I just posted about not refinding this story in another thread. I've now found it!

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/1/28/2219593/-Evangelicals-REALLY-don-t-get-it-about-sexual-assault-Here-are-some-examples-Part-3

This is part 3 but it has links to parts 2 and 1 in it and both of the earlier parts are summarized at the beginning of Part 3. I'm going to quote from the bottom of Part 3--many of the justifications for this behavior cited by the evangelicals I have also seen on this Board as having been cited by the late Scott Peterson and others in Mormonism.

From the article:

"Brenner noted that Jim Bob and Michelle were big fans of Bible teacher and homeschooling guru Bill Gothard; they were frequent speakers at seminars held by Gothard’s Institute in Basic Life Principles. A frequent feature of one of those seminars is the “umbrella diagram,” representing the principle of “Authority.”

In this principle, the father has authority over the household. As long as the father has no sin in his life–represented by holes in his “umbrella”–nothing bad can happen to you as long as you stay under his protection. However, if you step outside your father’s protection, you expose yourself to all manner
of evil.

So in this world, if something terrible happens to you and your father hasn’t done anything wrong, in all likelihood it happened because you were outside your father’s protection. Therefore, it’s your fault. That includes sexual assault. According to Brenner, who was homeschooled in a Gothard-inspired curriculum,
this alone prevents survivors from “even disclosing their abuse,” since any attempt to do so is all but certain to trigger “questions about sin in their life.”

That’s not the only way that Gothard considered survivors to be responsible for bringing their ordeals on themselves. Brenner got her hands on a handout from a counseling seminar run under the auspices of Gothard’s homeschooling curriculum, the Advanced Training Institute.

Students at this seminar were taught to ask the victim if there was any way they were at fault for the attack. The most obvious manner in which a victim could be at fault is if they “defraud” their attacker by stirring up lustful thoughts in their attacker. According to Recovering Grace, a support group for IBLP survivors, you defraud someone when you “stir up in them desires that cannot be righteously satisfied.” In this world, it’s possible for a woman to defraud a man with something as innocent as a toss of the hair.

For some time after Josh’s depravities came to light, whenever I heard people saying that liberal bloggers like myself were going after the Duggars just because they were conservative Christians, I wanted to scream. After all, it’s a near-mathematical certainty that at some point, Josh’s sisters were told that they brought the assaults on themselves. At the very least, they had that lesson drilled into them from the time they could walk. No parent with any kind of love for their children would tell them, or allow them to be told, that they are to blame for being sexually assaulted.

It also casts the Duggars’ ultra-strict dress code in a new and disturbing light. Women do not wear pants, and skirts must go below the knee. Men and women aren’t allowed to wear shorts or tank tops, since everything from the neck down must be covered. In a 2012 post at her now-defunct TLC blog, Michelle said that they dressed this way because they didn’t want to chance “a visual element that might defraud someone.”
When you put that next to Gothard’s teachings on what “defrauding” really means in this world, it sounds like Michelle was telling her kids, “If you don’t dress the way we tell you and someone violates you, it’s your fault.” The thought that any parent would even think sending that message is remotely acceptable is almost too damn obscene for words. And if calling out Jim Bob and Michelle for instilling that mentality amounts to partisan hackery, something is very wrong."

Thanks for that link.

They only care about fetuses, don't you know!

There are increasing efforts to allow child labor and hinder education. This is related to how children are not valued as a priority. It's disturbing.

> There are increasing efforts to allow child labor
> and hinder education.

Ah yes, because all kids deserve to live in 1820s Manchester.

I think to suggest that all evangelicals fit neatly under Gothard's umbrella is false. Gothard is seen as an extreme fundamentalist and not all evangelicals are fundamentalists.

But as you indicated the other day, the "extreme fundamentalists" have won the marketing battle and essentially redefined the term "evangelical."

...while Part 3 focuses on Gothard, the entirety of the article isn't just on him. Another (if I'm counting correctly) six evangelical ministers with questionable behaviors are profiled in this story, including one (MacArthur) who runs a very popular national radio ministry that is carried widely on noncommercial Protestant stations and through commercial religious networks carried on stations owned by Salem. At this time, there is no movement among these groups to cancel his radio shows, despite the controversy (not reporting a sexual abuse instance under his watch and, in fact, siding with the alleged abuser in this instance) that has occurred. If you really want to know the truth, to me MacArthur's behavior is just about as bad as Gothard's because of his public profile--he should have known better!

It would be nice to know what proportion of self-described "evangelicals" are the traditional type versus the "new" type.

>> But as you indicated the other day, the "extreme fundamentalists" have won the marketing battle and essentially redefined the term "evangelical."

I agree. A very religious friend of mine who attended Liberty University told me that she does not identify as Evangelical, but instead Baptist (..."and not Southern Baptist!") Even some of the conservative Christians are distancing themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2024 07:37AM by summer.

They clearly have if this post is indicative of outside attitudes but as one who respects the original sense of the word I reject being included in the sweeping nature of the post. Evangelicals I know, even those who subscribe to politics far to the right of mine, would hardly see groups/movements such as this on their horizon. Perhaps blindguy could post something on the movements for reform within groups such as the SBC or is that too fine a brush?

Given that the SBC has kicked out certain churches from their group recently doesn't help their cause.

I hold no brief in particular for the SBC. It is an association of independent churches that choose to meet the overall requirements of the association. For instance, the convention has no say in the hiring or firing of individual pastors.
Problems within churches are nothing new. Much of Paul's writing was criticism of churches, some with behaviors he said were worse than the world outside the church. There is nothing wrong with criticism where it is deserved. Perhaps it is only here where churches and believers are held to a broad brush standard of perfection they, myself included, never will attain. Broad brushes do not necessarily improve the paint job but they quickly cover a bigger area if that is the painter's intent.

I guess we'll see how broadly they vote. IMO that will indicate how extreme and how many are out there.

If they are one issue voters, for example, and support extremists for that issue, that's probably why they get lumped in with extremists.

Given that I post what I have access to and what interests me from that access, it's not likely that I will come across anything that would match your request. But if I do...

I made no request for you to change anything except perhaps for you to be more precise in who you are talking about. I try to be aware but until your post I had never heard the name Bill Gothard and I doubt anyone I know has either but your post seems to me to suggest he is a mainstream representatve of all evangelicals when he simply is not.

This Sunday I am filling in as a SS teacher to a class that can run 25 to 40 people, I will ask the class how many know the name. No many, if any, I would expect.

...I had absolutely no idea who Bill Gathord was either. Until I read (and sent to this Board with much less commentary) an article about the role of Leonard Leo in getting certain types of judges in to the U.S. Court system, I had very little idea of who he was, either.

The fact that I either didn't know who these people were or how important they were in policy-making for a certain subset of the population does not negate their importance; in truth, it actually strengthens it for these people, because they know that the policies they are pushing are not supported by at least a plurality of the U.S. population and that if a public light were to shine on their activities, it could start a reaction that could force them to lose ground in whatever they are proposing. Put another way, these people prefer to act underground because they do not wish to face critics within the general population when they find out what they are up to.

As to your request of me, my response is that I was only quoting from the article. If there is a difference between what you believe an evangelical Christian is and what the writer believes an evangelical christian is, perhaps you should go to the original source (I provided a link in my OP) and leave a comment there.

Ultimately, I have to agree with Dagny's comment above. Who and what people who refer to themselves as white evangelicals vote for will ultimately give insight in to which direction that movement is headed.

You are probably right in your concluding comment but that isn't what prompted me to respond in the first place. I have a problem with sweeping generalizations, implied or real, about groups of people.

Go on with you, now!

You humans are all alike...

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> until your post I had never heard the name Bill
> Gothard and I doubt anyone I know has either but
> your post seems to me to suggest he is a
> mainstream representatve of all evangelicals when
> he simply is not.
>
> This Sunday I am filling in as a SS teacher to a
> class that can run 25 to 40 people, I will ask
> the class how many know the name. No many, if
> any, I would expect.

A doctor I used to work with loved Bill Gothard and attended his seminars. Gothard's organization was called Institute in Basic Life Principles. He and it are on the very conservative end of the spectrum.


Here's an NBC news article from 2022 about Gothard and the Duggars who apparently embraced his teachings:


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ministry-nourished-duggar-familys-faith-falls-grace-rcna14024


Excerpts:

“My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong,” Gothard said in 2014 in a now-deleted statement on his website that is still linked on his Twitter profile.

"Twelve women alleged in a civil suit that they had been sexually, physically or psychologically abused by Gothard as minors and that the IBLP had covered it up.

"The IBLP said in a statement that it had “no comment with respect to the claims alleged,” because of a confidentiality order. Gothard has since denied any wrongdoing. He declined to comment when reached by phone."

-----

I can't say I'm shocked. It's all-too-common isn't it. Very disappointing and upsetting, and worse though, for people caught up in it, especially those who feel betrayed by the "gospel" they enthusiastically embraced and tried to follow to the letter.


The article also states:

"In marriage, a man’s role is to provide “servant leadership” while “the woman responds with reverent submission and assistance,” preached Gothard, who has never married."

I have to say that shocks me to hear - I had no clue he's a lifelong singleton. Funny to think that millions have taken his advice on marriage and sex for decades and he has no direct personal experience in the institution himself.


The article uses the term "conservative Protestantism". That descriptor could perhaps help to delineate the different segments of the Christian world. Many Protestant groups are decidedly mainstream and it's inaccurate to lump them in with the extreme offshoot groups.

Plenty of bad stuff happens, most unfortunately. It's easy to write off entire groups based on questionable teachings and/or bad actions of leaders and/or members. But because Gothard fell off his pedestal, deservedly so, that doesn't make me want to harshly judge everybody who identifies as Protestant.

Although I get the impulse felt by many to do so.

Some days we might feel we need to resign from the human race because of bad acts by fellow people. It's a bit impossible though.

I used to ID as EV and think that meant everybody would realize I was considering myself mainstream. EV is decidedly mainstream given where I've been in my wanderings: first with the JWs and then with the Mormons.

You definitely have to define your terms.


PS to comment on the following statement in the article linked above:

"...touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong,” Gothard said in 2014..."

Good heavens. In what universe is it anywhere near reasonable, necessary or advisable for a spiritual adviser to touch a young woman's hair or feet? Seriously unbelievable to me that it happened, by him in particular as he was so highly esteemed by millions, and that nobody spoke up or his organization or other preachers and members didn't call it out. Obviously finally somebody did but ewwwwwwwwww that is decidedly creepy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2024 04:52PM by Nightingale.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I try to be aware but
> until your post I had never heard the name Bill
> Gothard and I doubt anyone I know has either but
> your post seems to me to suggest he is a
> mainstream representatve of all evangelicals when
> he simply is not.

I agree with what kentish is saying.


> This Sunday I am filling in as a SS teacher to a
> class that can run 25 to 40 people, I will ask
> the class how many know the name. No many, if
> any, I would expect.

It would be interesting to know. I only know of him because of an MD I worked with who was into the more strict Christian sects.

If you watched any of the Duggar's reality TV shows, then you might very well be familiar with his name and his sect. Personally, I did not wish to contribute to enriching any of those religious whack-a-doodles.

I know nothing of the Duggars except the frequency of their name popping up.

Two words: Richard G. Scott.

We can never forget his "responsibility for rape" GC talk.

And they wonder why we are angry.

Who are the Evangelicals?

There were 26 people in the class today. When I asked who knew of Bill Gothard my question was met with silence at first. No one responded until a visiting retired pastor said "Wasn't there a pastor by that name?" That seemed to spark some recognition and 13 of the 26 said they remembered the name. Some said it was a long time ago. None could remember a particular context.

I must confess that that 13 having som,e familiariuty wikth him came as a surprise to me.

I hope they don't think you mentioning him means you are giving a dog whistle for supporting him.

People don't always come out and say what their real views are.

I asked the question without giving too much context. Time and place.

I think that misogyny goes hand in hand with the more conservative, fundie branches of Christianity, or probably any religion for that matter. Women are viewed as "lesser than," and rape cannot possibly be the man's fault. You see this in Mormonism with Spencer Kimball's "The Mircale of Forgiveness," where the raped individual is asked to examine her role in the assault. You also saw it at BYU where the ward bishops sometimes took a similar attitude, triggering a Title IX investigation.

This is why the lack of equality in the church of my birth was my first point of questioning as a young teen. I was never about to be viewed as "lesser than." I had too much self respect to be treated in that manner.