Of Men and Megalomaniacs: Getting Beyond the Alleged Sexual Abuse of Certain Homeschool Leaders
There’s been quite a bit of buzz recently about complaints against Bill Gothard, founder and teacher of IBLP (the Institute of Basic Life Principles) and ATII (the Advanced Training Institute International), for allegedly being involved in sexual harassment of several young ladies who served at the ministry’s headquarters in Chicago. To be clear, dozens if not hundreds of young ladies have circulated through the ministry doors over the decades, but according to World Magazine, 34 of those are alleging private sexual abuse from Mr. Gothard.
In the wake of the recent events with Doug Phillips, it’s unclear how these complaints should be taken. Apparently, some of these accusations point back to events from decades ago, but they are just now becoming a hot topic—and one has to wonder if it’s not due to many folks getting swept up in the flurry surrounding Doug Phillip’s recent admission.
So the questions that arise: Are there common denominators between Doug Phillips and Bill Gothard? Could these complaints against Mr. Gothard be genuine, or are they part of a pendulum swing taking place in the Christian homeschool movement in the wake of events surrounding Doug Phillips?
Some have pointed out that there is a general concern growing about ministry leaders getting away with sexual abuse. The media is rife with reports of pastors and priests of various denominations getting away with adulteries and never being held accountable. No doubt, there is a problem here.
As we ponder these questions, it behooves us to step back from the controversy and ask what led up to these events.
Surrogate Daddies
Since the homeschooling movement first began, there has been a tendency among Christian homeschool families to (usually subliminally) set up surrogate fathers of a sort. Typically, these surrogate daddies were set up because a family heard some profound Christian speaker cast a vision for using homeschooling as a means for family discipleship, and the mother caught the vision, but the father was so inundated with his work life (or something else) that he could not visualize himself being the spiritual leader in his home that the homeschool visionary was talking about.
So what did the family do? In a lot of cases, the mom attempted to step out and do the family discipleship without much help from the dad other than his stamp of approval. She actually did the teaching, much of the Bible teaching in particular, beyond taking the family to church on Sundays. But feeling the need for the support of a man, she often directed her children to mentor under the teaching of various respected men in the homeschool movement. Men like Bill Gothard, Greg Harris, Mike Farris, Doug Phillips, Voddie Baucham, or Kevin Swanson. In effect these men began to be treated and thought of as the surrogate spiritual fathers of these families because they were filling a role abandoned by the local daddies.
As these homechool children grew up, thus, it seemed only natural to send them off to the distant visionary’s ministry for a few years to personally work under the man. After all, the man had been serving as the surrogate father from a distance for so long, the experience would seem complete by having the young person go off in a rite of passage by serving personally under the leader for a season. Sometimes, if a family was having trouble with their youth, they would even send the young person off to one of these ministries in the hopes that the visionary would be able to reform the young person.
After being treated as the super-father of so many families for so long, this type of treatment has an effect on a man. It’s easy for it to go to his head, and it’s easy for him to perhaps assume certain intimacies with a young person that a father would have that an outsider would not normally have.
Is it possible that some of the accusations being made against Mr. Gothard (and other surrogate daddies) are due to his assuming a “daddy” role in the life of many of the young ladies that came to his ministry and talking to them about various intimate things, or treating them in various intimate ways that might would have been appropriate for a father (but not necessarily appropriate for a non-relative)? The trick of putting a man in such a surrogate daddy role, and him assuming that role, is that it creates something of a nebulous, ambiguous position for the characters involved.
Is the surrogate father really effectively operating as her father? Or not?
So, for example, it’s not unusual for a daddy to hug his daughter for an extended time, but it would be unusual for a man not a lady’s father. But if people treat you as a surrogate daddy, would you assume that this was okay for you? While this type of assumption would be wrong, it would not necessarily be “sexual abuse” because it would not have been intended by the leader to be an sexual advance but rather as a misunderstood part of mentorship.
Of course, all of the details related to each of the allegations against Mr. Gothard will need to be reviewed by the appropriate authorities investigating these incidents. They should consider whether perhaps Mr. Gothard’s actions, in each case, were really intended as sexual advances, or whether perhaps he was operating under an inappropriate understanding of his mentorship role in these young ladies lives.
Hopefully, however, this incident is also a wake-up call to the Christian families of America to the vulnerability that sending your daughters off to serve away from their families under another man puts them in. It’s not dangerous merely in ministries, but also in the corporate world for a family to send or abandon their daughter to the work force. Not only does it make her vulnerable, but it also tends to train her to think feministically—not as a helpmeet to a man serving God in the context of a family.
The Christian homeschooling families of America need to step back and consider the implications of setting up surrogate daddies to fill in for the fathers of their personal families. What expectations do those scenarios create—especially when we send our daughters off alone with these surrogate daddies? Moreover, what are the solutions to the underlying problems?
Getting to the Bottom of It All
Of course, it’s not going to fully solve the problem to go on a witch hunt for all the surrogate daddies that we speculate might be abusing their position. In each case where abuse is alleged, the Word of God is clear as to how Christians should work to bring reconciliation to the relationships and restore the victims—and they do not involve starting web sites that detail the nitty-gritty of the private accusations. The internet is not the ecclesiastical court God has set up for resolving these kinds of issues.
God’s Word is clear that public sins should be condemned publicly. But conflicts that are private need to go through the Matthew 18 procedures before they are made public and anyone is condemned.
If a lady claims to have been sexually abused by another Christian, the first thing she should do is talk with her shepherds about what happened, so that they can help, comfort, and steer her in what to do next. If she is married, then that would mean speaking with her husband and possibly her church elder(s) privately. If she is unmarried, that would mean speaking with her parents and possibly her church elder(s) privately to have wisdom in what to do next. If she cannot prove that she was abused, then she should beware the consequences of Deuteronomy 19:16-21, which hold her accountable to the same penalty as the one she accuses, if she is proven wrong.
Her counsellors need to help her overcome the hurts she claims to have experienced, and there are many hopeful truths of Scripture that should be a source of encouragement to such hurt individuals. But our zeal to deal with their alleged hurts should not lead us to rashly jump to condemn someone else without following God’s process for proving guilt and bringing restoration.
James 4:11 commands Christians to “Speak not evil one of another, brethren.” Specifically, we should not be spreading gossip, slander, backing-biting, or other similar things. We should not even read or listen to such complaints if we are not tied closely to the alleged victim and/or part of the solution.
John Calvin wrote on this subject:
“[H]ere is also rebuked the vice of undue credulity, which, when any evil reports are spread against our neighbors, leads us either eagerly to listen to them, or at least to receive them without sufficient reason; whereas we ought rather to use all means to suppress and trample them under foot. When anyone is the bearer of invented falsehoods, those who reject them leave them, as it were to fall on the ground; while, on the contrary, those who propagate and publish them from one person to another are, by an expressive form of speech, said to raise them up.”
Dr. R.J. Rushdoony in his Institutes of Biblical Law addressed how each accusation by an alleged victim must be corroborated by two or three witnesses to the same event, and the alleged perpetrator must be given the opportunity to defend himself before being condemned.
“Within the courts, for justice to prevail, honest and faithful testimony is a necessity. However, because man is a sinner, and the agencies of human society reflect man’s sin, checks and balances are necessary. The testimony of a witness must be subject to cross-examination and to corroboration. The law is clear at this point.”
Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1, pg 565. This is based on a consistent sets of instructions from Scripture such as this verse:
“A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed (Deut. 19:15).”
In the Larger Catechism, questions 144 and 145 deal with the principles of the Ninth Commandment. Question 144 asks: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
“A.: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and grace, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging tale-bearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely and of good report.” (emphasis added)
Commenting on the phrase “covering their infirmities” in his book Authentic Christianity, Dr. Joe Morecraft writes:
” ‘He who covers a transgression seeks love, but he who repeats a matter separates chief friends (Prov. 17:9).
“Love, the most excellent of the Spirit’s gifts (I Cor. 12:31), is to be expressed and practiced in all our relationships. This includes not revealing unnecessarily what has been said or done by others against us, especially when it does not affect their situation. … Nothing tends more to the separating of friends than the repeating of sins for no edifying reason.”
Morecraft, Authentic Christianity, Vol. 4, pg. 920.
Commenting on the phrase “unwillingness to admit an evil report,” Dr. Morecraft writes:
“Those who enjoy family fellowship with God in His church not only walk with integrity, work righteousness and speak truth in their hearts, they do no slander others, nor do evil to their neighbors, nor take up a reproach against their friends. [See Psalm 15:1-3.] … [H]e will not use his tongue to bring down the innocent.”
Id. at 922.
We can certainly sympathize when people who believe they are victims feel desperate and they desperately do anything that they think will get a response for help, but once wise Christians are there to help them, they need to guide them to a course more in sync with these directions given in Scripture for handling conflicts. Spreading internet gossip and slander does not help or bring healing or restoration to anyone. It does serve to embarrass the Body of Christ before unbelievers, which is something the Word of God discourages in I Corinthians 6:1.
It is not unthinkable that homeschool visionaries who are committed with too much power and trust could be susceptible to the same kind of autonomous mindsets that have plagued many esteemed Christian leaders throughout history. As the old saying goes, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We think of how autonomous power corrupted men such as King Saul, King David, and King Solomon—each men who had respected beginnings.
It is entirely possible that men in such positions of undue influence and lack of accountability have had that power go to their his heads. They may begin to think they are unapproachable and unaccountable, and sometimes people in their organizations with a sense of misplaced loyalty (idolatry) try to shield him from accountability. When allegations arise, those questions should be investigated and tried by the appropriate authorities.
But as we attempt to deal with autonomous abusers of power, we must take care that we ourselves do not become autonomous abusers of power. We must exercise care to not condemn someone for any sin until he is first proven guilty by the burden or proof that Matthew 18 and other such passages require.
Surrogates of Other Sorts
Ridding the world of the surrogate daddy homeschool leaders will not really solve the problem either. If the these objects of misplaced trust are removed, they will be replaced by others.
For many Christian families in America, the surrogate father becomes the pastor of the local church. Families turn their children over to the youth pastor or other pastors in the church and expect them to be the spiritual fathers in their lives, and often the pastors are more than happy to oblige. In many cases, these scenarios have also led to allegations of sexual abuse. But there are plenty of other harms that occur when the father of a family is not being the spiritual leader that God has called him to be in his household. Pastors can also abuse their power in these situations to act autonomously in how they lead the young people of their church.
Then there are mothers who try to be surrogate fathers. These are the mothers who try to wear both the hat of the mommy and the daddy. They try to rule their homes with all the authority of the father, and sometimes they experience some degree of success, but they ultimately always fall short because they are not designed by God to withstand all the responsibilities of a man. Indeed, in some situations, such as those addressed in passages such as I Timothy 2:12-15, a woman is commanded by God not to attempt to exercise male authority.
Because women often experience insecurities, especially when their husbands are being negligent in their roles, this can lead a mother trying to wear both hats to overcompensate and act overbearingly and dominating. To act as an arbitrary tyrant in her family. Sometimes the children get used to it for a while. But time and time again we have seen such mothers eventually run into a major clash—usually with the grown-up sons or prospective son-in-laws of her family, who especially do not appreciate her dominating ways.
Solution: Christian Daddies Needed!
There is no substitute in God’s social design for Christian daddies who are serving God as the providers, priests, and protectors God has called them to be. No surrogate daddy—be they homeschool visionary, youth pastor, teacher, or mother—can adequately fill their shoes because a special bond exists between a father and a child before the Lord.
This is why God specifically zeroed in on fathers in Ephesians 6:4 when he commanded them to “bring [their children] up in the training and admonition of the Lord.” (NKJV)
Thus, the best thing that homeschool visionaries, local churches, Bible teachers, and mothers can do is to help equip and encourage a father to rise to the task that he has been called to fulfill. A task that only he can adequately fulfill. (See Ephesians 4:11-12.) Sometimes it takes a great deal of patience and long-suffering, but the long-term investment will be worth the abundant fruitful harvest it will yield for Christ’s Church.
To be clear, even fathers are not given a blank check by God to be autonomous in the lives of their children. No one is given such leeway. All authorities must follow God’s Law-Word in their sphere of influence. We are all called to accountability to one another in the Word of God. But the father has a special jurisdiction in that network of accountability that cannot be be replaced. We have to build up our men to the noble task of Christian fatherhood.
Because we ultimately are not merely trying to prevent our daughters from being abused. Ultimately, we are working and praying to see God raise up strong battalions (families) in the Kingdom of Christ for multiple generations.
Well said. I would love to see you put together a 15 minute lesson on this topic that we could insert into our high school curriculum.
Praise God someone is making the right connections, thinking clearly, and speaking truth in all this mess of lies and false accusations. We NEED manly men, who tell their wives what to do. We NEED manly men to take dominion from rebellious children who mock truth. We need obedient wives to submit to their husbands and loving children who recognize the father’s authority.
We need fathers to discern and decide what’s true and what’s not and tell their families accordingly. I’m thankful that someone has kept a cool head. The snowball of lies is gaining speed, but we have the right foundation and truth on our side. I’m glad I discovered your blog today.
It may have seemed natural to send these girls off to the ministry, but we should all realize it is wrong. There is no excuse for a family to send, or a ministry to accept, unmarried girls as part of their ministry team. This is one of the features of ATI and the like that should have raised red flags from the beginning.
God is so good to topple the idols of our hearts. May we lovingly obey Him and His Word alone. What is homeschooling, what is fatherhood, what is life- without love for God? It’s nothing but filthy rags. Men are not to be worshiped. The nuclear family is not to be worshiped. I don’t think we need to be so concerned for manly men, submissive women, obedient children but concerned that the glory God deserves is given Him. When our hearts worship only God in humility, men will be manly, wives will lovingly submit, children will lovingly obey. The other way around is the opposite of love and will result once again in what we’ve seen culminate of late- thousands of families following after man, men hurting their wives and children, the Great Commission ignored- general idolatry of the heart. I believe that things will change in believing families as the glory of God becomes our passion and existence.
Thank you, Bret, “Thankfulson,” Von, and Kristin, for your edifying comments! Each of you made good points, and it was kind of you to share your Christ-centered feedback. Oh, that by God’s grace the Church of Christ would be able grow in its responsibilities of shepherding the flock.
Over the last several days we have received a few messages from some people expressing a contrary perspective as to the portion of this article on “Getting to the Bottom of It All.” It appears to me that much of their comments are based in mis-readings of the article, taking certain isolated statements out of context and inferring certain things into what I said that I did not myself say.
In particular, no one should read this article as calling for victims to be “silent.” Passages such as Matthew 18 and Galatians 6 deal with how complaints should be properly told. In Matthew 18:15-17, for example, the word “tell” appears twice. This is not about “silencing the lambs” but about what God’s procedures are for dealing with an accusation so that we do not inadvertently create more victims and bring great humiliation to the testimony of the Body of Christ.
Much of the messages we have received is obscene and rude, so below I will seek to summarize some of the common substantive themes of those messages and answer them. Some of the comments from the detractors have said that the accusations against Mr. Gothard should be investigated (via the internet, it seems), they disagree that the matter is not sufficiently clear based on what has been posted on the internet, and that everything posted on the internet about the matter should be taken “seriously.”
First, nothing in my article says that the allegation against Mr. Gothard should not be investigated. In fact, I alluded to *how* they should properly be investigated—by following the common Scriptural principles and commands on due process. I wrote, for example: “In each case where abuse is alleged, the Word of God is clear as to HOW Christians should work to bring reconciliation to the relationships and restore the victims, …” (caps added)
Second, as for the question of clarity, could it be that the issue seems not “unclear” to you because you have received an evil report against a brother by reading all the details on the web sites of the allegations against him and this has formed a strong prejudice in your mind? While no one should presume an alleged victim is lying and refuse to help her within his Biblical jurisdiction, particularly with any urgent needs she has, he also cannot rush to condemn an alleged perpetrator without ensuring the matter is taken before the proper authorities, the accuser’s testimony is verified, and both sides are heard.
Proverbs 18:13 (NKJV) says, “He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him.” When we take up an offense for an alleged victim without hearing both sides of the story, we are answering a matter before we have fully heard it, and that is a folly and shame to us. That is why, until both sides are heard, the matter is unclear.
Proverbs 18:17 (ESV) says, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” Many of you seem to feel that these ladies who have accused Mr. Gothard are clearly right because you have heard them state their case first, but you have not given the other side the opportunity to answer their accusers or examine the accusations made. Until that is done, the matter is Scripturally unclear.
Third, should the matter be taken “seriously”? That depends on what one means by the term “seriously” in this context. It is generally considered foolhardy, even in modern civil and criminal court, to take allegations seriously from anonymous accusers. (A detective may follow an anonymous lead, and the media may report an anonymous source under modern notions of “free speech,” but a court still requires identification to enter testimony into evidence and base a judgment upon it.) The Word of God requires a would-be witness to subject themselves to the same accountability as the defendant (see Deuteronomy 19:16-21), and this would require identification. But if an accuser does not identify himself accurately, we have no basis to treat his accusations “seriously.” If they truly want to be treated seriously and not as a prank or slanderer, they must identify themselves—something many of Mr. Gothard’s accusers have not done.
If someone hears a woman cry for help in the act, her cries should be taken seriously. But cries during the act are very different from accusations made after the fact because they cannot be verified the same way, and they are not as urgent. If a woman comes to someone and says that she was several moments ago abused or raped, we should take her possible injuries seriously in seeking to get her immediate medical care and ensure her complaints are reported to the proper authorities (familial, ecclesiastical, and/or civil, as applicable), but we do not have jurisdiction to seriously condemn the alleged perpetrator because (1) we are not the authorized authorities, (2) the matter has not yet been verified, and (3) we have not heard both sides to the story.
Now, once the proper authorities have received the concern from the young lady, *they* do have a responsibility to take her accusations seriously and to move to ensure justice is pursued in a way consistent with Biblical due process. They will have to temper any sense of outrage they experience over the reports they hear with the Biblical commands to verify the accusations, hear the other side of the story, and ensure people are involved in rendering a judgment who are wise (Galatians 6:1) and not biased against either party to the dispute (“God is no respecter of persons,” Acts 10:34). They should take God’s due process commands seriously.
The rest of us who are not closely tied to the parties involved in this private affair and are not part of the solution should not even be listening to such evil reports. The Word of God commands us to “not speak evil against one another” (James 4:11).
This is where John Calvin’s statement against receiving an evil report is applicable. In his Commentary on the Psalms, Calvin wrote:
Likewise, the instructions from the Larger Catechism affirm the same approach to be applied by those who have no business in the controversy: “The duties required in the ninth commandment are … unwillingness to admit of an evil report …”
So this has been the policy of the Reformed Church and general orthodox Christianity for generations.
Some of the notes that we have received make a distinction between due process for “criminal grievances” and other sins. This is interesting because God first reveals His requirement for “two or three witnesses” in the criminal context. He says that no one may be put to death except by the verification of two or three witnesses. (See Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15.)
One commenter wrote: “if I murdered you in a dark alley, having been careful to find a place where no-one would see, it would still be a right and proper thing for [a witness] to loudly proclaim my guilt if he saw it even if no other witnesses were nearby, and especially if he deemed me a threat to others.”
Well, even in that scenario, under our nation’s common law, if the witness did accuse you of murder, and could not prove that his accusation was true, he could be found liable for defamation (civil slander) and have to pay for damages to you. This legal principle is a carry-over from the Christian common law based in the case laws of the Old Testament (passages such as Deuteronomy 19:16-21) and the other commands related to the Ninth Commandment. It requires accountability for any accusation made against a person.
False witness is a very real danger whenever someone is accused, and that is why we must take seriously God’s warnings and protections against false witness. Remember how King Ahab and Jezebel stole the vineyard from Naboth and murdered him by using false witnesses (I Kings 21:10-13), for example, or how Joseph was imprisoned because he was falsely accused of sexual assault (Genesis 39:7-20).
Furthermore, the abundance of common accusations against a person does not justify believing those witnesses if it does not verify the same event. In Matthew 26:59-60, it shows that the priests brought “many witnesses” to testify against Jesus. The great number of them did not prove that their testimony was accurate.
As Dr. R.J. Rushdoony writes,
Finally, one person wrote: “It is FAR more embarrassing when the church does and says NOTHING public about a situation that is rapidly becoming known to the outside world.” Again, who is proposing saying “nothing”? Furthermore, how did the matter become “public”? By following Biblical due process or by violating it?
If someone can get around the Biblical requirement to deal with private sins privately simply by publishing their complaint, then *any* sin could become public and passages such as Matthew 18 and Galatians 6 could be made of no effect. Nothing would have to be dealt with privately because anything could be made public if one member of a controversy could just unilaterally decide he would rather take his complaint to the internet than attempt to patiently resolve the concern in private.
If a private controversy has spilled over into the public eye, I agree that the Church should address the problem. But the way that they should do that involve: (1) taking steps to bring the complainer to the proper authorities for resolution; (2) preaching against sexual abuse and molestation generally without endorsing any accusation until due process has been followed; (3) preach against taking such matters into our own hands by violating God’s prescribed directions for how to resolve conflicts privately among the believers through God’s due process.
Doing those three things above shows that we do value love as much as we value holiness. Indeed, God’s love and holiness are not two attributes in tension. They are in perfect harmony. God, being perfectly holy and loving, knows much better than we do how that holiness and love is to be demonstrated in resolving conflicts, and we cannot improve upon God’s standards.
God repeatedly condemns being a “busy-body,” slandering, gossiping, back-biting, taking up an offense and other such things that tend to lead to false witness and injustice. (See I Peter 4:15; Romans 1:28-32; I Timothy 3:11; Psalm 15:13; Jeremiah 6:28.)
So this does not mean that Bill Gothard should not be investigated or that the ladies making accusation against him should be “silenced,” as some have misconstrued. It does mean that these ladies should voice their complaints through the Biblical due process (and that the rest of us should only facilitate that) and that Mr. Gothard should be investigated through that process. For more details on how Biblical due process is carried out, please read this helpful article: http://flyinghouse.com/creator/theo/evidence.html
Your “surrogate father” proposition is very insightful. I’m wondering if a component of the problem is viewing these surrogate fathers within a “clergy vs. laity” framework. We tend to extend to “clergy” certain privileges and exceptions, when we’re really all brothers subject to the same accountability.
You are indeed, a hero of the true faith and a model for me to follow.
I enjoyed your article. Finally, someone has put in print what needed to be said. Thank you.