Key: Living in harmony with the husband’s nocturnal emissions.
Leviticus 15:16 – And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.
I Peter 3:1 – Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives.
Key: Living in harmony with your family member’s bleeding ulcer
Leviticus 15:2 – Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean.
Hebrews 3:13 – But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
In as far as men should be sensitive to their wives, he is correct. If it’s uncomfortable for the wife to have sex during her period, then a loving husband should be more than willing to be sensitive to this.
However, this isn’t what he is saying. Instead of simply saying that the husband should be sensitive to the wife’s needs, he is saying he should be sensitive to her cycle itself. This implies (and will be reinforced later on) that either:
a. its always physically insensitive to have sex with a wife during her period, ie. it hurts, it’s uncomfortable, and/or it’s unhealthy,
b. or it’s somehow morally insensitive — that is, no woman *should* want to have sex to during her period, thus the husband is being insensitive by causing her to break some taboo rule.
Actually, we will find that he ties in both meanings at various points. He has already hinted that sex during the period is taboo — ie. contrary to God’s command — and will later make “health/comfort” arguments against it.
There is little doubt that the normal reproductive functions in a woman were in place before Adam and Eve sinned. God’s first command to them as a couple was to bear children. Labor in childbirth was a consequence of the fall, but was given to the woman for her spiritual benefit, not for her physical destruction.
Ummmmmmm….this was about the woman’s cycle, right? And how it’s a sign of promise between God and the woman, right? So why are both verses, as well as his explanation, missing any mention of the woman’s cycle? The passages were all about childbearing weren’t they? Sure, childbearing and menstrual cycles are related, but how many woman have you known who have had children simply because they have menstrual cycles? Sure, having a cycle is a necessary aspect of being able to have a child, but having a cycle is NOT directly related to childbearing… there has to be a man involved somewhere.
So, passages about childbearing are NOT passages about cycles, much less about how cycles are a sign of promise, etc. Another case of pulling passages from Scripture that are somewhat related to the claim and hope nobody looks closely at it.
It would be like taking the passages about children being a blessing from God and using them to claim that an erection is a sign of blessing between God and man. Shocked by the parallel? No more than you should be by Gothard’s claims about the cycle.
Oh look, a verse about Eve being beguiled.
Eve was a wife.
Eve had cycles.
Therefore this passage must be about how the woman’s cycle is for the purpose of warning of the dangers of being beguiled. Ignore the fact that Paul is talking to the church as a whole, not just women (read vs 1-5). And ignore the fact that subject is about Paul not wanting them to be deceived by false teachers. Just ignore the context and Mr. Gothard’s use of the verse makes perfect sense…
C’MON!!
Share this post:
Tweet this Share on Facebook Stumble it Share on Reddit Digg it Add to Delicious! Add to Technorati Add to Google Add to Myspace Subscribe to RSS
David Moeller is married and is a father of five children. He grew up in the public school system, but after his family joined the Advanced Training Institute he worked in various training centers from 1995 to 2001. David has been writing about Bill Gothard's abuses of Scripture for over a decade.
More posts by DavidM
JM, I could care less whether or not you think ...
December 16, 2024 Then I have to rule that you have no evidence for ...
December 16, 2024 Alfred isn't going to put that on his blog and if ...
December 9, 2024 I can easily say that Alfred hasn't denied it, bec ...
December 9, 2024 Alfred denied directly to me she and Sacred Honor ...
December 4, 2024 When did Alfred or Holly deny that she was Mormon? ...
December 4, 2024 Facts are this JM, Alfred denied when directly con ...
December 1, 2024 Interesting you bring up the Jinger/Jill controver ...
November 25, 2024 Here is the facts JM, Holly is a Mormon, part of ...
November 20, 2024 Because she isn't a fraud. I'm sorry that bothers ...
November 18, 2024 JM, let me be very clear to you. Holly is a fraud. ...
November 13, 2024 I don't disagree that that action is what should h ...
November 13, 2024 I have a very long-term view of Bill and IBLP whic ...
November 12, 2024 Some would say the posts here are just spin and fa ...
November 12, 2024 Curious that you would bring up "Charlotte" becaus ...
November 3, 2024 I have seen the Amazon series, and I've seen the r ...
October 29, 2024 Did you ever watch any of the Amazon series? The s ...
October 25, 2024 Yes, it does. Claims must be addressed because the ...
October 24, 2024
Love it! This topic really shows how Mr. G butchers Scripture.
I'm always abashed when I get to the explanations of how Gothard's use of Scripture isn't accurate. I make the logical jumps he counts on, so going from "cycle" to "childbirth" seems to make sense. It's even harder when he's speaking in person, because he goes so fast and throws so many Scriptures out that you just give up and go along.
Obviously you can't have childbirth without the cycle... but women usually DO have a cycle without childbirth. Thanks for this article and I look forward to more.
It probably helped his cause here that a woman's cycle still is (and in earlier generations much more so) an embarrassing topic. There's already a vague impression that there's got to be some kind of sexual rule relating to it because there's something secret and shameful about it.
THANK YOU. This is, I think, one of those topics people forget about being taught. There's just a general thought that "I heard somewhere it's unhealthy," but you can't remember exactly what or where. Thanks for clearing up the confusion!
"Classic examples of Mr. Gothard mutilating Scripture. Here is the basic process:
1. Choose a subject.
2. Search for passages that are remotely related in vague ways to the subject.
3. Then quote them as if they support your claim with out explaining how.
4. Move on and hope no one notices."
You hit the nail on the head.
A bit insulting to women, imo...
I agree that this seems like a not-so-subtle put-down to women. I feel bad for the ladies under the control of Gothard's teaching.
I think this teaching reflects part of the "body is bad but spirit is good" attitude that is interwoven into the thinking (shades of Gnostic-like error). This thinking turns a normal function into a negative thing.
You just have to shake your head. We accepted such huge jumps in logic that we would accept the idea that 2 Cor 11:3 implies that the monthly cycle is "a monthly warning to the wife..." That is the sort of thing people mean when they say Gothard twists Scripture.
For some reason this reminds me of a random fact I learned somewhere. In the mideival times, it was considered sinful to eat a tomato because a tomato's skin/flesh felt very similar to human flesh? And that it was a carnal act to eat it for that reason?
In the medieval times, Europeans did not have access to tomatoes, as the New World (esp. South America) had not been thoroughly explored. So yours would be an impossible scenario.
I was hoping you'd post regarding this, David!
My head is spinning......
[...] Grace” looks at the Sexual Rules of Mr. Gotahrd as well as offering a wealth of first-hand accounts of life under the Umbrella of Mr. Gothard and [...]
Thank you. Thorough as always, David.
It really makes you wonder how many of those actually attending basic and advanced seminars even thought about what they were being told the Bible teaches... much less bothering to look up Gothard's proof-texts.
[...] Continued from Part 1… [...]
[...] from last week. Click here to read Part 1 and Part [...]
This series is great!
I would also throw into the list of how he does it, just before "moving on and hoping that no one notices" the vagueness that Gothard throws many of these unsubstantiated claims and ideas at a person all at once. He mixes this with what is flat out emotional blackmail. If you don't agree with him, you oppose the truth of the Gospel. Well, that's his primary emotional manipulative tactic anyway. There are too many complicated things to navigate thrown at a person in the seminar, and they're piled upon and done so very quickly. No one has the chance to think them through at the time.
The social setting and the overwhelm of the number of vaguely supported conclusions throws a person right into an altered state of consciousness. You end up mentally agreeing with him because of the stress. No one can keep up, and you need a scorecard to work through it all. (This post is a scorecard after the fact, one I wish everyone had the opportunity to write while they're doing the training.)
I think this overwhelm is the most significant factor in why people end up just accepting this stuff about Gothard when they attend IBLP. There's just so much vague stuff thrown at people so fast, with the icing of emotional blackmail on the top of the cake, you end up just deferring to his opinions. You don't have time to sort through them all.
It also makes me wonder why on earth a woman's monthly cycle would be of such interest to Gothard, and I remember thinking this during the training but blew it off. (I got sucked into other aspects of the teaching.) Why would men even want to think much about these matters.
"It also makes me wonder why on earth a woman's monthly cycle would be of such interest to Gothard, and I remember thinking this during the training but blew it off."
thats funny, i thought the same thing... why am i being taught this?
Exactly my thought! Mr. Gothard had a very strange habit of talking about women's cycles...he even brought it up in the company of single girls who were working for him. That's just creepy, at best.
[...] article is a continuation of “Mr. Gothard’s Sexual Rules,” a three-part series we ran last December. Mr. Gothard’s teachings on sex within marriage [...]
Lol! Thank you for cheering my day. This really struck my funny bone. Just what we need, a reason for periods to be more miserable! Now they're a "warning...of beguilement"? And "Satan's goal" cracks me up too. I think he has bigger fish to fry than promoting "insensitivity to the woman's cycle" (whatever that means), and one of them might just be piling misery on women.
Hello, Dave M. As promised I shall dive into some of your twisty Scriptures articles to offer my color commentary. Perhaps that should take the form of a series of responses, although the way this usually works out is the first response will wander the map and end up covering all pertinent points.
First comment . . . I subscribe to a very high view of God’s reality and involvement in His creation. I really believe He is actively involved in every aspect of life, big and smart enough to actually literally provide each breath of air and each bite of food made available to me. There is plenty of Scripture to back that up, will defer unless this is a point of disagreement.
With this in mind, it seems incomprehensible to me that anything is “by chance”, random. There is an answer to every “why” question, even if not revealed to us. I think Solomon, arguably the wisest man to ever live, got it, figuring out God’s design and lessons in natural things . . . “And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes” (1 Kings 4:32-33)
If woman have monthly cycles, it is not unreasonable to ask “Why”. It should be apparent that there are lots of other ways to make babies that don’t involve a cycle, a monthly cycle, bleeding, discomfort, PMS, or even restricted to women. If God’s design makes people deal with those things so constantly in only this way, why? It is OK for you to say, “no good reason” . . . that just doesn’t make sense to me. There is very little of what I create that is “for no good reason” . . . no, the pieces all have purpose, with randomness down in the areas that don’t have an effect, like the pattern of a mosaic tile where randomness gives beauty. If you see monthly bleeding that way, fine . . . I personally would want a better explanation.
So . . . I like the questions Bill Gothard raises. You may not like his answers, but I hope you can see the wisdom of asking them. The “pure in heart” see God (Matt. 5:8) . . . everywhere, even in the monthly period.
If God took a lot of trouble to articulate the law of Moses, it is also reasonable to believe that there is a good reason for each instruction. When it comes to oxen eating of the grain they are trampling out, Paul tells us that reason . . . not for oxen to have good mental health, but for Christian leaders whom God expects will eat from the work they do . . . i.e. support your pastors and preachers.
“Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.” (1 Cor. 9:8-10)
If monthly cycles are by really wise design, and Moses’ laws are also by really wise design, maybe we can learn from both when asking “why” design questions. In this case God makes a big point of that bleeding – which He invented – being “unclean”, giving lots of details on how to avoid getting contaminated. Eating pork doesn’t send us to hell, not does touching a menstruating woman. But eating pork may make us sick . . . and maybe this “uncleanness” will too.
Don’t know how? Neither do I. The Jews in the Middle Ages that cleaned up their trash because it was “unclean” knew of no practical reason for doing so . . . somehow – randomly? - less of them got the plague and other diseases because of bacteria nobody knew about. God’s ways really, truly work. It would be just like Him if Science suddenly discovers that some weird transfer of genetic material happens through the skin to lay the foundation for cancer . . . or Alzheimer’s. Please – I am making this up - but it is no weirder than telling someone in the Middle Ages to clean up their garbage because rat fleas cause Bubonic Plague. Big joke. “There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord.” (Proverbs 21:30)
Or . . . maybe God wants to motivate a time “apart” on a monthly basis to encourage other healthy things – physically, emotionally, mentally – that will actually make a couple way happier downstream. If you suspect this cause you might – like all good scientists – look for proof. More happiness in cultures that practice it. More health.
The reasons you come up with for “why” may not match Bill Gothard’s . . . but it is a really good thing to ponder. Rather than “putting us under the law”, we learn more about God and how He thinks and how He designed us and the universe. Which will make life work out more in the direction God intended and we really want.
So . . . flip it around. Take his instructions and – instead of laws that Christians must keep – use it as motivation to learn more about God's design. If what he suggests matches the design God put in nature and the law of Moses – and particularly if supported by, not opposed by other key doctrine - he may be onto something. That is how I – and the bulk of ATI families I know – take this.
The “Scripture Twisting” that gets complained about happens because he is looking for further proof in God’s word to support the premises that nature and the law of Moses appear to support. Frankly, I find far less of this in Bill Gothard than you appear to, but it is a fact of life that we tend to play “fast and loose” with murkier sections of Scripture when trying to shore up doctrine that we find to be crystal clear elsewhere. So . . . wisdom is not to define the battle by the periphery but by the core . . . which I have now given you.
First, a practical thing...its probably good to just keep our longer comments to each other at the same "reply level" so indentation doesn't make it unreadable.
Now, my reply...
I also have a high view of God's involvement in the physical universe. I believe that the universe has no independent existence and that if He did not constantly and actively give thought to its existence that it would cease to exist. So yes, I also do not believe in anything being by chance.
But, there is a substantial gap between the belief that nothing is by chance and the belief that one can know why. While it isn't unreasonable to ask the question, its not reasonable to expect to be able to figure out the answer. That there may be a reason doesn't mean that we can know. And even if we can know to some extent doesn't mean that we can create some universal rule of living by this. Down that path is legalism as it will inevitably lead one to create extra-biblical rules for living. And who is to say which way of interpreting the facts is the correct way.
So, while I might agree that God had a reason for creating the universe in such a way that the sky is blue rather than pink, its a whole different matter to take this philosophy and then come up with some rule of living based on this fact. After all, it might be simply that God liked blue, which is a perfectly good reason - I am quite glad to rejoice that God created a sky which is blue. God's reasons do not need to be utilitarian - that's just idolatry to insist that his reasons must conform to certain expectations of ours.
As to the answer G comes up with, I don't really care one way or the other. Its what he does with those reasons that are of concern to me. Particularly when he makes claims about what Scripture says which are false and fallacious. That is the point on which I disagree with him. Keep this fact in the front of your mind as we continue this discussion. My quibble has nothing to do with any answers to "why" that G may have come up with. They are beside the point.
"If God took a lot of trouble to articulate the law of Moses, it is also reasonable to believe that there is a good reason for each instruction."
Agreed. However, to assume that the reasons are about health or even about some universal principle is an unwarranted leap of logic. It is just as possible that the reason has nothing to do with health or anything practical at all. FWIW, not even Orthodox Jews believe that all the commands are practical, much less health oriented, in a nature. Nor do they see them as universal either. The idea that the specifics of the Mosaic law are meant to be universal and practical finds little purchase in
Hence, when dealing with the passages, it is important that one stick with what it actually says. G doesn't. More significantly, it is important that one deals with the whole of the teaching instead of picking out parts which fit some extra-biblical theory one might have. G doesn't. Again, its about how G treats Scripture, not about my views of his theory of menstruation.
In fact, I am willing to allow for the sake of our discussion (at least for now) that G's theory of the purpose and design of the woman's cycle is essentially accurate. I will even reply with that assumption in mind. My focus is on how he treats Scripture, not about some theory he may have about menstruation (hopefully i don't need to repeat this again :) )
Now, about the use of the term "unclean" I can see we are going to have to get into a discussion of this term. I will wait on that though till it becomes more central to your argument.
"That is how I – and the bulk of ATI families I know – take this. "
Let me be very, very clear up front. As far as this discussion goes, I don't can't at all about how you or other ATI families take things. What I am interested in is what Gothard *teaches* and *says*. When it comes to Gs actual teachings, "how X takes it" is nothing but a rabbit trail - one I am not going to go down. You are welcome to interject such things, but they add nothing to the discussion and thus will be ignored by me. I would suggest its probably better not to waste your time with such asides.
"The “Scripture Twisting” that gets complained about happens because he is looking for further proof in God’s word to support the premises that nature and the law of Moses appear to support. "
A Scripture twist is a fallacious use of Scripture. Gs intent has nothing to do with it. If its fallacious, its fallacious. If its fallacious, then its a Scripture twist regardless of intent. We can both drop the issue of intent as being beside the point of the discussion.
As I've said before, for someone who claims to teach the Scriptures, Bill Gothard has an awfully curious way of teaching his own observations and opinions and then backing them up with a Bible verse or two that may or may not be at all related. |
That way lies (serious) heresy.
.
"But, there is a substantial gap between the belief that nothing is by chance and the belief that one can know why. While it isn't unreasonable to ask the question, its not reasonable to expect to be able to figure out the answer. "
One of my favotite verses:
"The secret things belong unto the Lord our God:but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deuteronomy 29:29)
What He had shown us is for us to figure out. Both creation and Scripture. I guess I expect to understand it . . . A puzzle He expects us to solve. If that is a difference between us, it will have to be.
"Particularly when he makes claims about what Scripture says which are false and fallacious. That is the point on which I disagree with him."
Understood. All I am saying we all should not to get lost in periphery:
"That make a man an offender for a word,
and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate,
and turn aside the just for a thing of nought." (Isaiah 29:21)
"If God took a lot of trouble to articulate the law of Moses, it is also reasonable to believe that there is a good reason for each instruction."
Hence, when dealing with the passages, it is important that one stick with what it actually says. G doesn't.
Tell me what this means:
Deuteronomy 21:22-23
And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Tell me the interpretation . . . . Is it encapsulation of the truth that Jesus bore our in on Calvary? That is what Paul says . . .
Galatians 3:13
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."
Who is being spoken of? Why, Jesus:
Matthew 2:15
And was there until the death of Herod:that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
I already gave the ox story . . . The interpretation Paul lifts out is really something, applying it to Christian leaders.
There are lots of similar interpretations that pull some really non-intuitive meanings out of OT. I am sure at one point apostolic authority will be cited . I just need you to acknowledge that some really weird interpretations are in fact actually exactly what the Lord meant.
Now, about the use of the term "unclean" I can see we are going to have to get into a discussion of this term. I will wait on that though till it becomes more central to your argument.
Believe it or not, I really am not much interested in that. That just doesn't figure in. I think the uncleanness is a motivation . . . Toward something, not away from something. But . . . We can wander around with it . . . It just isn't what I am into.
My errata . . .
"If God took a lot of trouble to articulate the law of Moses, it is also reasonable to believe that there is a good reason for each instruction." <== should have been deleted
"Tell me the interpretation . . . . Is it encapsulation of the truth that Jesus bore our in on Calvary?" . . . Our SIN
You are speaking of writers who were specially inspired to write authoritatively for all time and all believers. Unless you are going to claim the same authority and/or inspiration for G, that is a dog that won't hunt.
Particularly since G is making authoritative and universal claims about his position AND creating universal, obligatory rules from his claims. If he presented all this as a "well this is what I see..." sort of thing, I wouldn't have nearly the problem I do with his teachings. He goes far, far beyond that though. Hence, the need for a much more rigorous approach to Scripture than "Well, Paul sometimes makes strange interpretations."
OK . . . in this, David M (they are calling you "David March" because of the month :-) ) we agree. Bill Gothard has the same authority I have to "speak as the oracles of God" . . . and no more. Certainly not with the authority of an Apostle or Prophet, as those that constructed Scripture.
He is very confident . . . that confidence breeds courage in his followers, much as you would want in an army following a leader to battle . . . but inasmuch as it plays fast and loose with the facts, it will ultimately be damaging.
I like George Bush (sorry) . . . I deeply appreciate his leadership in the years following 9/11 . . . but he played this game . . . and both won and lost because of it. He won by making a case for this nation to follow him into a war that I think needed to be fought . . . he lost because some of the facts assembled to motivate that were not completely accurate.
Few people realize that Abraham Lincoln did much the same to hold the nation together and remove doubt so that the objective could be completed. Good leaders know how to motivate. Lincoln is still regarded as arguably the greatest President we have ever had. But anything that comes back as a partial truth, even if unintentional, damages the legacy and even the thing that was won at so great a cost.
Anyway, my way of acknowledging that we do have a problem. Question is how big of a problem, whether reasonable or unreasonable. I, for one, find far less baloney in his exegesis than others do . . . and I presume we will have many happy hours to go over such point by point.
What might be excusable in the case of political leadership is a very different matter when one is a teacher espousing universal principles and rules from Scripture.
Alfred, again, as Dave and I, and others have pointed out again and again:
Gothard is not only confidant. He claims that his understanding of (fill in the blank) is THE teaching of the Word of God. At the very least, he constantly claims that what he teaches is THE correct understanding of God's word which, if properly followed, will result in God's blessings in every area of your life.
Reference almost any link on the IBLP official website. It's fairly obvious. Gothard is confident enough that he claims to speak for God, to each and every Christian. Period.
This is the true 'root problem' if you will, as I see it.
God wants us to speak for Him . . . Right?
"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth:that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (1 Peter 4:11)
When Paul - who you would agree had every right to demand unquestioning allegiance - rolled into Berea with all the confidence in the world . . . They listened respectfully . . . And checked it out.
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)
So, maybe we should concentrate on what he is saying, instead of being bothered by his confidence.
Huh? Till you brought up the point about his confidence, it wasn't an issue with us at all. So, no red herrings. Like you say (though it seems I have said it myself at least once already) lets concentrate on what G actually says.
Alfred, you there?
Still here . . . I guess we each thought it was the other's turn . . . So . . .
Sexual rules . . . Leviticus 18 is a whole chapter on "don't have sex with", along with a few other named "abominations", things that from God's perspective "defiled" the land to the point that the people would need to be destroyed. Listed:
Sex with close relatives
Sex with men
Sex with animals
Sex with a woman and her daughter
Sex with a woman and sister
Sex with your neighbor's wife
Burning babies for idols
AND Sex with a menstruating woman
We know that Jacob married two sisters, so things are kept in perspective. But most folk would agree that most of these things are still -in this day of grace- on God's hit list.
Smart people talk about "natural law", things that may be codified in the law of Moses, but precede and supersede it, being laws of God's created universe. The Declaration of Independence considers such things "self evident".
What things would tell us that an OT law falls in this category? Well obviously anything highlighted in the NT would be so by definition. . . Like murder, theft, obedience to parents. There are things that are defined by God prior to the law -like a day of rest - or clearly observed prior to the law, like tithing. The NT does not call out beastiality, for example, but most people would find it in here, Either in "fornication" (pornea) or "uncleanness"
Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like:of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
That uncleanness is a word used in the OT to mean sexual perversion is clear (this is one of many like this)
Numbers 5:19
And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
Whatever "unclean" is, it certainly isn't dirty hands. It is a physical act that God considers "dirty".
Here is another witness from the OT that sex with women on their periods was up there with the "really bad sins":
Ezekiel 18:5-9
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith theLord God.
So . . . It is listed among a group of things that we would all agree we think still applies today . . . Other than "eating on the mountains"? That sounds like eating idol meat. But, strangely, we discover that none other than Jesus seems to condemn that for Christians:
Revelation 2:20
Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols . . .
Even Paul signed a letter written to non-Jewish believers telling them to not eat that meat (Acts 15)
So . . . This is the only thing that doesn't apply today? You can see why some believers might come to a different conclusion.
A lot of things I could respond to, and I am sure we could have a lot of fun pursuing all sorts of rabbit trails. However, my main concern is over how G deals with Scripture. This article(s) points out several things specifically. Since you haven't yet addressed any of this, I will, for now, take this last post as all background and deal with the relevant parts if and when they come up in our exploration of the specifics of Gs use of Scripture.
David: since I came to the same conclusion Mr. G did, at least defended it from Scripture just as he does, why don't you address my use of Scripture? Otherwise, please zero me in on what you consider his most egregious misuse of Scripture in this article nd I will see if I can do better. I actually thought I was.
1. You coming to the same conclusion, or even if agree or disagree with the *conclusion*, is largely irrelevant. It's Mr. Gothard's reasoning (not yours) and his use of Scripture (not yours) which is of concern to me as far as RG goes. Even if I basically agree with Gs basic conclusions this would not erase the concerns I have with his use of Scripture.
2. You say you defended it from Scripture just as he does, yet I can find no evidence of this at all. If you can bring to bear actual publications of his that show this is also how he defends the idea from Scripture, then maybe I will be willing to include this in the discussion. As it appears right now though, you are using verses and reasoning that aren't present in G's teachings (certainly not in this section in the Advanced Seminar Textbook). Since the issue is with how G uses Scripture, not with how you use Scripture, I am going to stick with what can be shown that G actually teaches.
3. As to zeroing in, why not just deal with the specific points I make in the articles and the specific concerns and verses I raise? Your response so far hasn't more than slightly touched on what I have dealt with in the articles. You raises verses and reasoning which I don't deal with at all (nor can I even find in his writings at this point) and avoid the things I point out that he has written and the verses I raise as concerns that he uses.
So, I am not rejecting what you write, just pointing out that none of it seems to deal with the specific concerns raised in the series (much less this particular one).
Ok, I will gamely give it a whirl.
1. Choose a subject. . . . Etc.
Disagree with the perspective. Rather . . . you read scriptures such as what I put forward and are led to the conclusion that God has placed a strongly enforced motivation for a couple to not have sex for a week or two every month. Coupled with the understanding that God loves us and doesn't do things randomly a wise person may ask "How come?". Assuming a good reason, you expect to find a deliberate design that makes for a happier marriage. Rather than Scriptures becoming "proofs" of God's hidden design, they serve to make what is known to be there more apparent. See? It is backwards
God's design is a given. His Scriptures give us clues as to what that might be. Mr. Gothard's conclusions are consistent with those assumptions.
Key: Living in harmony with the husband’s nocturnal emissions.
Leviticus 15:16 – And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.
You are off to a good start. What do we learn from that? Those emissions
1). Are unclean, and whatever they do is transmitted by touch. Makes a person wonder if science will find a weird way in which gametes can penetrate the skin and cause . . . Cancer?
2) Are costly. They force a man to be isolated from family and friends and coworkers for a day. Cost a day of work, perhaps, kind of like being sick. Some say it might cost a lamb too. Not a sin, but undesirable. Might make a guy think twice before encouraging such a thing.
3) Might strongly discourage anything resembling ingesting that "unclean" thing.
These are all completely direct results of one simple command. "We are not under the law!". Nope . . . But we are under creation. Big laws like gravity that you aren't exempt from because you are saved. Sounds like it is worth paying attention to.
Weren't these OT laws a foreshadowing of the Redeemer to come--- like food laws of not eating pork, but Jesus declared all foods clean? (My 7th day Adventist brother has a way around that one!) There are laws in the OT about donkeys and oxen but how many of us own one? The 7th day Adventists swear God has passed judgement on the Jews, and thrown them out of His plan because of their sins (and whatever else they declared was the reason and the SDA were the chosen ones to take the place of the Jews. My hubby asked my brother, if the Jews could not keep the law, how are the SDA's going to be able to do it? And my brother keeps those laws to a T! But is not very nice to his poor wife. (I should talk! My husband often experiences the wrath of wife!)
Stories that have filtered out of HQ in recent years indicating that BG has a fascination with women's cycles. It's been reported by different girls at different time periods of HQ service. I have personally spoken to one BLP that BG asked her about when hers was, and this was verified by several other different girls. It makes sense he would try to tie this into his teachings somehow.
I'm sure God has a great reason for the way he designed menses to work, as well as for the ritual laws concerning it. The only thing that my own mind has come up with, though, is that if you're encouraging rapid population growth of a relatively small tribe of people living among hostile neighbors, it sure makes sense to encourage every couple to have sex right when the woman is fertile (around day 14, in general). How to ensure that happens? Make it taboo for two weeks so both parties are chomping at the bit by day 14, and the husband is, if I may mix metaphors, loaded for bear. :-P
I'm just thankful that not only did Jesus release me from the Mosaic law, but also later inspired Paul to write that couples were not, repeat, NOT to practice abstinence except for the mutually-agreed specific purpose of prayer.
And dude, men don't emit gametes, sheesh.
Toni: Of all of the things I could comment on, I shall choose the least significant first . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete . . . . I'm right, you're wrong, na-na-na-na:
"A gamete (from Ancient Greek γαμέτης gametes "husband" / γαμετή gamete "wife") is a cell that fuses with another cell during fertilization (conception) in organisms that reproduce sexually. In species that produce two morphologically distinct types of gametes, and in which each individual produces only one type, a female is any individual that produces the larger type of gamete—called an ovum (or egg)—and a male produces the smaller tadpole-like type—called a sperm."
:-)
OK, now that I got that out of the way . . . you are right that abstinence encourages fertility (this coming from a fellow with 11 kids). You are also right that mutually agreed on times for prayer and fasting are "in", NT speaking. But . . . you also may know that Mr. G appeals to that very principle for couples, a mutually agreed upon time monthly to seek the Lord in a special way.
Personally, I think it is a cool idea. It has definitely been a net plus for us . . . with exceptions as it suited us. Never felt like a law, just like a God-designed great idea. I also stand with anyone that doesn't see the point and rejects it because it is felt to be a burden.
I think someone mentioned this way up the discussion but I will repeat it. While the practice of abstenance during a woman's period can lead to higher fertility it can also lead to infertility. A small number of women actually ovulate very close to or during their period. I knew a couple who struggled with infertility until they threw out what they learned from Bill Gothard.
"Never felt like a law, just like a God-designed great idea."
EXACTLY!!!! You found something that confirms and encourages your personality, needs, desires, etc that God put into you. He made you to be a family man. HIS yoke is easy and HIS burden (made especially for you by HIM) is light. It has probably brought you great joy to follow the life God has made for you.
I, on the other hand, suffered much guilt and mental anguish because God made me different from you, your desires, wants and needs. I did not want what other women wanted. The way I am was frowned upon and not covered under any BG teaching, except in a negative way. I ride and own horses, my kids have 4 legs and the idea of ever having babies made me almost nauseous and I often disagree with my husband on just about everything. On top of that my career was outside the home as teacher in PUBLIC schools. And my housekeeping skills are rather loose. Could all that be God's doing making me that way?
But according to BG teachings, and my not following them, daring to disagree, that there might be a different way to live a Christian life, conclude that I am a selfish, rebellious woman whom shall come to no good end and lots of terrible things will happen to me because I do not line up with scripture as put forth by this one man.
Of course, mentioning not wanting kids, having several cats IN the house, and working in public schools (meaning I had a college education), a less than tidy house, are things that would cause many gothardized, and even some regular Christians, to judge me and steer clear of being a friend with me.
Even before finding RG, I saw that God does not make cookie cutter Christians. Each one of us is a different creative work of God, like fingerprints or snowflakes, no two alike. Each time I read a new entry on this site, along with the many comments, even yours, I feel more legalistic chains untangling and dropping off, learning to love God and accept His love for me, that I can do nothing to earn God's love.
You did make a comment somewhere on this site I cannot find but agree with 100% -- something about that Gothard, IBLT, and all his teachings were worth saving (or however you worded it) and that statement is something my heart leapt out at. Thinking of eternity, I sincerely want that BG should find a place in heaven, through grace, not because he did something extra special for God by all of his seminars, teachings, books and other stuff, ATI, IBLT, etc. His teachings that are not of God, will all fade away.
There is only one you and only one me, and there is a whole chorus out there saying, "Thank God for that!!!
God bless you, Esbee. Jesus loves you just the way you are. I also have not measured up to Mr. Gothsrd's standards, let alone God's, and never will, in this life. But Jesus still loves me, and died for me, just as I am.
A suggestion for discussion flow... Perhaps labelling each point and discussing it before moving on to the next point might be helpful?
Point 1: State it... (Alfred)
Counter to point 1. (David M)
etc.
Then the next party makes a point...
Point 2: State it...
Counter to point 2...
Just a thought for those of us interested in reading this discussion between Alfred and David M.
Why is The Law useful and good for us today regarding women's cycles but not regarding men's beards?
Leviticus 19:17 "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."
Why harp on one portion of The Law and not another?
James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
It is fine to read about the restrictions surrounding a woman's cycle and feel the Holy Spirit's leading to do the same. But you can't insist that other's follow this leading or they will miss out on God's Blessings. Not unless you are going to bring the whole of the Law back into the equation.
And there was likely a reason God wanted the ancient Jews to have special hair and beard. Though I can't imagine it would be cleanliness. My husband has a beautiful beard, but watch him eat? Nope, cleanliness wouldn't be the reason.
I would like to see BG add beards into IBLP/ATI culture.
Rachel -men who wear beards are totally "persona non-gothard"!
What WOULD he say to the bearded lady? ;)
1-that she had probably sinned somehow and that God was punishing her for not following Gothard's program that only by following every single little iota will God put a measure of blessing on her life
2-buy a razor.
Quite apart from scripture (no pun intended), WHY does that little wee man want to get into my bedroom so much when even God doesn't interfere in such a manner? Ewwwwww! And if I hear the word "cycle" much more I think I will shoot something. Again...eeeeewwwwww! Little ol' Bill can go away and keep what seems to be a very dirty and fixated mind away from my privates! Sorry to be blunt, but I feel violated just reading that rubbish! (His, not yours). :)
I am amazed that people don't think its weird at all for a man, a single man none the less, to give women advice on the way they dress, how to do make up, there periods, how to breast feed and when, when to have sex. if my pastor said any of this to my wife I would open a can of you know what on him. but when your in a cult the leader is to be followed without question and with complete trust. Sad that Men have given up there God given responsibility to protect there families and then send there little precious girls to have one on one counseling with a guy who is clearly obsessed with sex.
[…] Recovering Grace […]
Hmmm.....
Is March 16, 2014 the last post??
Just curious as I only happened upon Recovering Grace some weeks ago.
Willy (nickname)
(I am a female)
No. It's not. If you go to the home page, you'll find many more articles.