How, besides legal action, should one to make public allegations of abuse? How is one to prevent future abuse? How is one to take down a prominent and even adored man who has privately abused young women in his employ for decades? How is one to warn people against trusting this man with their own daughters?

A blog. That’s what did it. A simple blog.

As the allegations grew in volume, Bill Gothard stepped down temporarily so that the IBLP board could conduct a review. As they stated in their report:

In response to allegations against Bill Gothard, the Board sought the facts through a confidential and thorough review process conducted by outside legal counsel. Many people were interviewed, including former Board members, current and past staff members, current and past administrators, parents, and family members.

At this point, based upon those willing to be interviewed, no criminal activity has been discovered. If it had been, it would have been reported to the proper authorities immediately, as it will be in the future if any such activity is revealed.

The board specified that the review was conducted by someone outside of the organization, and that it was thorough and confidential. But as Recovering Grace reported, one young woman who was interviewed reported both her sexual harassment at Gothard’s hands and blatant criminal activity (violations of child labor laws). Further, the man conducting the review, David Gibbs Jr., was in fact loosely associated with IBLP and had been for decades. Finally, Gibbs did not even contact the vast majority of the women who made allegations of sexual harassment.

So much for working with an independent investigator or mediator.

I say all this because I want to draw attention to a specific section of one of Rachel Held Evans’ latest comments on the Tony Jones situation. Here is an excerpt:

As you know, I greatly value the contribution of your life experiences in the comment section of my blog, Facebook page, and Twitter. However, the public forums I’m responsible for cannot become platforms for reporting abuse or publishing private information. Local authorities, qualified counselors, and victim support groups are created for these purposes and respecting their findings and direction are of paramount importance. I continue to support utilization of those channels and oppose efforts to circumvent them.

I respect Rachel’s right to set a comment policy for her blog, and to determine what she permits on her facebook page. When I wrote about Rachel’s comment earlier, I assumed this was all she was speaking of, and interpreted “victim support groups” fairly broadly. After all, I would in some sense qualify my own blog as a “victim support group,” as it often serves that function. But a reader pointed out to me a phrase I had skimmed over in my first read through, and now I’m not certain.

Rachel mentions “local authorities, qualified counselors, and victim support groups” as the proper places for “reporting abuse and publishing private information” and says that she opposes efforts to “circumvent” these channels. I am not sure what she means by this, though in a previous comment she mentioned “trial by church” and “trial by twitter.”

Telling victims that they should not tell their stories outside of “proper” channels is a silencing technique. As we see from the above discussion of Bill Gothard’s fall, legal channels won’t always cut it, independent investigators are frequently not as independent as claimed, and therapists and support groups, while helpful to individual healing, do not by themselves bring down abusers or prevent them from preying on additional victims.

Is a blog an acceptable place for making allegations of abuse against a prominent religious leader? Some would say no. But if Gothard’s victims had not taken to a blog to tell their stories, Gothard would still be president of IBLP, leaving a slue of new victims in his wake. I for one am thankful that those at Recovering Grace chose to forgo the “proper” channels for reporting and discussing abuse allegations.

This week the news broke that Josh Duggar sexually molested at least five girls in two families while he was a teen. I can’t say for sure what Josh Duggar’s counseling looked like, though it appears it was handled in-house, through the family and likely also through the church and Christian ministries the family follows, such as Bill Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute (ATI). What I can do is speak to the sort of counseling Bill Gothard and ATI provide.

The Duggars have long been avid followers of Gothard and his ministry. They’ve used their platform to promote Gothard, his teaching material, and his homeschool curriculum, which the family used until recently. The older Duggar children have consistently attended ATI seminars and retreats, including Journey to the Heart (for the girls) and ALERT (for the boys). Gothard was outed as a predator of teen girls last year and removed from his leadership position, but the Duggars continue to serve for speakers at ATI conferences. The Duggars’ connection to Gothard and ATI is not incidental or tangential.

Just what do Gothard and ATI teach about sexual abuse and about situations where the perpetrator is a minor? We can find out by looking at some of their materials. For example, have a look at “Counseling Sexual Abuse,” a document distributed at ATI seminars for over a decade:

The most obvious problem here is the victim blaming.

4. Why did God let it happen?

Result of defrauding by:

• Immodest dress
• Indecent exposure
• Being out from protection of our parents
• Being with evil friends.

But there’s also something more insidious going on.

3. What did the offender damage?

What parts do we damage with bitterness and guilt?

Remember that point 3 comes immediately after points 1 and 2, which portray the spirit as more important than the body. In other words, Gothard contends that while the offender damages only the victim’s body, the victim damages their spirit with bitterness and guilt—and that is the greater crime.

This is not best practices for counseling victims of sexual abuse.

What advice does Gothard have for situations where parents find that their teenage son has sexually molested younger children? Let’s look at a Gothard article titled Lessons from Moral Failures in a Family:

Lessons From Moral Failures in a Family

The tragedy

The parents were shocked and grieved as social workers visited their home and confirmed reports that an older brother was guilty of sexually abusing younger ones in his family. The damage to the younger children, the ridicule to the cause of Christ, the shame of detailed publicity, and the scars to the life and reputation of the boy were indescribably painful to the family and their friends. The boy did repent of what he had done; now that time has passed, he was asked the following questions:

1. What were the early indications that you had the problem?

2. What conditions or circumstances contributed to the problem?

3. What steps could your parents have taken before it happened?

4. What could have been done to avoid it?

5. What teaching could have been given to each child to resist evil?

6. What factors in the home contributed to immodesty and temptation?

The boy wrote out the following answers to these questions. The information he gives is so helpful that every parent should read it and diligently apply the lessons that this family learned the hard way.

To recap, an older brother in a large family sexually abused his younger sisters, and here, after an indeterminate amount of time has passed, Gothard asks this young man (who appears to be still a minor) to discuss the factors that led to his crime and what his parents could have done differently. Note that Gothard is giving the offender a platform, but not his victims. While the boy’s mother does get a note in at the end, his victims are silenced.

To start out with, the young offender says he shouldn’t have been asked to babysit his siblings. This seems to suggest that any teenage boy is a child sex offender waiting to happen when this is not the case. The vast majority of teenage boys are able to babysit just fine without sexually molesting the children in their care. The next thing the young offender blames is pornography—and not child porn, regular porn. This ignores the fact that nearly all teenage boys see porn at some point but only a very small percentage of teenage boys molest their sisters.

On the plus side, he does at least chalk part of the problem up to the lack of sex education and a lack of open communication between him and his parents on subjects relating to sexuality. This is at least something.

However, there is also this:

The need for modesty in the home

Modesty was a factor. It was not at the level it should have been in my family. It was not uncommon for my younger siblings to come out of their baths naked or with a towel. They would often run around the house for the next twenty minutes until my mom or sister got around to dressing them.

Changing my younger sisters’ diapers when they were really young may not have been a big thing, but it really did not have to be that way (if we had only applied Levitical law). My younger sisters used to wear dresses often, but as they were young and not aware of modesty, they did not behave in them as they should.

Mom did not push the modesty unless we were in public, and Dad only had the opportunity to mention it during weekends. Little people do not realize their nakedness right away. It takes several years before they grasp it. It needs to be taught to them. My mom is a nurse, and the human body was not a big deal to her. I guess she didn’t want it to be for her children either.

She and I have talked about it. She explained to me that she had no idea how visual male sexuality is, compared to women who are mainly by touch. I am so grateful my parents have changed so much of this area in our home. This was not a major reason for the offending, but it allowed my little sister to be open to what I made her do. I don’t think so much teaching was necessary because everyone was so young. However, a different lifestyle, with more modesty, might have prevented what happened.

And so here it is again—this idea that a little girl’s lack of modesty can be a factor in her molestation. We’re not even talking about teenage girls here (which would be bad enough), we’re talking about children.

At the end of the article Gothard lays out these pointers for parents:

• Do not tolerate laziness by any child. Plan a full day’s schedule.
• Do not argue with your children over surface problems. Probe for root problems.
• Do not neglect moods of depression in your children. Plan a time to talk it out.
• Do not allow boys to change diapers, especially of baby sisters.
• Insist on modesty at all times.
• Teach the children to recognize wrong behavior in moral areas.
• Pray for protection from pornography. Prepare them to resist it by reading Provo 1-7.
• Establish open, honest accountability for daily victory in thoughts, words, and actions.
• Provide warnings on immorality from Biblical accounts such as Samson, Tamar, etc.
• Provide guidelines on all physical contacts between children.
• Prohibit roughhousing, wrestling, and inappropriate touching of brothers with sisters

Now maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see anything here about giving your children more comprehensive sex education. Yes, it says to “provide guidelines on all physical contacts between children,” but that’s it. That’s something, but not enough. I also don’t think this list goes far enough in encouraging clear and open communication, with its focus on accountability and root problems rather than on fostering openness between parent and child.

And then, of course, there is the stuff about pornography, immodesty, and boys changing diapers (not sure where the babysitting bit went), as though those things were the problem here.

After reading this document, I became curious. What does professional literature say about sibling sexual abuse, and about what factors contribute to it? How does Gothard’s treatment of this situation compare to current professional standards? I did some digging and found an informative Social Work Today article on the topic. Here is an excerpt talking about the contributing factors:

Abuse Obscured in Chaotic Families

Sibling sexual abuse victims often live in dysfunctional family environments that subtly foster incestuous behaviors and are not conducive to disclosing the secret. Sibling incest appears more likely to occur in large families characterized by physical and emotional violence, marital discord, explicit and implicit sexual tensions, and blurred intrafamilial boundaries. Emotionally and/or physically absent parents may empower older siblings to assume parental roles. In short, these families are chaotic and unlikely to recognize the significance of behaviors occurring between siblings. If sexual behaviors are noticed, they are likely to be minimized and misinterpreted as a normal aspect of childhood development. Lack of adequate parental supervision provides perpetrators with ongoing opportunities to offend and protects the secret, leaving the victim vulnerable to continuing abuse (Asherman & Safier, 1990; Caffaro & Conn-Caffaro, 2005).

In the cautionary tale Gothard published, the young offender placed part of the blame on being asked to babysit and change his sister’s diapers. Here, the professional literature on sibling sexual abuse points to lack of parental supervision, emotionally or physically absent parents, and older siblings assuming parental roles as contributing factors. I suspect that this may have been what the youthful offender was trying to reach for, albeit inadequately, and it went over Gothard’s head completely.

Nowhere in his list of guidelines for parents does Gothard talk about the importance of parental supervision. Nowhere does he advise ensuring that older siblings are not forced to assume parental roles. Nowhere does he mention the role played by physical violence (such as more severe forms of corporal punishment), marital discord (such as the underlying and unaddressed tensions common in families that believe in wifely submission), or implicit or explicit sexual tensions (such as the belief that normal sexual thoughts and age-appropriate masturbation are sin).

In the end, it is incredibly clear that Gothard has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to minor child sexual offenders, or sexual abuse in general. From his victim blaming to his complete ignorance of the factors that contribute to such abuse, Gothard is unable to effectively grapple with these problems or support victims.

This is why it is so troubling that Josh and his victims appear to have received counseling and treatment in-house, whether from their parents or through their like-minded church or various ATI seminars or conferences—and this is why professional counseling and treatment is so important.

Bill Gothard has come out in defense of Josh Duggar.

‘This is really quite different to what you think. It has been overblown, it is not like he is a sexual predator, he was a teenage boy.

‘What he did, touching over the clothing, is not nearly what you think it is. It was wrong, but unfortunately there’s a lot of this going on in many families today.’

So does everyone remember when Gothard resigned from leadership of IBLP eighteen months ago after dozens of women accused him of sexually harassing and sexually molesting them as teens? Yes, I remember that too.

But before we get into that, let’s compare Gothard’s statements about Josh Duggar’s crime with those made by Josh’s father.

Gothard: “What he did, touching over the clothing, is not nearly what you think it is.”

Jim Bob: “This was like touching somebody over their clothes, there were a couple instances where he touched them under their clothes, but it was like a few seconds.”

Gothard: “It was wrong, but unfortunately there’s a lot of this going on in many families today.”

Jim Bob: “As we’ve talked to other parents and different ones since then, a lot of families have said that they’ve had similar things happen in their families.”

Josh touched his younger sisters’ breasts and genitals while they slept, repeatedly over the course of the year, but both Gothard and Josh’s father insist that this wasn’t really that bad because it was over their clothing (most of the time). This makes me even more skeptical of IBLP’s ability to appropriately deal with interfamily sexual abuse (remember that Josh received “treatment” at one of Gothard’s training centers).

Indeed, given how common both of them are saying this is, I’m becoming increasingly worried about kids in ATI families. Over on Slate, Brooke Arnold writes this of growing up in an Gothardite church, explaining that she knew multiple friends who “were being molested by their older brothers or fathers” but had no way to get help given their highly insular upbringing.

With this introduction, let’s turn to Gothard’s own sexual crimes. Gothard really is the very last person who should be speaking to this issue, given his past. What makes his statements even more outrageous is that most of Gothard’s touching also occurred over girls’ clothing—and those who have stepped forward to tell their stories speak of developing depression, crippling eating disorders, and severe anxiety as a result of Gothard’s actions toward them. Let’s start by looking at some of their stories.

* * * * *

Charlotte was sixteen and working as Gothard’s personal assistant:

We would meet after dinner in his office around 7 or 8 p.m. That’s when he started really touching me. I am curvy, and he loved my breasts. He gave me cash and told me to buy bras that pushed me up more; he wanted me to always wear them when I was around him. He never wanted me to show him, though. He just liked to touch over the clothing. He would drive me home so I wouldn’t walk alone to my house in the dark. He would hold my hand and rub my leg and tell me not to tell anyone about what we did in his car.

. . .

I went home at the end of October for a week, and Bill called and talked to me daily. I told my mom about what was happening, and she told me I was lying. Bill arranged my flight back to O’Hare so we could ride back to Headquarters in the car together. That’s when he first put his hand between my legs and felt me all the way up.

Grace was eighteen, and also working for Gothard:

After meetings on Sunday nights, Bill began asking me to come to his office alone and talk with him while sitting next to him on his couch. Sometimes his assistant would be in the room, but often not. I remember jerking back when I felt his foot touch mine. I dismissed it again as an accident. But it kept happening. It happened more and more often. At lunch, in his office, riding in his van, sitting on his couch — his feet sought out mine whenever I was near him. When we sat on the couch in his office, he would sit very close to me and put his hand on my knee. During church he would lay his head on my shoulder and fall asleep. I would change positions, but so would he. He continued touching my feet but sometimes my leg as well. Sitting next to him was disconcerting as he wanted to sit very close. I began to feel more and more uncomfortable.

Rachel was eighteen as well:

However, late one night in my house, I finally told my parents on the phone that Bill Gothard made me feel uncomfortable with all the attention he showed me. I didn’t mention all the physical touching.

Robin was young as well, and working for Gothard:

It was while we were on a plane during a 1992 New Zealand/Australia IBLP trip that everything came to a deafening crescendo. The way that I felt on that plane made me realize for the first time, in bright lights, that something was not right. And the moment Bill reached down, grabbed my ankle, and began to move his hand up my leg, something snapped inside of me. It was from there on out that I began to feel my heart cower away from him, and the process of separating myself emotionally began.

* * * * *

Now let’s look at Gothard’s admission of wrongdoing upon his resignation:

My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust. Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.

Note that Gothard admits that he touched girls inappropriately, but maintains that he didn’t kiss them and he never touched them “with sexual intent.” This is remarkably similar to Josh Duggar’s father’s insistence that “this was not rape or anything like that” and his mother’s insistence that he was “just curious about girls.” In both cases they think that because there was no kissing or penetration involved, and if the motivation was (allegedly) other than sexual, what they did wasn’t that bad.

I suppose it’s not surprising that Gothard is defending Josh, given that his own actions were so similar. In arguing that Josh touching his younger sisters’ breasts and genitals isn’t so bad because it was over their clothing, he defends his own actions by proxy.

Do you remember when that Saudi historian said that western women drive because they don’t mind getting raped? He used the danger that occurs when a woman’s car breaks down, leaving her open to sexual assault by any passerby, as a rationale for maintaining the Saudi ban on women driving. Well. Watch as this road safety module produced by Bill Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute (a program for fundamentalist homeschoolers) takes a weird turn.

(I was sent this module via Wende Benner of Homeschoolers Anonymous. You can read her story here. She filled out this module herself while attending Gothard’s EXCEL training program for girls.)

The module is titled “Road Safety: Survival Road Skills And Wise Responses to Danger.” Since the responses to danger bit falls under the road safety heading, we can assume it’s about things like changing a tire safely, or knowing how to drive around a car that isn’t signaling or staying in its lane, yes?

I actually would have found this page very helpful when I was a teen. If I’d read the bit about warning lights and overheating, I might not have totaled my mom’s car as a teen by melting her engine. (Seriously, this is one memory I’d really like to forget!) On the other hand, filling out a sheet like this does exactly squat to tell you where to put the brake fluid, or where the best jack points are, etc. So there’s that.

Hang on, are these meant to be the warning lights? Because if so, my experience suggests that different cars have different warning lights. In fact, we recently got a new (to us) car, and I’ve found that the manual is my friend because when the warning lights come on I have absolutely no idea what they mean, because they look totally different from my other car.

That last chart bit would be more helpful on a small notepad in the glove compartment, because I’m pretty sure most people aren’t going to be stuffing this entire module in there. But maybe it’s just meant to give the student experience with how these numbers should be written down?

This is actually fairly comprehensive. Most people probably don’t pray before a trip, but mine always did, so it doesn’t seem weird to me. And the list of things to bring (and do before leaving) is quite thorough.

While not getting to close to the car in front of you is important, one car length per 10 miles per hour isn’t going to serve you well when driving in congested cities. People will keep pulling into your lane in front of you, and then you’ll have to slow down to increase the distance. Also, the “what to do if there’s an accident” section says not to leave until an officer dismisses you, but it doesn’t say to call the police in the first place, which makes it feel slightly disjointed.

Of course, I’m just nit-picking here. We’re six pages into the module, and it’s mostly pretty standard stuff. Remember that these modules are designed for homeschooled students, many of whom (myself included) will never take driver’s ed, so it’s good that they’ll get any information at all, although obviously this module would be best accompanied with some hands-on training.

But let’s look at what comes next.

Yes, we’re still in the same “Road Safety” module! All we did was turn a page, and hey, would you look at that? Suddenly it’s all about responding to attackers . . . because it’s totes common for women to be assaulted while driving.

What “provokes” an attack, according to Gothard? How you dress and the sort of friends you chose. Lovely. Just lovely. Hello, slut shaming and victim blaming! And what should you do if you are attacked? Well, resist, of course, but also present the gospel and pray for your attacker. Because converting a man who is trying to rape you while fending him off to protect your virginity is pretty much the epitome of godliness.

This goes on for six full pages. Yes, you read that right—a full half of Gothard’s “Road Safety” module deals with what to do if you are attacked or assaulted while driving somewhere, because if you are a woman, leaving your father’s house is dangerous dangerous dangerous!

Yes, you read those first sentences correctly: “God has established some very strict guidelines of responsibility for a woman who is attacked. She is to cry out for help. The victim who fails to do this is equally guilty with the attacker.” Yes, really. A victim of sexual assault who does not cry out—who remains silent for whatever reason—is equally guilty with her attacker.

Think for a moment about the Duggar girls. They did not cry out for help when they were sexually assaulted by their older brother. How might studying from a module like this (and remember that the family centered their curriculum and Bible study on Gothard materials) affect one of them, or anyone else who has ever been sexually assaulted but kept silent? Remember that it is very common for a victim of child sexual abuse not to cry out, because they are first groomed to ensure that they won’t.

Okay, first of all, let’s be clear that “morally attack” means sexual assault. And second, let’s be clear that in the story presented on this page, the “I hope I got here in time” and “Sir, you did, you just barely did” exchange means the girl’s virginity was still intact, which is of course what really matters to Gothard. But the thing is, she was still sexually assaulted. She is still going to have to work through the trauma of that. And I actually get the feeling that Gothard isn’t aware of that. It’s like the fact that her hymen is still intact means no harm was done. Except that that’s not how it works.

But you know what I really want to know? How the blazes Gothard thinks this one example is evidence that it’s always safer for a woman to cry out when being assaulted than it is for her to remain silent. Look, this is going to vary! In some situations, screaming may alert someone that you need help or scare away the attacker. In other cases, screaming may just make the attacker become more violent. In some situations, a woman may be so shocked by what is happening (especially when the perpetrator is a friend or significant other) that she is stunned into silence. There is no one correct way to respond to being sexually assaulted, and saying there is will only lead victims to blame themselves more than they already do.

Of course, what really matters to Gothard is that if a victim of sexual assault does not scream for help, she violates scripture. It’s not really about what’s most affective, it’s about what the Bible says. But of course, now that he has said the Bible mandates it, he is going to explain that it is in fact effective by offering five more anecdotes (none of which involve rape or sexual assault, I might add).

Here are two anecdotes in which crying out to Jesus caused attackers to reconsider! Clearly this means it always works! If you try it and it doesn’t work, you must not have enough faith! /sarcasm

Actually, wait a minute. That second example might not even have been an attack. Perhaps the “strange man” who approached the woman was just going to ask for directions, and when she began shouting to God to save her from him, he backed up with raised eyebrows like anyone else would do in that situation.

Here are two more examples of cases where witnessing to an attacker caused the attacker to repent and apologize. Ignore the fact that neither of these cases involved sexual assault, because that totally doesn’t matter. If you have enough faith, witnessing to your rapist while he’s raping you will totally make him stop. /sarcasm

That bit about having enough faith that I keep repeating? That’s not in the text, but it’s sure as hell implied. If you’re “godly” enough, God will save you from being raped . . . and thus it follows that if you’re not saved from being raped you must not be godly enough. This is not a good message to be giving teenage girls, especially homeschooled teenage girls who almost certainly will not receive more accurate information elsewhere!

And then we’ll add one more anecdote for good measure. In case you haven’t noticed, Gothard is really big on anecdotes. His textbooks are absolutely chock full of them, from cover to cover.

I do want to note that none of these last five examples actually deals with rape. Only the first example—the girl in the alleyway—had to do with sexual assault. Granted, getting robbed or mugged or held at gunpoint is pretty bad, but encouraging teenage girls (the main target of this workbook) who are sexually assaulted to witness to their attacker somehow seems worse than encouraging them to witness to an attacker who is asking them to hand over whatever cash they have on them.

So, let’s see. Out of twelve pages of Gothard’s “Road Safety” module, six are about car maintenance and contingencies and six are about what to do if you’re sexually assaulted while out driving.

You can probably see, now, why I drew a connection between this and the Saudi historian’s opposition to women driving, because their car might break down and they might be raped at the side of the road. Gothard is positioning driving as something that is fundamentally dangerous for a woman. While it is true that women face a greater risk of sexual assault than men, women are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone they know than by a stranger at the side of the road. Portraying driving as fundamentally dangerous for a woman may discourage girls who take this module from achieving the independence that comes with the mobility driving offers.

Yesterday we looked at Gothard’s advice for young women in how to repel a “moral” attack (i.e., what to do if you are sexually assaulted). I want to take another look, for two reasons. First, Gothard actually misquotes the Bible, mashing verses together in such a way as to make the Bible say things it directly doesn’t. I do not understand how he can do this and yet be so revered by so many as a man who loves and teaches the Bible. Second, Gothard isn’t the only one to use apply these verses to rape victims today, so these verses are worth digging into on a more general level as well.

Here is what Gothard says:

God has established some very strict guidelines of responsibility for a woman who is attacked. She is to cry out for help. The victim who fails to do so is equally guilty with the attacker.

Again, this is actually quite typical of fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. It is also part of the reason so many conservatives have a problem talking about rape, and use terms like “legitimate rape” or even “violent rape.” The idea is that a woman has a responsibility to call for help or fight her attacker (etc.). Why? Because if she doesn’t—if she just lets it happen—how can we tell it wasn’t consensual sex (their argument, not mine)? And indeed, Deuteronomy 22, the chapter from which Gothard cites, is all about how to differentiate between consensual sex and rape.

Gothard quotes it this way:

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die . . . the damsel, because she cried not . . .” (Deuteronomy 22:22, 24)

I frankly do not understand how Gothard can do things like this and still be respected by so many as a man who knows and reveres the Bible. For one thing, the way he cites it, it speaks only of women who are married, but the training module this is in is for unmarried girls and young women. But the bigger problem is that the bit about a married woman actually contains nothing at all about crying out. Here is Deuteronomy 22:22 in full:

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

And that’s it. There is nothing about whether a married woman cries out or whether the act was consensual. The passage states that if a married woman has sexual contact with another man (whether an affair or rape), she is to be put to death. Period. Adding on the bit about crying out, as Gothard does, edits and changes what the Bible says. Again, for someone who claims to be some sort of Bible expert, this is completely indefensible. As an evangelical teenager, I was taught a verse from Revelation that condemns adding things to the Bible that aren’t already there:

Revelation 22: 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. 

I was taught that this verse discredits progressive Christians, such as those who claim that God is okay with homosexual behavior, but it seems to me that this verse applies more to conservatives like Gothard than anyone else. I have a serious distaste for Christians who claim to see the Bible as infallible and inerrant and condemn Christians who take a more historical approach, and then flat out lie about what the Bible says.

What’s only more odd is that Gothard didn’t have to mash this together. He could have just quoted the following verses:

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

The idea here is that if a woman is sexually assaulted in the city and cries out for help, help will come. In other words, the assumption is that if a woman engages in a sex act with a man in a city and no one hears anything and it is not disrupted, it must be consensual, because if it wasn’t the woman could simply cry out and someone would come and stop it.

Now first of all, even were the assumption true (i.e. if people lived in towns small enough that if you yelled for help, someone would hear you and come), it ignores the reality that some rape victims are stunned into silence, especially when their assailant is someone they know or a significant other as is frequently the case. The idea that a rape victim will always be collected enough to cry for help does not square with what we know of human psychology, and putting the burden on them to do so is both extremely unfair and morally abhorrent.

But second, even if it were once true that people lived in such close quarters in cities that crying for help would always bring said help (and I’m skeptical of this), it is not true today. This is one reason we should be wary of applying passages from Old Testament law to our society today—we no longer live in a tribal agrarian society.

When I was a girl growing up in an evangelical megachurch, I was taught to consider the intent of the passage and then how that intent would apply to our society today. Yes, the result would still be problematic given that the intent of this passage is a problem in and of itself, but I’d like to think that I at least would have noted that we no longer live in such close, personal quarters, and that that should affect the application of a passage like this.

But we haven’t finished the passage yet. Note that the above verses apply only to women who are already betrothed. Here’s what comes next:

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

So, let’s go over what this passage says, shall we?

• If a married woman has sexual contact with a man other than her husband, whether it is rape or an affair, she must be put to death.
• If an engaged woman has sexual contact in a city with a man other than her fiancé, it is assumed to be consensual and she must be put to death.
• If an engaged woman has sexual contact in the country with a man other than her fiancé, it is assumed to be rape and she may live.
• If a single woman has sexual contact with a man, whether consensual or rape, she must marry that man.

Gothard wants to use this passage to argue that women who are sexually assaulted have an obligation to cry out, but he completely ignores the vast majority of what is going on in this passage. Does Gothard believe that rape victims should be required to marry their assailants? I hope not (though I suppose I wouldn’t put it past him). My point is that it’s inconsistent to apply only part of the rules laid out in this passage while ignoring the rest. Gathered does not mention, for example, that it’s moot whether a married woman cries out when being raped, because she’s guilty regardless, but if he’s consistent, that should be his position.

Next time you hear someone mention women’s biblical obligation to cry out when being raped, point out that the same Old Testament passage that makes that requirement also requires the death penalty for married rape victims and mandates that single rape victims must marry their rapists. Now it may be that the individual making said argument will agree to both of these requirements, but they he do, hey, at least their morally repugnant views will be out in the open.

This passage of Deuteronomy belongs in a comprehensive history of how human societies have dealt with and understood rape over time, but it does not belong in either Gothard’s training manual for teenage girls or Republican politicians’ talking points.

In the aftermath of the revelation that Josh Duggar had an Ashley Madison account, I want to pause to promote some articles making some good points. First and foremost is this absolutely superb blog post by Elizabeth Esther, who points out that this is not just about Josh Duggar:

This isn’t just about Josh Duggar. It’s about an entire system of abuse (see also my article for TIME magazine).

This isn’t just about one guy’s sexual screw-ups. It’s about American Christian culture as a WHOLE and OUR really messed up relationship with sexuality.

This isn’t just about the downfall of one family, it’s about an ENTIRE Christian culture that is now reaping the bitter fruits of our misguided, ugly “culture wars.” This is about an entire CULTURE of American Christianity that equates political victories with moral ones.

The biggest mistake we can make right now is to believe that what is happening in the Duggar family is an isolated incident and isn’t indicative of the broader, American Christian culture.

This is about an American Christian culture that made insane promises like: “If you just wait until you’re married to have sex, everything will be wonderful.”

This is about an American Christian culture that turned purity into profit; using a 21-year old kid named Josh Harris to promote the fantasy that if you just “kiss dating goodbye,” you’ll end up with a faithful, godly, loving spouse for the rest of your life.

Next is an article for the New Yorker, written by Andrea Denhoed, another Christian homeschooling graduate, who draws important connections between this revelation and the fall of Christian homeschooling leaders Doug Phillips and Bill Gothard in 2013 and 2014, both of whom sexually molested young women in their employ.

This revelation comes at a time when the niche of conservative Christian homeschooling to which the Duggars belong can’t very well afford another disgraced celebrity. (I should note here that I grew up with Christian homeschooling, although I no longer have active connections with the community.) The past couple of years have been punctuated by scandals involving prominent figures in the movement. In October, 2013, Doug Phillips, of the Vision Forum, an organization that promoted the idea of “Biblical patriarchy,” stepped down from his role as president after being accused of sexually assaulting his children’s nanny several years before. In March, 2014, Bill Gothard, the founder of the Institute in Basic Life Principles, a homeschooling organization that promotes a strict conservative life style, with an emphasis on extremely modest dress and on women’s place in the home, was put on administrative leave (and later stepped down); an organization called Recovering Grace had released allegations from multiple former female employees of Gothard, many of whom were teen-agers when they worked for him, accusing him of sexual harassment. 

Finally, there is this article from Diary of an Autodidact, which points to parallels between Josh’s situation and the sexual mores of the middle ages. I found this article interesting because of how profoundly sad it is, on some level, that Josh felt he could not find the sexual intimacy he was looking for within marriage.

[I]n the romances of Chivalry, the fair lady that the knight fights to please is married to someone else. The romance is adulterous by definition. 

In fact, it is necessary to the romance, because marriage was for legitimate offspring, not love. Marriages were for political alliances, finances, and any number of reasons, but they were not a romantic pairing. In most cases, the woman, at least, had no choice in the matter. She was subject to the bargains struck by men. 

So the outlet for real romance was adultery. Because that was a chosen – and equal – relationship. After all, lovers owed no duty of obedience the way wives did.

Also striking in the stories is that they weren’t always consummated. Some affairs were physical in the usual sense, but others were torrid emotional affairs – clearly adulterous in spirit, but less likely to result in offspring.

The parallel here is interesting. Dude in an arranged marriage, making legitimate offspring to populate the Reconstructionist Army Of God™. (Hey, that’s four arrows in the quiver already!) Looks for some vanilla sex or non-sex on the side with an equal.

Now, again, Josh has behaved abominably, and there is no excuse for this sort of thing. Don’t get me wrong.

But it isn’t a surprise that it happened. And it strongly resembles a pattern from the glorious past. (Doug Phillips and Bill Gothard borrowed another classic technique from the past: hit on the servants.)

The ironic thing is that Josh and Anna were told that marrying through a parent-guided courtship and saving sex for marriage would give them a relationship that would withstand the ages. In other words, whatever parallels the Diary of the Autodidact may see between Josh’s philandering and the courtly romances of a time long past, that is definitely not what Josh or Anna were signing up for. They expected to get it all—the arranged marriage with its dutiful parcel of children, and the steamy intimate marital romance.

Elizabeth Esther is right. This isn’t just about Josh, and it isn’t just about the Duggars. It’s about an entire culture built upon promises it can’t keep. It’s about communities and leaders that promised young people that if they would only guard their emotions and save physical contact for marriage, their connection with their spouse and the sexual satisfaction they have in marriage will be more deep and meaningful than they can imagine—a promise that, for Josh and Anna like for so many other couples, turned out to be a lie.

Earlier this week Josh Duggar checked into Reformers Unanimous (RU), a Christian residential addiction treatment program in Rockford, Illinois, run by North Love Baptist Church and co-founded by the church’s authoritarian Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) pastor, Paul Kingsbury. Over the past twenty-four-hours, I have spoken with a number of individuals involved with or affected by either North Love or Kingsbury. Of primary importance are allegations that Kingsbury is actively supporting an accused sex offender, Richard DeVall, who is serving as a missionary in Bolivia and is sponsored by North Love Baptist Church. If true, this would seem to disqualify Kingsbury from running a recovery program for individuals suffering from porn addiction and sex addiction*, but Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches seem to run by their own rules.

There are some striking similarities here. After Josh Duggar molested his younger sisters as a teenager, he was sent to one of Bill Gothard’s training centers to take part in a construction program while receiving Christian mentoring. A decade later, Bill Gothard resigned after several dozen women leveled accusations of sexual abuse against him. This time Josh has been sent to Reformers Unanimous, a program founded by a church that has a history of involvement in Gothard’s Institute for Basic Life Principles and which focuses on physical labor and Bible study. Paul Kingsbury, co-founder and chair of Reformers Unanimous, is alleged to be providing financial support through his church to an accused sex offender who has refused to return to the country to face charges. In other words, the Duggars appear to have sent Josh for round two of the same failed treatment.

In this article, I will lay out the case against Kingsbury in four sections. First I will examine Kingsbury’s relationship with Jack Schaap, who was convicted in 2013 of violating the Mann Act by transporting a minor across state lines for sex. Next I will look at Kingsbury’s alleged role in preventing accused sex offender Richard DeVall from coming to justice. Third, I will examine Kingsbury’s alleged history of failing to notify parishioners and others when a known sex offender is in their midst. Finally, I will look at the strict authoritarian manner in which Kingsbury allegedly runs North Love Baptist Church. I will finish by turning back to the Duggars and tying together some of the overarching themes running through this story.

Kingsbury’s Relationship with Convicted Abuser Jack Schaap

According to his bio on the North Love website, Kingsbury “surrendered to serve Christ with his life under the preaching ministry of Dr. Jack Hyles of Hammond, Indiana” and went on to graduate from Hyles-Anderson College. Jack Hyles spent the last decade of his life embroiled in controversy over a child sexual abuse coverup in his church. His son-in-law, Jack Schaap, who succeeded him as pastor of First Baptist Church of Hammond after his death in 2001, is currently serving a twelve year prison sentence for violating the Mann Act in connection with a sexual relationship with 16- and 17-year-old parishioner. During the trial, it came to light that Schaap had groomed the minor during counseling sessions and had sex with her in his office. 

Kingsbury’s relationship with First Baptist Church of Hamnond and Hyles-Anderson is longstanding. Dan Parsons, who attended a Christian school run by North Love in the late 1970s and taught at the same school in the late 1980s, told me that students from the school were taken annually to youth conferences at Hyles-Anderson. Indeed, Kingsbury appears to maintain a relationship with First Baptist Church of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson to this day—he spoke at a Bible conference at First Baptist Church of Hammond only months after Schaap was sentenced.

Further, First Baptist Church of Hammond operates a chapter of Reformers Unanimous. This program was first brought to the church by now-imprisoned Jack Schaap. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that a sermon by Jack Schaap remains on a list of sermons Reformers Unanimous “recommends heartily” to RU students. According to Chicago magazine, Schaap was “part of what some call a deeply embedded culture of misogyny and sexual and physical abuse.” I was unable to find Kingsbury’s response to Schaap’s conviction, but I did find comments by one of his parishioners condemning those who would condemn Schaap and invoking Kingsbury as her authority for doing so. Kingsbury’s relationship with Schaap—and Schaap’s relationship with Reformer’s Unanimous—raises concerning questions about the culture of Reformers Unanimous. 

Kingsbury’s Alleged Support for an Accused Sex Offender

Several years ago, Bob Jones University invited GRACE, an organization run by Billy Graham’s grandson and Liberty University professor Boz Tchividijian, to conduct an investigation of their handling of rape and sexual assault on campus. The final report released by GRACE detailed a situation in the early 1990s where BJU expelled and then readmitted a man accused of sexual assault. According to the GRACE report, “the alleged perpetrator minimized the extent of his crime, but he admitted to touching her inappropriately without her consent while he believed she was sleeping.” The perpetrator was readmitted to BJU after claiming that he had reconciled with his victim, but this was later revealed to be a lie.

This man, identified as Richard DeVall, is currently serving as a missionary in Bolivia. According to the GRACE report, his victim finally went to the authorities in 2012. Shortly after this she received a letter of apology from DeVall. Not satisfied, she contacted DuVall’s missionary agency, Baptist Pioneer Mission (BPM), asking them to remove him from the field “due to potential risks he could pose to others.” They refused, telling her that DeVall “had been repentant to the mission board by confessing his offense and writing a letter of apology.” When she asked whether BPM would encourage DeVall to return to the United States to face charges for his crime, the board responded that they would “use any legal means to protect” DeVall. In spite of claiming in his apology letter that he would “cooperate and work with all those who are involved in the issue,” DeVall insisted that the matter must be handled “in a Biblical way” and, according to GRACE, has refused to return to the United States to face criminal charges.

BMP’s listing of policies and procedures states that “To be eligible for appointment with BPM, the missionary applicant must be a member of and commissioned by his or her New Testament church.” According to my sources, North Love Baptist Church is DeVall’s sending church. Kingsbury, as pastor of North Love, promoted DeVall’s mission work on his blog in February 2012. The month before, in January 2012, DeVall gave a sermon at North Love. BJUGrace, a Facebook group dedicated to seeking “grace and truth, righteousness and peace in the abuse allegations at Bob Jones University,” recently posted regarding the connections between Kingsbury and DeVall as well. According to BPM’s website, “BPM will only serve individuals who are recognized and commissioned by their local church to engage in missionary work (church planting).” While BPM is DeVall’s sending agency, North Love plays a crucial role as his sending church, and as senior pastor, much of the responsibility for this falls on Kingsbury. 

One would think that accusations of sexual assault leveled against a missionary would lead a church to have second thoughts about sending them into the field, but it appears that this has not occurred in DeVall’s case in spite of the fact that both my sources and BJUGrace allege that Kingsbury was notified some time ago of the details of DeVall’s crime. Kingsbury may believe DeVall has repented of his past sin and reformed his ways. This would be in keeping with IFB theology and Gothard’s teachings, but it flies in the face of DeVall’s unwillingness to return to the U.S. where he faces the possibility of criminal charges. If it is true that North Love is continuing to sponsor DeVall even with Kingsbury’s knowledge of the allegations against him, and that they have sent him into the field and are keeping him there out of fear that he will face criminal charges if he returns to the U.S., these are serious charges indeed. What impact might such unwillingness to take sexual abuse seriously and such inattention to systems of accountability have on the culture and teachings of Reformers Unanimous? 

Kingsbury’s Alleged Failure To Warn Parishioners against Sex Offenders

Working alongside Kingsbury, Pastor Ray Borah served as the Academic Dean of North Love Baptist College, pastor at North Love Baptist Church, and counselor at Reformers Unanimous. Before coming to North Love, Borah was employed as a youth pastor at a church in Florida. While serving as youth pastor, Borah, who had been married for well over a decade, allegedly sexually assaulted a teenage girl and became sexually involved with two other teenagers in his youth group. It is not clear whether Kingsbury knew of these allegations when Borah joined North Love, though the recent GRACE investigation revealed that the allegations had been reported to Bob Jones University some time before Borah joined Kingsbury’s pastoral staff, but were not investigated. 

About three years ago, Borah committed another sexual offense, this one at North Love itself. What happened is unclear and has been subject to much rumor. While there is little definitive information, we do know that at this time Borah parted ways with North Love. According to sources I have spoken with, neither Kingsbury nor anyone else at North Love warned either parishioners or others who came in contact with Borah after he left North Love about Borah’s offense. This put additional individuals at risk. 

This is not the first time Kingsbury has been involved in a failure to notify parishioners or other relevant parties that they have a sex offender in their midst. According to Parsons, in the late 1970s, when Kingsbury was a youth pastor at North Love, the English teacher and basketball coach at the school attached to the church was “caught peeping into the girls’ locker room.” The man was forced to confess, but the confession was kept extremely vague—”I got away from the Lord”—and no one was notified what he had done. “That was all hush hush,” Parsons told me. “Nobody who knew was permitted to talk about it.” This man was let go from the school, but was not blacklisted in any fashion. As a result, he simply traveled to another state and found a job at a Christian school there.

While Kingsbury was not senior pastor during the situation involving the school’s English teacher and basketball coach, as youth pastor he presumably participated in keeping the matter quiet and learned by example how affairs of this sort should be handled. Indeed, Kingsbury, who became senior pastor in 1982, only a few years after this incident, describes the senior pastor at the time as his “mentor.” In allegedly failing to notify others when they have a sex offender in their midst, Kingsbury has put others at risk and has shown himself to be either unaware of or uncaring about best practices for handling sexual abuse. This does not bode well for the practices of Reformers Unanimous, which Kingsbury co-founded and which continues to operate under his direction as chairman. 

“The Authority To Do Whatever He Wanted”

In perhaps the most startling part of our conversation, Parsons described an alternative Halloween activity that Kingsbury put on during the late 1970s as an example of Kingsbury’s abusive and manipulative tactics. As Parsons explained, after the various activities at the alternative Halloween event had drawn to a close, the youth gathered in the gym, expecting to hear a short sermon. Instead, Kingsbury had the church deacons and other leaders enter the room and “stage a mass shooting with guns that shot blanks.” According to Parsons, the men “came in and scared everyone and shot into the crowd” in an effort to “scare all the kids into making a decision to accept Christ.” The experience clearly made a big impression on Parsons. “They’re very big on that fear, that kind of persuasion,” he told me.

Parsons also told me that Kingsbury rules North Love with an iron fist. Speaking of his experience at North Love in the 1970s and 1980s and his discussions with church members in the decades since, Parsons told me that Kingsbury teaches his congregation that the King James Version of the Bible is the only acceptable translation and relies heavily on “The Trail of Blood,” a 1931 pamphlet that purports to reveal that the Baptists are the true heirs of the early church. “That gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted,” Parsons said. “‘If you’re not listening to me, you’re not following the New Testament, period.’” Individual Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) churches frequently function as their own cults of personality, lacking an authority structure that provides accountability. The senior pastor at an IFB church—a position Kingsbury has held since 1982—often wields a great deal of authority over his parishioners, and in Kingsbury’s case, Parsons told me, that power extended to what church members wore and what Bible edition they used.

Parsons also described North Love as a Gothard church. During the 1970s and 1980s, he told me, teachers at North Love’s Christian school were required to attend Bill Gothard’s seminars annually. These conferences typically took place on a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and were held in nearby Chicago. According to Parsons, the school would shut down on Friday so that the teachers could attend. After Gothard introduced his homeschool curriculum in the 1980s, some families took their children out of North Love’s Christian school to enroll them in Gothard’s program, with the support of the church. Kingsbury echoed Gothard’s teachings about women and gender, barring women from wearing pants (the school’s cheerleaders were required to sign a pledge that they wouldn’t wear pants even at home) and preaching against birth control. “Pastor Kingsbury preached from the pulpit that women were baby machines,” Parsons told me. Gothard resigned from his ministry last year as an increasing number of women accused him of sexually molesting them while they were working for him. While Parsons no longer has close friends at North Love, he told me that his friends who have retained the beliefs they were taught at North Love tend to defend Gothard. “They say that he didn’t do anything wrong,” Parsons noted.

Over the past few years, fundamentalist churches have suffered one sex abuse scandal after another. Fundamentalist colleges and missions agencies have taken a hit as well. Speaking in 2013, Boz Tchividjian shocked many when he stated that evangelicals are “worse” on sexual abuse than Catholics. Tchividjian argued that evangelicals’ individualism makes them wary of transparency and accountability, causing abuse to go unseen, ignored, or unreported. In addition, Tchividjian noted that evangelical pastors and missionaries who are ousted over abuse allegations often simply switch churches or missions agencies, leaving their sordid pasts behind them. Without an overarching hierarchy, a church may never be told of a new pastor or missionary’s past misdeeds. When churches promote strict modesty standards and portray women as temptresses, victim blaming becomes all too common, contributing to the collapse of any attempt at best practices. The cult of personality that frequently develops at IFB churches only exacerbates these problems. When one man holds all the power, that power is easy to abuse.

Conclusion

Kingsbury founded Reformers Unanimous as a ministry of North Love in 1996. Parsons described the early material used by RU as “pretty much just mindless filling in the blanks.” When I asked Parsons whether it would be accurate to say that RU seeks to cure sexual deviance in the church not by addressing the sexual ethics and power structures that so often contribute to it but rather by terming it an addiction and throwing the Bible at it, he laughed and agreed with my analysis. As others have reported already, Reformers Unanimous does not appear to have any licensed counselors on staff, and its residential program appears to be made up entirely of physical labor and Bible study. This is a path Josh Duggar has been down before, but it is the only path his parents seem able to envision. Questioning the beliefs and dynamics that lead to abuse is difficult; solving problems with a larger dose of Bible reading is the familiar default.

The Duggars have made a career out of bottling up their children’s sexual energies, keeping them set on zero until marriage and then unleashing them, but most of what they teach is common in fundamentalist churches. Women are expected to dress modestly so as not to give men the wrong idea, and sexual assault victims are asked what they did to lead their abuser on or cause their assault. When married men have affairs, their wives are blamed for not being sexually available enough to keep them at home. On top of all of this, wives are expected to submit to and obey their husbands (and children are expected to submit to and obey their parents). When taken together, these teachings can be a recipe for disaster. And there’s more, too. Once a man confesses and repents of his sexual offense, his victim must either forgive him or face charges of bitterness. A parent who is loathe to leave her children alone with a man who has molested children in the past may be accused of not believing in God’s capacity to change lives. None of this is conducive to a healthy sexual ethic, healing for abuse survivors, or safety for the community at large.

As of this week, Josh is at Reformers Unanimous, whose chairman and cofounder, Paul Kingsbury, had a longterm working relationship with convicted sexual predator Jack Schaap, is allegedly protecting an accused sex offender from justice, and allegedly has a habit of failing to notify people when a known sexual predator is in their midst. How an individual alleged to have such a troubled relationship with both legal accountability for sex offenses and established best practices for handling cases of sexual abuse can be expected to run an affective and above-board rehab program for individuals who come to him seeking help for addictions to porn or sex is perhaps question of the week.

* There is some disagreement over what porn addiction and sex addiction look like and whether they are properly labeled addictions. However, regardless of where one falls on the question, Reformers Unanimous is out of step with professional opinion in how it understands and approaches both conditions. This is transparently obvious in the simple fact that the RU website states that 50% of Christian men are addicted to pornography. RU appears to see “looks at pornography” as synonymous with “addicted to pornography,” which also calls into question the program’s ability to treat those individuals it admits.  

I wrote recently about some of the many definitional issues surrounding the term “quiverfull.” If you have not already read that post, you can do so here. But in this post I want to go farther and argue that we need to be calling the Duggars ATI, not quiverfull, because their primary identification is with Bill Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute and their quiverfull beliefs stem from that organization. More generally, I would argue that accuracy demands that we be clear about what leaders and what organizations any given Christian homeschooling family follows. This is because umbrella terms like “quiverfull” or “Christian patriarchy” erase and blur distinctions that can be critically important.

Let me give you an example of why this matters. Take a look at the framing of this question InTouch recently asked No Longer Quivering founder Vyckie Garrison:

The way the reporter framed the question is a problem, because quiverfull is not monolithic. Instead, it is an ideology that is held and taught by a wide range of people. How a quiverfull person will feel about an illegitimate baby will depend on which leader and organization they follow. In this case, InTouch should be asking “How do people in ATI feel about an illegitimate baby?” But because they (and we) have gotten so used to using the umbrella term when talking about the Duggars, they may not even know that question exists.

Here is Vyckie’s response:

Vyckie was close to Nancy Campbell’s ministry, Above Rubies, and within those circles this answer makes perfect sense. Campbell emphasizes mothers and babies and childbearing. She writes constantly about what blessings babies are and urges women to accept all of the blessings God chooses to give them. In addition to her involvement with Campbell, Vyckie was heavily involved in a form of anti-abortion activism that emphasized that babies are always—always—a blessing. That this would have been her position on illegitimate babies when she was quiverfull makes perfect sense.

The problem is that the Duggars are an ATI family, not an Above Rubies family. Even though both groups can be termed quiverfull, they are in fact very different. ATI was founded by Bill Gothard, who spent decades dictating the minutia of ATI belief and practice, and that comes with very specific beliefs—beliefs not shared by Nancy Campbell or Above Rubies. That is why I said InTouch asked the wrong question. They needed to ask what ATI teaches about illegitimate children, but because the Duggars have been overwhelmingly labeled “quiverfull” rather than “ATI,” they didn’t know to ask that. And that’s a problem.

Several homeschool graduates who grew up in ATI families mentioned this differences at play here in comments on Vyckie’s post, explaining the specifics of ATI theology on illegitimate children:

Yes, that’s right—Gothard taught that the sins of the parents were passed on to the children. This was called “intergenerational sin” and it is why Gothard was generally negative about adoption—he argued that adopted children come with all sorts of problems because of the sins of their parents, and advised parents to only adopt children in situations where they knew their family background. Gothard’s specific teaching about intergenerational sin is crucially important to understanding how families like the Duggars—followers of Gothard’s ministry—would view an illegitimate child.

I suggested in my previous post that we need a new term for this overarching parallel universe that is the Christian homeschooling world of Bill Gothard, Michael Pearl, Nancy Campbell, etc. But now I think that maybe, instead, we need to focus instead on which leaders and organizations a given individual or family is following rather than making generalizations about the group as a whole. I am just as guilty of speaking in generalizations as anyone else, and it’s something I plan to work on.

Labeling the Duggars ATI rather than quiverfull may also help call attention to the cult-like and oppressive teachings of Gothard. The term “quiverfull” applies to only a specific aspect of the Duggars’ beliefs, and using that label minimizes the reality that the Duggars are quiverfull because they are ATI. It allows the public to focus on their large family rather than their cult-like beliefs. Drawing attention to ATI and Bill Gothard makes the problem more tangible. Changing the terminology we use may make it harder for the media and the public to ignore the harsh realities of ATI’s teachings when talking about the Duggars.

There is absolutely a place for attacking an overarching ideology, but those efforts must be supplemented with efforts to oppose and criticize individual leaders and organizations that promote that ideology. If our efforts skew too far toward addressing the ideology rather than the organizations that promote it, we become less effective. Quiverfull beliefs propagate through a network of leaders and organizations. They do not just appear out of thin air. We must be comprehensive, tackling both ideas and people, both ideologies and organizations.

And so as we go forward, let’s label the Duggars “ATI” and emphasize the importance of Gothard’s teachings to the Duggars’ beliefs while also addressing the problems inherent to quiverfull beliefs more generally. It can’t be either/or. It has to be both/and.

Bill Gothard was taken down largely as a result of efforts by a website named Recovering Grace. This website was founded and run by alumni of Bill Gothard’s various ministry. They initially intended to focus on his theology and argue that he taught a pernicious brand of legalism that ignored or overshadowed the grace of God. Hence the name Recovering Grace. Ultimately, Gothard’s downfall was ensured as first one, then two, then dozens of women came to the Recovering Grace team with allegations of sexual harassment and sexual abuse by Bill Gothard. Recovering Grace told these women’s stories, and then, eighteen months ago, Gothard was forced to step down from ministry.

Gathered himself released a statement in April 2014. He wrote as follows:

This emphasis on outward appearance was also manifested by bringing selected young people to serve at the Headquarters and causing others to feel rejected and offended by my favoritism. My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust. Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.

You can read Recovering Grace’s response to Gothard’s statement here. While Gothard denied kissing anyone or claimed he had never touched a girl “immorally or with sexual intent,” what he does admit—”holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies”—very clearly crosses the line into sexual harassment. Remember that we are talking about young women in his employ, and in many cases teenage girls who left their homes and families to come live in his compound and serve as his secretaries or personal assistants.

Remember that Gothard forbids this sort of contact between young men and young women, and even sent young people home from his compound when they violated his strict rules governing contact between the sexes. Gothard has sexualized every little touch between young people, and yet he claims that he touched young women’s hair, hands, and feet, and engaged in hugging with them, but that there was never sexual intent. Remember that Gothard’s followers practice side hugs between the sexes, a la the Duggars. That is how far male-female contact is controlled and regulated in these circles.

You would think Gothard’s admissions would seal the deal here. You would think his followers would read them and immediately see grievous guilt. Sadly, this is not the case for many. A number of Gothard’s followers have created a new website defending Bill Gothard. This website is named Discovering Grace, and in this case, the grace being discussed seems to have to do with overlooking Gothard’s misdeeds than anything else.

What I want to touch on is not the website’s content but rather some very serious irony in its framing. Here is the website’s byline:

The Freedom and Power in Christ to Obey and Overcome

While the organizers of this website may honestly believe that Gothard is innocent, their blindness to the absolute inappropriateness of centering obedience in this conversation suggests that they haven’t been listening—at all. Many of Gothard’s victims have explained the role obedience played in victimizing them—in rendering them unable to say “no” to Gothard’s advances. In fact, I would argue that obedience may have been the largest tool in Gothard’s arsenal as he went about sexually harassing and molesting young women in his employ.

There are other indications that the Discovering Grace team does not understand the dynamics of abuse, or the dynamics at play in this situation. For example, they feature stories of young women who had contact with Gothard but were never sexually harassed or otherwise abused. These testimonies are irrelevant, because they are based on the assumption that an abuser would abuse everyone they have contact with, when in fact abusers usually carefully select their victims while maintaining an upstanding profile with others around them, so as to discredit victims’ testimony should they come forward. Even confessing child molesters are often defended by their friends and supporters.

Let’s have a look at some more of Discovering Grace’s defense of Gothard:

Bill has not confessed to sexual harassment in any form, remains adamant that he was not morally improper in any way, whether legally defined as such or not. The matters he has addressed in past statements involve what most ministries consider normal boundaries for men counseling young ladies.

Bill is an idealist, and he has always considered himself in the role of a father to the young men and women under his care. As such he felt it appropriate to touch their shoulders or tap their feet in an affirming way, young men and women, and he has for 50 years held the hands of young ladies he is counseling as he speaks to their hearts, usually in front of others, in some cases large audiences.  His hours are 4AM to midnight and he fills every minute, including late night counseling, which sometimes was alone with the individual.  All that have observed this know that he always kept the windows uncovered, bright lights showing the room to all walking by.

My actual father does not take my hands in his or touch my shoulders or hair or tap my feet (what does that even mean?). I understand that fathers vary in how touchy feely they are, but the Discovering Grace team is describing playing footsie as a typical father thing when it’s not. They’re also wrong that these actions are considered “normal boundaries for men counseling young ladies.” I’m fairly certain that a middle aged male licensed therapist who made a habit of taking his young female clients’ hands in his while counseling them would get in trouble for such behavior.

In addition to not understanding the role obedience can play in priming victims for abuse or the predatory behavior of abusers in careful selecting their victims while retaining an upstanding profile around others, the Discovering Grace team also has no understanding of what physical boundaries are considered appropriate for counseling and therapy situations. That they can defend Gothard while promoting a variety of narratives that create conditions that facilitate abuse is appalling.

It has been nearly two years since Bill Gothard stepped down from leadership at his ministry, the Institute for Basic Life Principles (IBLP), amid a growing number of accusations that he sexually harassed and molested girls and young women in his employ. This past October, a group of individuals filed a negligence lawsuit against IBLP. This lawsuit has been amended, and Bill Gothard is now named as well.

This week, Homeschoolers Anonymous obtained the text of the lawsuit, which involves complaints made by ten women, seven named and three Jane Does. This document is over 100 pages long. In the interest of improving accessibility, I have read through the entire document and am listing a summary of each woman’s allegations below. But first, some general thoughts.

Some of the allegations listed in the document were previously published at Recovering Grace, a website run by graduates of Gothard’s programs to express criticism of Gothard and his teachings, and others are similar in content to these allegations. In sum, Bill Gothard selected girls as young as 13 from the audiences at his conferences and invited them to come work at headquarters. Once there, he groomed them sexually and molested them. It was common knowledge at IBLP that Gothard took “pets,” and yet his behavior was allowed to continue unchecked.

Other allegations included in the lawsuit are new, though not surprising. One plaintiff discloses that Gothard raped her. In addition, we learn that Gothard and his employees failed to report disclosures of physical abuse, sexual abuse, and human trafficking as required by law for organizations working with children, and that this was true not only for allegations made against Gothard but also for disclosers that involved sexual abuse carried out by other IBLP employees or by children’s parents.

In several cases Gothard responded to teenagers’ disclosures of parental abuse by calling the parents, sometimes in front of the teen, to ask whether the allegations were true. At one point he told an individual that children must obey their parents even in cases involving sexual abuse. However, when an 18-year-old girl Gothard was pursuing rebuffed him, he told her that if she were 17 he would have called social services and had her removed from her parents’ home.

We also learn more about Gothard’s grooming and the extent to which he would latch onto a specific girl as his “pet.” The plaintiffs allege that Gothard told them he loved them, that they were special to him, that they were his “energy giver,” and more. He dictated where these girls lived, what clothes they wore, how they wore their hair, and even paid for them to undergo cosmetic surgery. That all of this was taking place and was common knowledge and nothing was done attests to the abusive power cultish leaders can wield over their followers.

Also of note, the lawsuit makes it clear that Gothard continued his predatory behavior all the way up to the point he stepped down from IBLP in 2013. Two of the plaintiffs, Melody Fedoriw and Jane Doe III, describe abuse that occurred in 2011 and 2012. This is especially appalling to me, given that I had friends from growing up who worked for IBLP and at headquarters during this period and in the years immediately before it. I’ll be honest—when I first opened the document I scanned the list quickly, worried that I would see a familiar name.

For most of the women listed in the lawsuit, the statute of limitations for the sexual abuse they suffered at Gothard’s hands have passed. For this reason, the lawsuit focuses not so much on the abuse itself as on the failure of both Gothard and IBLP to handle the abuse as required by law and on the damage caused through the sham investigation conducted by the Christian Law Association (CLA) in 2014.

According to the lawsuit, Gothard himself chose the CLA to conduct IBLP’s internal investigation into the allegations of sexual misconduct. CLA is a fundamentalist Independent Baptist organization run by David Gibbs, Jr., a personal friend of Gothard’s and a frequent speaker at IBLP conferences. CLA has no staff qualified for investigating abuse allegations, and the organization failed to contact or interview the individuals named in the lawsuit, in spite of the fact that many of them had already published their allegations and that it was these allegations that had triggered the internal investigation.

The lawsuit also claims that IBLP has made moves to sell its holdings in Illinois in order to avoid being sued there, where the majority of the abuse occurred.

These women—both the plaintiffs and those who have not been in positions to come forward—deserved better. They were failed on multiple levels. My heart goes out to the ten women serving as plaintiffs on this lawsuit, and to every survivor of Gothard’s abuse who has had to put one foot in front of another day after day. One of the women, Jane Doe III, describes the personal harassment and verbal assault she faced from Gothard after publishing her accusations in the comment section of Recovering Grace in 2012. To my knowledge, this is the first time any of Gothard’s survivors have come forward under their own names. Many of these women will lose family members or friends for what they are doing. They and the other survivors supporting them from behind the scenes are to be commended for their efforts to bring Gothard and IBLP to justice and to help protect future young people from facing similar pain.

I am going to summarize the allegations of each woman below, with quotes from the lawsuit. I am doing so in order to make this information more accessible. Remember, there are still individuals out there defending Bill Gothard. I don’t want them to have any excuse—including the excuse that the information is buried in a 100+ page document full of legalese—not to view and learn the allegations involved in this current lawsuit.

First, a very brief summary:

Gretchen Wilkinson was groomed and molested by Gothard during counseling from 1991 to 1993 while still a minor.

Jane Doe was severely abused by her adoptive parents. When she reported this to Gothard as a young teenager, he blamed her and failed to notify the authorities.

Jane Doe II was sexually abused and trafficked by her father. When she told IBLP staff they failed to notify the authorities. She was also raped as a child by IBLP employee Kenneth Copley while at the Indianapolis Training Center. She reported this, but the other IBLP employees did not believe her.

Melody Fedoriw was groomed and molested by Gothard while working at headquarters in 2012 at age 15.

Charis Barker was groomed and sexually harassed by Gothard while working at headquarters in the late 1990s, beginning at age 18.

Rachel Frost was groomed and sexually harassed by Gothard while working at headquarters in the early to mid-1990s, beginning at age 15.

Rachel Lees was groomed and sexually harassed by Gothard while working at headquarters in the early 1990s, beginning at age 19 or 20.

Jane Doe III was groomed by Gothard in the late 2010s beginning at age 13.

Jamie Deering was groomed and molested by Gothard while working at headquarters in the early to mid-1990s, beginning at age 14.

Ruth Copley Burger was sexually abused by her father, Kenneth Copley, while the family lived at the Indianapolis Training Center in the mid-1990s when she was 11 or 12.

Now a more detailed summary. As you read this, if you choose to do so, please remember that these women have come forward not to give people fodder to use to mock “fundies” but rather to bring accountability to IBLP and bring Gothard to justice. They have told their stories not to initiate a snark fest but rather to bring change. Many of the women involved in this lawsuit are still strong believers in God and the Bible. This isn’t about making a strike against religion, it’s about making a strike against abuse and brining meaningful change.

Gretchen Wilkinson

Gretchen was an IBLP participant and employee as a minor from 1991 to 1993. She was molested by Bill Gothard while being counseled in his home office. According to the lawsuit:

45. The molestation included Bill Gothard placing his hands on Ms. Wilkinson’s breasts and on her thighs—up to her genitals, while she was clothed.

Gretchen was a minor at this time. Gretchen published her account with Recovering Grace under the name “Charlotte.”

Jane Doe

Jane Doe attended IBLP conferences from 1982 to 1988. Jane Doe was abused and neglected by her adoptive family, including sexual abuse by multiple male relatives and severe physical abuse. According to the lawsuit, “she was beaten so severely by her adoptive family that she would duck and flinch anytime someone came near.” When Jane Doe told Gothard about her abuse, while still a teenager, he not only failed to report it but also blamed her for her own abuse.

80. On several occasions—including when JANE DOE was 14, 15, and 16 years old, JANE DOE informed Bill Gothard of her physical, psychological, and sexual abuse. Bill Gothard’s response was to advise her to “let go of her bitterness,” and to “let go of her rights,” and to “stop being rebellious.” Bill Gothard always made the abuse JANE DOE’s fault.

Gothard also sought to cast demons out of Jane Doe.

82. When she was approximately 15 years old, JANE DOE became aware of Bill Gothard’s teaching that adopted children should be “given back” to their biological parents or to the state. Bill Gothard taught that due to the “curse of the sins of the forefathers” adopted children were doomed to repeat the evils of their biological parents. Bill Gothard also taught that adoptive children tainted a family’s biological children. Thus the reason they should be given back.

83. Bill Gothard attributed his teachings about adopted children to “demonic forces” that he claims affect these children. He taught that if adoptive children were not “returned,” they should at least be ordered to “earn their keep” in the family home. It was his teaching that they should be treated more like slaves than children.

Under the influence of Gothard’s teachings, Jane Doe’s parents ultimately kicked her out of the house and disowned her. Her mother beat her again the day she was kicked out.

At around this time Jane Doe spoke again with Bill Gothard, expressing concern that her siblings, too, were being abused. Gothard never reported anything to social services. Jane Doe wrote to the IBLP Board of Directors, letting them know what she had told Gothard, and they, too, failed to report anything.

Jane Doe II

From 1991 (when she was four) through 2009, Jane Doe II participated in IBLP programs and served as an IBLP volunteer. She was physically, emotionally, and sexually abused in her home, as were her siblings. According to the lawsuit, she was “raped by her father and other relatives” and “sold for sex by her father through commercial sexual exploitation and human trafficking.” Jane Doe II reported both the severe sexual abuse and the human trafficking to IBLP staff, but those staff members did not contact authorities.

As a child, Jane Doe II was raped by Kenneth Copley, a counselor at ATI’s Indianapolis training center. Jane Doe II reported this rape to IBLP staff, but nothing was done and nothing was reported to authorities.

Jane Doe II later told Gothard about her abuse.

128. On at least five occasions, JANE DOE II told Bill Gothard that she was being sexually abused by her father and that her younger siblings were also being abused. Bill Gothard took pleasure in the details presented and kept pressuring JANE DOE II for more explicit details of the abuse that took place.

129. On one occasion, when JANE DOE II disclosed details about her abuse and the abuse of her siblings, Bill Gothard called JANE DOE II’s father on a speakerphone and asked if the allegations were true. JANE DOE II’s father denied the allegations. JANE DOE II was humiliated by this process. The last time JANE DOE II tried to disclose abuse, Bill Gothard personally threatened her. Bill Gothard taught that parents were to be believed over children and that children were to obey their parents no matter what, even if they were being sexually abused.

A short time later, Bill Gothard took Jane Doe II to his “private suite” and raped her.

During this entire time, neither Gothard nor any of the numerous other IBLP staff members who also knew of Jane Doe II’s accusations against her father and against Kenneth Copley notified authorities.

Melody Fedoriw

Melody attended IBLP’s Journey to the Heart in 2011 and worked at IBLP headquarters during much of 2012. During her time as an employee at headquarters, Melody, only 15 years old, was groomed and molested by Gothard.

169. Bill Gothard would call Ms. Fedoriw into his office late at night for Bible study and to mentor her. During this time, Bill Gothard would always want to sit on the couch with Ms. Fedoriw.

170. During the Bible study and mentoring process, Ms. Fedoriw reported the fact that she was being abused by a parent to Bill Gothard.

171. Bill Gothard then called Ms. Fedoriw’s parents and disclosed the abuse information that she had disclosed in confidence to her abuser.

172. By the second instance of late night Bible study/mentoring, Bill Gothard was putting his arms round Ms. Fedoriw and pulling her closer to him.

173. Despite the fact that Ms. Fedoriw confronted Bill Gothard about his conduct, it continued.

174. Bill Gothard continued to touch Ms. Fedoriw in ways that made her uncomfortable, including rubbing her back and legs. While Bill Gothard was rubbing Ms. Fedoriw’s legs, he would move his hands to her upper thigh. Bill Gothard was touching Ms. Fedoriw very close to her vaginal area, when he rubbed her upper thighs.

The above quote is long, so let me summarize. Gothard had one-one-one late night mentoring sessions with Melody, who was then 15 and living at headquarters. When Melody disclosed abuse she had suffered at her parent’s hands, he called her parent and reported what she had said. He also sexually molested her during these mentoring sessions despite her attempts to get him to stop.

In March 2014, after Gothard stepped down from his position, Melody reported Gothard’s conduct to the local police department. The police department classified Gothard’s actions as criminal but did not prosecute because the statute of limitations had passed.

Charis Barker

Charis Barker’s involvement with IBLP began in 1986, when her family enrolled in the ATI program when she was six, and continued through 2000. In 1997, when she was 17, Gothard singled her out at an IBLP seminar and invited her to come work at headquarters. When she was 18, she left home for headquarters, first as a volunteer and then as an employee. While there, Gothard groomed and sexually harassed her.

211. At lunch, at times in his office, while riding in his van, while sitting on his couch, whoever possible, Gothard’s feet would touch Ms. Barker’s feet, whenever he had the opportunity.

212. Gothard’s sexual harassment of Ms. Barker got to the point that the only way she was able to prevent Gothard from touching her feet, while riding in his van, was for Ms. Barker to sit on her feet.

213. Whenever she sat on the couch in his office, he would sit very close to her and put his hands on her knee.

214. During church he would lay his head on her shoulder and he would at least pretend to fall asleep.

Over time, Charis became more and more uncomfortable, and ultimately contacted her parents, who “assured her that Bill Gothard would never inappropriately touch anyone.” Gothard’s behavior continued for the 18 months Charis spent at headquarters. Charis stayed to complete her year-long employment contract (after six months of volunteering). Her parents told her that if she was kicked out of headquarters, she should consider herself kicked out at home, too.

Charis published her story with Recovering Grace under the pseudonym “Grace.”

Rachel Frost

Rachel Frost was a volunteer and employee at IBLP headquarters from 1992 to 1995. Gothard singled Rachel out at an ATI conference when she was 15 and asked her to come work at headquarters. Rachel initially demurred, saying she was too young, but Gothard hounded her and wore her down, paying for her plane ticket and handing her cash to attend to her needs once she arrived. Gothard then groomed and sexually harassed her.

259. Gothard told Ms. Frost that he wanted to keep her close to him, so she started her work at headquarters as one of his personal assistants (secretaries). However, at the age of fifteen (15), she had poor secretarial skills and no understanding of how the organization ran or who was important. After a week in his office, Ms. Frost was moved to the ATI Department.

Gothard paid Rachel special attention and would touch her feet with his during lunch; she eventually learned to keep her feet back behind her chair to prevent this. Gothard sent a 17-year-old boy home for talking and flirting with Rachel.

265. Gothard advised Ms. Frost that she had a special place in his heart and advised her that he wanted her to remain at headquarters indefinitely.

Rachel returned home after three weeks because of family issues, but Gothard called her soon afterward to ask her to travel with him on a trip to Australia and then to come to headquarters permanently. He offered to pay all of her expenses. Rachel’s parents wanted her to stay at home and finish her education, but were eventually worn down by Gothard’s constant requests. At age 17, Rachel took the GED and headed to headquarters to work for Gothard’s ministry “indefinitely.”

Once she was back at headquarters, Gothard continued to single Rachel out, and gradually initiated further inappropriate physical contact. He sexually harassed Rachel during van trips, pushing his thighs against hers, grabbing her hair, and touching her legs with his fingers and her feet with his feet.

274. As a result of the special treatment and physical attention she received from Gothard, Ms. Frost was referred to as Gothard’s “pet,” his “type,” his “favorite,” or a “Gothard girl.” The sexual harassment, and special attention were no secret. Gothard’s conduct was common knowledge to the IBLP staff.

Rachel began looking for excuses to avoid Gothard, and ultimately left for a job as a nanny. Rachel published her story on the Recovering Grace website.

Rachel Lees

Rachel Lees served as Gothard’s secretary from 1992 to 1993, during the same time Rachel Frost was at headquarters, and had many similar experiences. Rachel was 19 or 20 when Gothard met her at a seminar in New Zealand and asked her to come work at headquarters. He assigned her to himself personally. When she was running low on money, he gave her cash. He quizzed her about former boyfriends and wanted to hear the details of any moral failings she may have had.

312. Approximately six to eight weeks after Ms. Lees began working for Gothard, she noticed that he found reasons to touch her. The touching consisted of sitting so close to her that they were touching. He would sit close, so that his arm or hand would brush against hers. It progressed from there to other physical contact, which made Ms. Lees uncomfortable. The other physical contact included lingering hugs and holding hands. Gothard also began to find reasons to be alone with Ms. Lees.

313. Gothard told Ms. Lees that it was fun. He liked being with her, “just you and me.”

At one point, while on a trip to Dallas, Gothard called Rachel to his hotel room alone, and embraced her as they sat on the couch. At another point, Gothard embraced her and whispered in her ear, telling her that she was his “jewel” and his “energy-giver.”

317. On a long drive to Detroit, Ms Lees felt Gothard put his hands on hers. Later, she felt his foot brush up against her leg. When she first felt his foot run up the back of her leg, she was startled. He locked his leg under hers, and she felt his foot rubbing against hers. He was playing “footsie” with her. But Ms. Lees describes Gothard’s actions as more intimate than that. His foot stroked the back of her leg, played with her toes, explored her leg all the way up her calf muscle and back down over and over again, while he was gripping her hand in between them. When Ms. Lees lifted her hand to intentionally break his hold, Gothard pulled her hand over his thigh. When she resisted, he held her hand and rested it on his thigh, covering her hand with his. He patted her hand, massaged it, rubbed her fingers with his thumb, running his dumb slowly up and down between her fingers, over and over. Gothard would frequently hold hands with Ms. Lees during travel.

Once again, this attention was not secret.

318. Gothard’s emotional and physical attraction to Ms. Lees was no secret at IBLP. On one occasion, the wife of an IBLP Board member approached Ms. Lees and told her that people had expressed concern about “the attachment between you and [Gothard].” “People are starting to notice that he is paying you special attention.”

At one point, one of Gothard’s sisters accused Rachel of wanting to marry Gothard, and was angry with her. Gothard pushed his control further, arranging for a doctor to remove Rachel’s small skin blemishes, which he called “a distraction.” In 1993 Rachel was forced to leave IBLP headquarters due to immigration issues.

Years later, Rachel learned that Gothard had sought permission from the IBLP Board to marry her. She was horrified at this information, finally recognizing him as a predator. She also learned that the board denied Gothard permission to marry her. At this time, Gothard was nearly 60 years old. Rachel was 20. The board also reportedly told Gothard that they were not going to allow him to have female personal assistants in the future, but they never enforced this rule.

Rachel published her story with Recovering Grace under the name “Meg.”

Jane Doe III

Jane Doe III participated in ATI from 2003 through 2012. In 2006, Gothard approached Jane Doe III at a seminar and asked her to join a missions opportunity on his staff as soon as she turned 14. Jane Doe III declined the invitation because of a medical condition, and Gothard spent the following five years badgering her.

352. . . . Gothard frequently used the stress in JANE DOE III’s home as a reason that she should come to headquarters.

353. In 2011, at the age of 18, Bill Gothard aggressively pursued JANE DOE III at a conference in Indianapolis. At 11:00 PM one night, he called JANE DOE III’s father to ask permission for her “to come to headquarters for 3-4 weeks” to “learn how to respect him.”

354. Gothard did not want JANE DOE III to work. He just wanted her to come counsel with him personally to learn how to deal with the stress of her strained relationship with her father.

When Jane Doe III’s parents finally agreed to let her come to headquarters for several weeks, Gothard wanted to come pick her up in his van immediately. Her mother refused, insisting on driving her to headquarters herself the following week.

356. When JANE DOE III arrived at headquarters, Gothard announced: “the day I have been waiting for for six years—you are finally here.”

357. Gothard then informed JANE DOE III, that her “[f]ather has lost his authority over [her], because of his behavior. We are your family now.” He made an analogy to Jesus on the cross telling John to care for Mary, her mother.

Rather than counseling her, Gothard focused on convincing Jane Doe III to stay at headquarters permanently. He attempted to turn her against her mother, and to convince her to send her mother away. When Jane Doe III refused, and explained that her mother was her “best friend” and that she would not be separated from her, Gothard commenced efforts to convince Jane’s mother to divorce her father and stay and work at headquarters.

361. Gothard would hold JANE DOE III’s hand, touch her hair, carries her, wink at her, whisper in her ear, kick her feet under the table, place his shoes on top of hers when sitting on the couch, and be very flirtatious with her. Frequently, he would press his thigh against hers while sitting together, place his arm along the top / back of the sofa or chair. He would complement her hair, smile and laugh several times per day. He directed her never to cut her hair. He would say to her: “[JANE DOE III] come over here.” “You belong here. Perfect Angel. Beautiful. Amazing.” He said to her: “I love you, you know that, right?” “Maybe you dad doesn’t love you, but I do.” “God has put a special love in my heart to you.” “You are my energy giver.” “I love being around you.” She felt that other people knew that she was one of “Gothard’s pets.” This made her uncomfortable and she would shake her head and with a stern look would frown and correct Gothard and tell him: “No, I’m not perfect.” Despite JANE DOE III’s clear disapproval, the unwelcome complements kept coming.

Gothard gave Jane Doe III his credit card to buy new clothes and had his assistant tell her that he was unhappy that her skirts were ankle length rather than calf length.

364. After ten days, JANE DOE III and her mother decided to leave. After Gothard tried another failed attempt to convince JANE DOE III’s mother to separate from / divorce her husband, Gothard attempted to have JANE DOE III stay by trying to get her to say that her mother was abusing her. Gothard asked: “How old are you again?” When JANE DOE III said: “18,” Gothard replied: “Well, if you were 17 we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, because I would call up DFS immediately and tell them you are being abused and have you taken away from home. After all, emotional stress is just as bad as physical abuse.”

In 2012, both Jane Doe III and her mother wrote about their experiences in comments on the Recovering Grace website. Gothard saw the posts and personally contacted Jane Doe III, verbally berating her and accusing her of being a liar and of “trying to viciously destroy his life’s work and his entire organization.” Gothard continued to harass and verbally assault Jane Doe III until she removed her comments.

In 2014, Jane Doe III contacted IBLP headquarters hoping to talk to the IBLP Board of Directors about what had happened, but she was refused access. She managed to get in contact with the director of ATI, who told her the Christian Legal Association (CLA), which was conducting a review of the accusations, would be in contact with her. When she failed to hear from CLA, she contacted the group directly, leaving a detailed message. She never received a return call.

Jamie Deering

Jamie Deering was involved in IBLP’s ATI program beginning in 1992. In 1994, when she was 14, Gothard personally invited her to come to headquarters. Jamie’s story is much like those of Rachel Frost and Rachel Lees, with one exception. During a trip to Russia, something “very bad” occurred in the middle of the night that left Jamie sleeping on the couch in another couple’s room, and Gothard left the trip suddenly afterward. Jamie has not recovered full memory of the event, and has other memory gaps as well.

Beyond this, her experiences mirror those of other girls sexually abused by Gothard during these same years, with the same process of groom and the same “pet” status.

404. Gothard went so far as to make sure Ms. Deering’s bedroom was directly across form his office window, so he would know when she could come to his office, after everyone else had left.

. . .

407. As part of his sexual abuse of Ms. Deering, Gothard would tell her where to sit. Gothard would then sit across from her, with his legs spread wide apart. Gothard would frequently have an erection and he wanted Ms. Deering to know it.

408. On airplanes Gothard would have Ms. Deering sit next to him, and—under a blanket—he would touch her thighs and her hand. Ms. Deering was very uncomfortable with this and was afraid people would know what was occurring.

. . .

412. On one occasion, Gothard required Ms. Deering to touch his groin area on top of his clothing.

. . .

414. As a result of the special treatment and physical attention she received from Gothard, Ms. Deering was referred to as Gothard’s “pet,” his “type,” his “favorite,” or a “Gothard girl.” The sexual harassment and special attention were no secret. Gothard’s conduct was common knowledge to the IBLP staff.

At one point when Jamie was back at home, her father physically abused her. At a loss for what to do, Jamie called Gothard for help. Gothard refused to help in any way and did not report the incident to the authorities.

Ruth Copley Burger

Ruth is the adopted daughter of Kenneth Copley and lived at the Indianapolis Training Center from 1994 to 1995. Her father had already been forced out of a previous ministry due to sexual misconduct, and was forced to leave IBLP in 1995 due to “sexual misconduct involving other IBLP staff in the age range of 14 to 20 years old.” In 1994, when Ruth was 11 or 12 years old, Copley began sexually abusing Ruth. Copley used the IBLP facilities to conduct this abuse, which I will not describe.

Ruth has suffered PTSD and has been suicidal on multiple occasions, leading to two hospitalizations, as a result of the abuse she faced at the hands of her adoptive father. Ruth published an account of her abuse in 2010 or 2011 and added more details in 2012. Her allegations came to the attention of the IBLP Board of Directors, and were badly mishandled during the sham 2014 CLA investigation.

Conclusion

Over the past two years, multiple Gothard defenders have asked why, if all of this did happen, no one had attempted a lawsuit. It’s ironic, really, because these are the same people who argue that Christians should not sue Christians, and should instead settle disputes within the church—and here they were, using the lack of a lawsuit as proof that there was nothing to the allegations. There were, of course, multiple barriers to starting a lawsuit, including the statute of limitations and the personal costs involved in doing so.

Still, I am glad to see that there is now a lawsuit, and I would like to hope that it will help put remaining objections to rest, bring justice for survivors, and save future young people from similar predation. I’ve said it before and I know I’ll say it again—evangelical Christians need to clean up their act when it comes to abuse. Between blaming victims for what happened to them, elevating religious leaders beyond question, and sweeping problems under the rug because they might detract from an organization’s “godly witness,” there are some serious problems that need addressing.

We can only hope that this lawsuit will prod others to clean their houses.