Series Overview: When reports of immorality became widespread among Bill Gothard’s IBYC staff in the 1970s, the stories were initially “unbelievable.” Not because they couldn’t be true, but because people had placed such hope in Gothard. Thus, amid the hurt and complexity, there was a real need for the teaching of Jesus Christ in Matthew 18.
Unfortunately, instead of reducing the hurt and complexity, Gothard actively worked to take advantage of the confusion. He had regularly required staff to sign loyalty oaths and to turn over their meeting notes to him as a method of controlling information. Now, over a period of numerous years, he carefully taught new concepts to his staff and employees—with the goal of blocking truthful reports—and extended his teachings nationwide through seminars and alumni booklets.
We have exposed the fallacy of the following teachings:
- “Giving only a good report,” as taught in the 1976 publication Rediscovering A Forgotten Truth, which twisted the teaching of Matthew 18:15-19 to silence staff and volunteers in order to cover up the growing IBYC sex scandal.
- “Not taking up an offense,” as taught in the 1984 Basic Seminar video recording, a continuation of previous teachings and an effective means of keeping the IBYC and IBLP faithful unquestioning and uninvolved in sin or injustice they might have witnessed.
In this article, we explore:
- “Defilement of listening to an evil report,” as published in 1981 as part of the concerted effort to silence and discredit former IBYC staff.
“Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.” Ephesians 5:11
“The sins of some men are quite evident going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after.” I Timothy 5:24-25
See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil. IBLP has a Matthew 18 publication that fits well with each monkey. Today's article pairs well with "hear no evil."
Listening to an Evil Report
One question often asked of those who have contributed their stories to Recovering Grace is, “If things were so bad, or even illegal, why didn’t you contact the authorities, or at least tell your parents or a lawyer?” Most who grew up in the Advanced Training Institute (ATI) and/or Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) system readily know the answer. For those who did not grow up in the system, it can be difficult to translate the experience of an ATI student or IBLP staffer into terms that are easily understood. There is a significant cultural more that is seemingly designed to curb gossip, but functionally serves to silence. The booklet “How to Guard Against the Defilement of Listening to an Evil Report“ is but one of several resources effectively used to manipulate well-meaning folks to simply ignore and pray rather than to speak up.
In the January 31, 1981, article “Doubts on credibility haunt traveling preacher,” Los Angeles Times author John Dart places the genesis of this booklet around the same time frame as the 1980 IBYC sex scandal. Reporting on such events, he says, “In a move to counter criticism, Gothard recently introduced supplementary teaching material which says a Christian who listens to ‘evil reports’ will be infected by disease. Gothard likens the ‘disease’ to the Old Testament idea of defilement.” In light of this background, serious doubt is necessarily cast on both Gothard’s motive for authoring the booklet and the teachings contained therein. Further, a critical read of the booklet highlights a disturbing number of fallacies.
Click here to read the original 1981 version of the full booklet on “How to Guard Against the Defilement of Listening to an Evil Report.”
Click here to read the revised version of the full booklet on “How to Guard Against Defilement that Comes from Listening to an Evil Report.”
A Shaky Start
This booklet is full of slick presuppositions that might be missed from a cursory reading. First, there’s the title: “How to Guard against the Defilement of Listening to an Evil report” (emphasis added). The words “guard” and “defilement” imply danger, to prepare readers to receive this information from a place of fear rather than reason. In the Old Testament, defilement rendered a person ceremonially unfit, and the person could only worship God after a ceremonial cleansing. So right there, the reader is made doubly afraid. Not only is danger lurking, but if they fail to heed the warnings in the booklet, they will be “defiled,” and out of fellowship with God until they DO something to be cleansed. Next, the reader is also at risk because of what others may do to them, like voice a concern about someone else. The reader does not want to commit a vile sin simply because someone gossiped to them. That would be “evil.” Here Gothard signals the “correct” classification for any difficult report, independent of consideration, truth, or dissenting opinion.
Gothard defines terms to fit his goal. For example, defilement is defined as “Receiving an evil report from another person and believing that it is true,” which begs the obvious question: “Who gets to determine whether the report is evil?” There is absolutely no instruction for the scenario where the report really is true. Even a true report is presumed to be evil, and the reader is now contaminated or defiled for simply having listened to it. “Unauthorized” reports are considered to be evil, but what criminal or sinner is likely to “authorize” a report about himself?
The booklet also contains a list of motivations for someone giving an “evil” report: bitterness, rebellion, deception, pride, guilt, and envy; yet makes no allowance for inquiry, as needed for serious analysis or to dispel a misunderstanding. “Slander” is implied to mean “destroy[ing] another’s credibility with damaging facts, distortions of facts or evil suspicions,” wherein reality, it would be the damaging facts, rather than the person who conveyed them, that destroyed the person’s credibility. In the American legal system, a communication never can be slander if it’s true.
The entire teaching is an analogy to disease. So why is there no mention of medicine? Truth, like medicine, might not taste good, but it is healing.
Questionable Conclusions
The first stage of defilement is IGNORANCE. Nobody wants to be ignorant, but accepting the list in this section as accurate will make us ignorant. Reading between the lines:
A. If we love, we WILL HIDE ALL transgressions. (Partial truth)
B. The clean CANNOT influence the unclean. (Untrue)
C. We should not give an “UNAUTHORIZED” report. (Untrue)
D. ALL forms of communication are tainted. (Untrue)
E. EVERYONE is spreading evil reports. (Untrue)
F. We deserve LABELS as bitter, rebellious, etc. (Partial truth at best)
G. This is OUR FAULT. (Untrue)
H. This is SATANIC. (If the report is truth, then this is Untrue.)
Notice that two of Gothard’s goals in that section are to tell people not to be a Busybody and not to discredit spiritual leadership. What a coincidence. In the section titled “How to detect an evil report,” all of the teaching is against exposing an offender. In fact, the booklet takes the reader to the extreme:
1. The offender becomes the source of facts and correct quotes. (This really would be ignorant.)
2. “Refusal to identify the source of information is a sure signal of an evil report.” (Untrue)
In the section titled, “How to cleanse our mind from an evil report” the reader is told, “You know you have cleansed your heart when” you (again reading between the lines):
1. Give in.
2. Blame yourself and others.
3. Love the deceiver.
In the last line of the booklet, responsibility rests with the elders. In the 1981 version, once the offender is informed, the responsibility rests with whoever is spiritually responsible. Thus, if a spiritual authority was the offender, then responsibility would rest with that offender. That would certainly be a Dead End. Following such logic, there will never be accountability and repentance.
Poor Scriptural Support
Aside from its logical troubles, the booklet is riddled with proof-texting and sloppy hermeneutics. When one reads the cited scriptural passages in their context, the surrounding verses that were not included are both ironic and disturbing. For example, Gothard cites Matthew 15:18, “But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart; and those defile the man,” but he curiously omits the succeeding verse, “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders . . .” (emphasis added). It’s not the words that defile the man, but the evil in man’s heart. In fact, words may also glorify God and instruct others.
Under the heading “How does God want us to respond?” the booklet quotes Ephesians 5:10-12, “Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret,” (ostensibly to discourage folks from voicing details of some impropriety) but conveniently omits Ephesians 5:13, “But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.” The point of the passage in Ephesians is not silence, but avoiding behavior so shameful that no one would even want speak of it. Other passages distorted from their context and cited to suggest that God is displeased when bad information is shared include Leviticus 19:16, Galatians 6:1, Hebrews 12:15, and 1 Peter 4:15.
Elsewhere, the booklet appeals to a scriptural anecdote about Absalom giving an evil report and attempting to steal the kingdom from his father, King David. The booklet makes the following points to attempt to tie Absalom’s behavior to an evil report:
- He gathered and organized a group that would be loyal to him, rather than to the one whom he served.
- He was energetic and disciplined.
- He made himself available to the people.
- He sought out those who had grievances.
- He had a personal interest in people.
- He took up the offenses of those who had been hurt.
- He alienated people from their authority by giving an evil report.
- He offered to be the representative to make sure things were done right.
- He would use his new position to increase his loyal following.
- He desired acceptance and recognition as well as authority.
- He carried out a tragic takeover of the nation with the help of those who were defiled and infected with an evil report.
Ironically, most of those points describing Absalom could just as easily be made about Jesus. He gathered disciples who followed Him, fasted for forty days in the wilderness, rebuked his disciples for preventing children from coming to him, hung around with those whom society might consider outcasts, spoke with the woman at the well, rebuked the Pharisees for taking all the widow had to live on, seldom passed up an opportunity to criticize the religious establishment of his day, gave His life as the ultimate sacrifice and tearing the temple veil, was lifted up so that He might draw all men to Himself, referred to Himself as “I AM,” and ultimately used His disciples to build His church, which many (such as Saul) considered errant.
While Scripture is pretty clear that Absalom’s motives were wrong, real life is not so cut and dried. We cannot know another person’s motives with certainty. Nor is it always apparent whom God has anointed—even cults experience financial prosperity and popularity at times.
The booklet contains additional blatant misuses of Scripture. Job 34:37, “For he addeth rebellion unto his sin” is quoted to support the Gothard’s claim that rebellion/an independent spirit is a motivation to give a bad report; yet in context, that verse does not support the claim at all. The statement is made by Elihu to refer to Job. Nowhere in Scripture is Job labeled rebellious or an independent spirit.
Similarly, Romans 16:17, “Now I beseech you, bretheren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them,” is cited to support how God wants us to respond to a person who has given a bad report. However, the clear meaning of the phrase “contrary to the doctrine” in that passage refers to false doctrine. This is an admonition to avoid those teaching heresy, not those who give an “evil report.”
The booklet also quotes Scripture with no discussion for case-specific applications. For example, 1 Corinthians 13:5-6, “Love . . . thinketh no evil, rejoicing not in iniquity.” In the case of gossip, the answer is simple: don’t gossip. But what if the issue is testifying against criminal activity? Then the answer is different. Another example is Galatians 6:1, “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” What if your brother has molested a child, and then claims he’s repented? The booklet provides no guidance in such scenarios, which leaves the guilt-ridden reader having to wrestle with the doubt of whether reporting his “repentant” brother to the police is giving a bad report, defiling the police officer who receives the report and violating “God’s direction” in Galatians 6!
Finally, aside from several places where ideas are posited with no citation (to Scripture or others), there are multiple places within the booklet where the same verse is recycled to support a different point (e.g., Hebrews 12:15, Proverbs 18:8, Proverbs 16:28 to name a few). Not surprisingly, the booklet heavily relies on isolated verses from Proverbs (no less than 18 times). But one must question the wisdom of building doctrine of supposed absolute truth from generally true wisdom (e.g. Proverbs 16:7, “When a man’s ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him”—yet that was not true for Christ when He was crucified).
Should We Speak Up?
Gothard does state in one short paragraph that wrongdoing should never be covered over. However, there are no points to expound or illustrate the concept. This warning is most likely soon forgotten by the reader in the ten pages that follow. In contrast, nearly every other point made in the booklet garners more attention.
Curiously missing from the booklet is any discussion of the biblical admonitions to defend the weak, fatherless, and oppressed (Psalm 82:3, Isaiah 1:17). What of our duty to provide information necessary to help those who cannot support themselves? This publication contains no encouragement to seek the truth, but seems to give many justifications for silence and refusing to listen to the concerns of others.
For those of us raised in ATI, teachings such as those outlined in this book were all we knew. Speaking out came at the risk of being labeled a “tale bearer,” shunned, and quite possibly sent home from a Training Center (being fired) in disgrace. Given the allegations of cover-ups that have come to light concerning Bill Gothard, as well as the historical context in which this booklet was written, we find it hard to consider this booklet to be anything more than a fancy shell game designed to silence those who might speak up or speak out against true reports of evil.
I remember the first time I overheard someone mention this concept. I was in the kitchen at OKC and a girl stopped herself saying something to the effect of, "Well, I don't want to give a bad report." Fresh off the farm, I had never read this booklet and missed the concept in the seminar I guess because I just thought she sounded like a weirdy. This teaching is just one more step BG required us to take away from reality. If no one, anywhere, ever gave a "bad report" we'd still be a slave-owning satellite of the British Empire. Looking back, SO much of what I swallowed turns out to have been utterly ridiculous and unlivable. Thank you, RG, for helping so many to rebuild by pointing out the faults in the foundation. My family stands with you.
Just stumbled into town here and I'm trying to get my head around all this horrible "stuff". I went to a couple seminars 35 to 40 years ago...benefited particularly from his encouragement to memorize Scripture (Romans 6 particularly). Seemed he "over-thought" some things and went into a hermeneutic twilight zone in some areas; however, we have brought so much "extravaganta" into the Church today that we are in no position to lob rocks at his off the wall pseudo-doctrines; however, the Elders of his Church need to deal with the habitual nature of his sin in the area of sexual purity. It seems we all have become so animated over this issue that we are forgetting that this all is to be done within the church and specifically Bill's Church...not the town square which this kind of feels like.
As I think about this subject I see two major issues:
One-This ministry was set up on sand since it is "para-church"...we shouldn't be surprised when those outside of the authority (and protection) of the Church "drills in"...whenever we act unbiblically we also will be vulnerable and out there on our own...looks like his desire back in 61 to not have to be accountable to the Elders of his Church bit him hard.
Two- Bill G. would NEVER have been able to fill the largest venues in every major city in America (particularly back in the 70's) if the Elders of every evangelical church in every one of those cities were feeding the sheep. My concern today is these seminars I hear are held today in small to mid sized churches indicating to me that the sheep have virtually lost a taste for meat altogether today.
He thrived in a doctrinal vacuum...true believers crave the Word and their churches leadership has been feeding spiritual sawdust...kinda chews the same; however, has no ability nourish or satisfy.
This whole mess is the natural consequence of our Elders not being as serious about teaching the Word of God to their sheep as they are with building programs and going to conferences where they can treat each other as celebrities.
Those massive crowds would never have appeared if the Elders in every local Church of virtually every evangelical denomination across the country had the courage to tell the leadership of their denomination's Colleges and Seminaries that they will never hire another graduate that had a "philosophy of ministry" that believed that young children should be given a steady diet of Noah and Zacchaeus and believed that your teens will be just fine when they sit down in their philosophy 101 class as freshmen and be able to defend their faith after 10 years of adrenaline charged games for 50 minutes each week with a 9 minute "challenge" from the Word on how they all need to "love Jesus more" from a youth pastor who has leapfrogged into meeting the qualifications of an Elder after living 6 years in the cloistered life on campus (have we lost our minds?). These Youth Pastors will then modal a vibrant prayer life to our teens with a serious 45 second prayer to thank God for the cool game time and the pizza they are about to eat over the remaining hour.
The Church is dying for spiritual meat men...sheep are dying all over your pastures...feed your sheep...model and encourage prayer until you all have calluses on your knees...throw your Piper, Sproul, and Pink out and stop having a vicarious spiritual life through these mere men, and study your Bibles on your knees and cry out for the Holy Spirit to illuminate the eyes of your hearts and these vulnerable, unprotected para-church "ministries" will evaporate.
PS. I think the enemy will often wrap that which is beneficial to the Bride in stuff that causes us to be tempted to throw the baby out with the bath water...we all should be careful that we don't end up with some healthy babies laying face down in the grass after we take Bill to the rail.
"Two- Bill G. would NEVER have been able to fill the largest venues in every major city in America (particularly back in the 70's) if the Elders of every evangelical church in every one of those cities were feeding the sheep. My concern today is these seminars I hear are held today in small to mid sized churches indicating to me that the sheep have virtually lost a taste for meat altogether today."
This. Yes.
The verse that keeps coming to my mind as I read all the background information about the evildoing of Bill Gothard is this: "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Bill Gothard has caused young believers, who did not know any better, to stumble by silencing them when God calls us to do justice.
This is excellent. I think it might be helpful in these articles to acknowledge some of the reasons people are attracted to these specific teachings and how these teachings do not offer the promised answer. This might make the articles more powerful to those who still hold onto these teachings or teachings like them.
I know that I myself once believed all these teachings very strongly, and it was because I had an extremely toxic person in my life who was a bonafide gossip, who truly slandered people, who really was bitter and thus destructive. It was my real life experience with such a person that made me so open to his teachings. He identified issues that were painfully present and then offered an answer that seemed to make sense. It was only after years of holding to these teachings that I realized they not only do not help with the legitimate problems... But they, in their own way, were contributing to those problems.
“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops." - Jesus
Wow! Straight from the Chief Shepherd.
I don't like this handling of the story of Job.
Eliphaz and his two friends are named by God who says that his anger burns against them. But Elihu is a fourth speaker who rebukes the three elders and Job alike.
Job is very much rebuked by God. The rebuke is several chapters long. After this rebuke Job says he repents in dust and ashes. IIRC God may not have actually stated he was angry with Job. I'm fuzzy on the details right now.
God neither affirms nor rebukes Elihu.
I'm not writing this in support of the IBLP booklet. That writer compares Job's criticism of God himself with criticism of other Christians. That is ridiculous.
But the textual handling of the story of Job in this article was really sloppy too.
Oops, how embarrassing! Somewhere down the line one of us swapped Elihu for Eliphaz and the rest of us failed to catch it. You are correct: Elihu, the one in the context used by the booklet in question, was neither condemned nor affirmed. You are an eagle-eyed editor! Thank you for letting us know. The offending statement has been removed.
Bill Gothard is the worst sort of deceiver in that he cons and 'butters-up' fathers in order to molest and fondle their daughters. Sorry for the graphic nature but let's call a spade a spade. When I think of sweet Ruth Gabriel, Charlotte, Meg (whose Dad heard rumors and tried to get the truth) as young women who loved God and think of BG's purposes (yes - he "purposed in his heart"!!!!) for asking their families to let them be his secretaries... It DOES NOT get any scummier than that. If I was a father of said daughters, I would be meeting with attorneys at this point - statute of limitations or not.
The one who was not like-minded with the parents is scummy Bill who was tearing down lives while we were trying to build our children up. He has touched our most precious possessions - literally. I am to blame for teaching my children totally unscriptural principles - he is to blame for SOOOOOOOOOOOO many he defiled in thought, word, and deed. He needs to be stopped.
1. RG, I appreciate the the methodical way you are presenting material. Lately, the site feels like a high-speed glacier of truth. Carry on!
2. I think Bill is going to have a much harder time coming through this as the head of IBLP. I don't think he will repent though. If I was a betting man, I would seriously consider putting money on Bill receiving an exciting new revelation that requires him to step down from active leadership of IBLP so he can devote his time to writing the book God has given him to write. To be safe, I would also put some money on a mass exodus/firing of staff, most assets being sold off and Bill continuing to lead a severely diminished IBLP still trying to convince itself that it is giving the world a new approach to life.
3. Before I read this 'evil report' booklet I hadn't read any IBLP materials, except a small courtship leaflet, for years. This thing is utterly insane and obviously nonsensical. It's weird how one does not notice that while immersed in it.
Jeff,
You are probably correct in your observation. Regarding Bill's material this "Defilement of Listening to an Evil Report" came attached to the letter Bill sent us in the previous RG story. In the letter Bill states: "....It came off the press today and I would like you to have one of the first copies of it....."
This was three months after we were married and seven months after we left staff. At this point Ruth was beginning to heal and was becoming more vocal with her newly found message of truth. Bill called us numerous times trying to twist the historical facts and dissuade her from sharing her testimony. Thus we were "privilege" to receive one of the first copies of "Defilement of Listening to an Evil Report".
Larne Gabriel
Larne,
When I wrote about not noticing the nonsensical-ness, I didn't mean to come across as saying that you didn't notice. Sorry about that. I was thinking about me and my decade as an ATI student immersed in Gothardism. My family took an eat-the-meat-and-spit-out-the-bones attitude towards Bill, but during those years I treated a lot of lower intestine material as if it was tasty steak.
Thanks so much for the part you are playing in making the truth about IBLP known. It makes a huge difference.
Nothing to be sorry for. I was just clarifying the distribution of the material
When someone tells you to "eat the meat and spit out the bones", first check to see if they're trying to unload a bag of bones on you.
Larne, my heart weeps for you and for Ruth, and yet I am so thankful that you are sharing your story here. Thank you so much for mustering the emotional energy to share your story, and deal with such a heart-wrenching part of your life. I just got on here to specifically find you, and ask some questions. Your comment here provided a great intro. :-)
So at this point in your life (when Bill wrote you this letter), we have you all as newlyweds, settling into your new lives and routines together. It sounds like Ruth is just starting to gain some clarity and hasn't processed things all the way. My question, how in the world did you all handle this from an emotional and practical standpoint?
Nowadays, we have support groups, people can google all sorts of relevant psychological terms, and it seems like the culture is much more aware of sexual abuse and victim-blaming and the psychological games that abusers play and the tactics they employ. When BG sent you this, did you guys ever feel that you were going nuts? Or imagining things? What was it like to receive communications like this from BG, without the benefit of hindsight or the current level of understanding?
I just have a hunch that someone else out here is feeling the same way...and more than that, I want to, in my own small way, cheer you on and thank you for what you're doing....I can only imagine what this was like for you two.
Just to clarify, and keep on topic, I was wondering how you dealt with receiving this booklet.
[…] See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil. IBLP has a Matthew 18 publication that fits well with eac… […]
What gets me when I remember the "evil report" teachings is how prevelant the spying and tattling were. Any of the pets could run to leadership with any story, true or false, and mostly petty, and they would be believed unequivocally. The supposed offender was rarely believed and there were often harsh consequences. How is that not an "evil report?" Usually, the people doing the tattling we're very young and wanting to please BG and other leadership. One word to the opposite sex at the wrong time and you were definitely listing and defiling whomever happened to notice that one word. If ever there was an evil report, an instance like this should have been. The tattler should have been rebuked for giving the "evil report."
But, when there really is something that is dark and evil, that is to be pushed under the rug, especially if it pertains to leadership. Ugh. The hypocrisy.
Thank you RG for not giving up on the truth!
Exactly. The way this was applied in every day life was that you couldn't speak up against anyone in authority. But subordinates? Leadership believed almost anything if it furthered their interests.
Sorry for my typos there! I couldn't find a way to edit my post. Hopefully it made sense!
Usually, the people doing the tattling we're very young and wanting to please BG and other leadership.
Gothardjugend?
What is sad is that Gothardism is so clearly destructive error -- even without the scandals and abuse -- and his practices and organization so clearly those of a cult -- that it ought to be a wake up call to all of us as to what can go on in the name of Christ and be accepted by so many as truth. People in cults are often happy, thankful, and can testify to being helped. The Pharisees of Jesus' time were the bible experts, sat in Moses' seat and were praying that God would send the Messiah. But when He stood in their midst they called Him a devil. They were not able to recognize God Incarnate. They hated Him because He was overturning their system of religion and they were not about to be exposed as wrong.
All this article on Gothard's tactics seems so sound on the surface,that they would have shut me up,which for years did precisely that;underlying the many scriptures was the attitude,"Don't speak against authority","bitterness,"bad report"Yeah,it worked,but it didn't feel right.The fruit was bad,the heart of the Shepherd was abrogated,and through the fog one could start to see sheep beaters,people conquerors,just plain bullies.But scripture could not easily be used to prove this.In the end people that cared for me got me out;LOVE,is not easily dissuaded.I do want to thank DAVID for his comments on heresy though.Recovering Grace has a profound number of qualified theologians,but that only because their hearts are "right",not because they are adroit users of sccipture.Gothard himself,probably knew how to use scripture "rightly",but thru years of lording,abusing,self serving God's people, became totally blind.Abiding in darkness can never keep the heart neutral.
Thanks for sharing this! When this kind of teaching is the air that you breathe, speaking out never occurs as an option. It is so understandable why these young ladies wouldn't have publicly questioned even the craziest of behaviors.
Yes. Add to that the fact that Bill had rockstar status with many of the highly sheltered young girls. During the Knoxville young ladies' apprenticeship seminars, when Bill came to speak to the young ladies, he would often say (to the entire group of hundreds of girls), "Oh, wouldn't I love to take one of you young ladies aside and share my heart with you!" What were we supposed to think in response to this public announcement? I thought it was weird, but some girls seemed to think it was great. He went on and on about how pure and wonderful we were, how attractive we were ... I felt sick when he openly flirted with the girls like this, but many of them seemed to welcome it, giggling and squealing, and he knew it. Looking back I can see how addressing the masses of girls like this would have gotten through to the girls who were perhaps interested in receiving attention from him, showing them that he was approachable, open, and desiring of their attention quite plainly. The girls who stood in lines to ask him questions at his microphone were obviously hero-worshipping him, in many instances giggling at his attention as he told them they were attractive, etc. Honestly, the apprenticeship girls were cultivated to treat him like a god and he encouraged it.
I find your comment interesting. I have fortunately never been involved in any of this xtreme fundamentalism and back in the 70s was a typical teenage girl dreaming of romance with prince charming. At the time the theme in Harlequin romance (which I and my friends read by the truckload) was girl barely 18 and man in his thirties. Now of course, I am horrified at the idea but at the time it was Soooooo romantic!
What I find interesting is that these good gothard girls who would of course never(?) read a trashy romance novel were experiencing the same infatuation. Of course the girls were innocent but certainly the "older Man" was not.
"Rock star status", that is quite a concept for a supposedly Godly man. A shameless showman who uses his power and influence to gratify the base desires aka lust.
This is a good perspective.
Thank you
Yes. Add to that the fact that Bill had rockstar status with many of the highly sheltered young girls.
And we all know what rockstars do to young groupies.
"Because I'm A CELEBRITY!!!!!"
"He went on and on about how pure and wonderful we were, how attractive we were ..."
I remember this too from Knoxville and also from the two Young Ladies Counseling Seminars I went to. I also remember a young ladies session in Knoxville where Mr G told all of us that we should do whatever we could to have long, curly hair. My young friend was in tears because her hair wouldn't curl no matter what and it wasn't long either. Why didn't I see this as strange and scary??
Thanks so much for taking this booklet apart and showing the problems with it. Very, very helpful. A minister friend recently wanted to borrow my "red" book because he no longer had his and wanted to use some info in it for his sermon. When he brought it back(I wasn't sure I wanted it back) I asked him if he had found o lot of error in BG's teachings. He thought they were extreme. and never accepted the teaching on music but he thought overall it was a helpful seminar. He had been in ATI for two years in the 90's and had decided it wasn't for his family.My point in telling this story is that there are a lot of people out there who are affected by these teachings and not seeing the errors. So again I say, Thank-you!
It makes me wonder how many of Bill's teachings were 'discovered' as a means of damage control. One of the big ones when I was in ATI was tearing down strongholds and taking back ground (from Ephesians 4:26–27). Are we going to discover in a few weeks that this teaching was designed to ensure that no problem could be discussed after the day in which it happened? (My tongue is only barely in my cheek.)
^^^ What Jeff Gill said. I've wondered the same thing.
You can start with his authority teaching -- which is the same heretical authority teaching that has given every religious tyrant power for the last two-thousand years. It is that teaching that has made all of this abuse possible.
"It makes me wonder how many of Bill's teachings were 'discovered' as a means of damage control..."
What Gothard does is not a new tactic of a cult.
When my brother became 7th Day Adventist, I did a lot of research on Ellen White who was the leader of that cult. I found out that many of her so called "visions" were merely aping the knowledge of the day but to the uneducated they thought she was spewing words from heaven. For instance, astronomers in late 1800s were able to use the telescopes of the day to find 7 (or maybe 8) moons around Jupiter. Ellen White, after the fact, had a vision where she went on a "trip" to Jupiter and she saw it had that number of moons. Her followers oohed and ahhed at the proclamation. Later, as telescopes improved, it was found there were 12 or more moons. That vision right there negates any of her other visions, since any prophet of God has to be 100% correct. Had she really had that vision, she would have seen the exact number of moons for that planet.
Just like RG, there are many people coming out of SDA with stories of how they have been deceived by the false interpretations of scripture by that one woman and her coherts who followed her. Their stories parallel the ones I read on RG about growing up amid rules that they later found out were not Bible truths.
But the powers who run SDA are just as adamant of holding on to what they have and any one approaching them about where they are wrong in scripture face just a strong a defensive wall as any one approaching BG.
All of this legalistic garbage about what to say and not to say, a good report or an evil report, etc. What not just speak the Truth in love? Even if it means exposing evil?
Great article
Here are a few question for the RG Team. Is there anyone who is working for Bill who is not taking the "Iraqi Information Minister Approach" (aka "Baghdad Bob") to all of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf Is there a real board that is seriously considering a response? Is the "internal investigation" a real process that is underway? Weeks have gone by and there is still no official response. Who are the current Board Members? Are they the ones who are listed on the IBLP website? Are they truly independent or rubber stamp "yes" men? Does anyone know them personally who can speak truth to them? A post devoted to this would be helpful.
"Are they truly independent or rubber stamp "yes" men? "
My understanding is that after the 1981 scandal, Gothard took control of the board, making them just figureheads without any real power. I think the fact that they have looked the other way, while the behavior continued for decades speaks for itself. It is kind of like expecting the tobacco industry to investigate itself to determine if cigarette smoking is bad for you.
BTW, to be clear, I am not on RG staff. So, perhaps they can correct me if I am wrong about this.
Thank you for this article. It is very well-timed in the ongoing discussion. As one who was exposed to these teachings along the way, it's extremely helpful to see you break them apart and highlight the errors. I wish I had taken the time to do that myself as I was coming along!
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. (Galatians 5:1-5 KJV)
The fallacy of legalism is that it adds a great many "sins" in an effort to overburden the individual plus it causes us to fall from the very thing that would keep us from really offending God - grace. Paul states that through the Spirit he waits for the hope of righteousness. I see that as constantly seeing the good in me coming from God through faith and this NOT of myself. So then, I would have nothing to boast about or consider myself greater than anyone else. The NT believers knew this so well that they had no problem identifying a sinner and dealing with it promptly. That was the real issue with this scandal is that the board who were there to hold Bill and his family accountable did not do their job and as a result, many many people suffered.
We continue to create these monsters such as Bill Gothard. They take money and become wealthy through our faith in them and then they call into question the credibility of Jesus and the claims He made because these men are usually in the forefront representing Jesus to the world. Faith is such a difficult concept because it causes us to believe in something we can't see or know with our five senses. We like the tangible and we don't want to take the time to check things out or question our favorite new Christian idol. It is much easier to have faith in a person we see than a God we can't see. The body of Christ is still doing this today. We continue to put our faith in people.
It seems one of the IBLP board members (John Stancil) had an affair then divorced his wife and the married the woman he had had the affair with. Guess Bill forgot about the footnote on divorce that he wrote for the ATI version of the Zodhiates study bible...
Rank Hath Its Privileges.
The Board Members who were there when I was around (late 80s to mid-90s) have all been replaced. They were for the most part very good men, full of integrity. They were not "rubber stamp" men. I don't know anything about this new cast of characters. But they do have a sober duty to act. Bill Gothard should make this easy on them by tendering his resignation. But if he does not do so, they should demand the resignation, shut down the organization and donate its assets to other nonprofit ministries. Because I don't know these men, I have no idea whether they have the spine to act. If any of you Board Members are reading this, now is the time for courage. Don't circle the wagons. Don't be Baghdad Bob while the regime is crumbling. Nevermind the fact that you'll look like a fool when the inevitable takes place. Do it not for your vanity, but because it's the right thing to do. Too much time has passed. This internal investigation involves confronting one individual and a few witnesses. How long could this possibly take. These accusations have been leveled for many weeks now. It is inconceivable to me that George Mattix is being quoted yesterday as saying that they are looking into it and have retained outside counsel. This is not a good sign. This all brings to mind another saying that Bill used to use all the time which I have not thought of for years: It's a very short phrase: "In the day you hear of it . . ." Anyone else remember this? I can't remember the reference but the "principle" (to use Gothardspeak) was to address problems promptly. Don't let it fester. So if some hapless 19 year old on the lawn crew spent too much time chatting up a family coordinator Saturday night after the meeting, give him the old "wing tip" (as we used to say) before the weekend is over; don't wait around. These "principles" and a host of others so ferverently adhered to when the "wing tip" was on the other foot, appear to be thrown by the wayside.
"If any of you Board Members are reading this, now is the time for courage. Don’t circle the wagons. Don’t be Baghdad Bob while the regime is crumbling. Nevermind the fact that you’ll look like a fool when the inevitable takes place. Do it not for your vanity, but because it’s the right thing to do."
A rousing call to do the right thing. I don't envy them. May they live up to your call.
Re Baghdad Bob, Bill Gothard and Saddam Hussein are the same type of boss -- the Big Boss who can only tolerate Yes-Men and ONLY Yes-Men in His Presence.
I jsut found an interesting statement by Dr. Samuel J. Schultz former board member in relation to Venoit's and Henzel's book A matter of basic principles... I hope its okay to copy and paste it its very enlightening about Bill
The Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts (now known as the IBLP) began in 1964 under the leadership of Bill Gothard and enjoyed unprecedented expansion during the ’70s. As board members we recognized that God was at work in this ministry.
In May 1980 we were shocked to learn of gross immorality that had prevailed for years among the staff under Bill’s supervision as president. Bill failed to share this information with the board nor did he seek their counsel. By the end of that year it became apparent that Bill continued his authoritarian style of leadership, dismissing those on the board as well as staff who disagreed with him. Consequently I found it necessary to resign.
As early as 1973 questions were raised about IBYC/IBLP by various individuals such as Dr. Ronald B. Allen, Dr. Earl Radmacher, Wilfred Bockelman and others. In the pages of this volume — which everyone who is involved with IBYC/IBLP should seriously evaluate — the reader will find that repeated attempts have been made to dialogue with Bill Gothard about his lack of submission to authority, his lack of accountability, and his failure to apply biblical principles to his own life. Bill’s teaching on legalism, law, and grace deserves careful examination. The authors are to be commended for their concern in publishing this helpful volume.
Dr. Samuel J. Schultz.
Professor Emeritus of Old Testament
Wheaton College
Wheaton, IL
MY apologies I gorgot to give the reference http://www.midwestoutreach.org/a-matter-of-basic-principles-bill-gothard-and-the-christian-life/
One more comment on the Board. In reviewing the current IBLP Board members' bios on the website, I actually started laughing at one the qualifications listed for one of these gentlemen. There are typical statements about the professional and academic backgrounds and then there's this said in reference to Gil Bates: "They [speaking of his family] are close friends with the Jim Bob Duggar family, and when they get together there are 38 outstanding sons and daughters among their two families!" That's just bizarre. It's very BG who doubtless dictated this text finding it vital for the reader to know that this man has a ton of kids and they are close frinds with the Duggars. Let's hope that he and others are "close friends" with courage and integrity and all those other good character qualities. (It's been a long time, but I still got game when it comes to Gothardspeak.)
What is the difference between Bill Gates and Gil Bates?
Besides the obvious exchange of first letters of their names, one has a big fortune and the other has a big family.
Haha! - Regarding your "Gothardspeak." :) I have yet to utilze the term "marvelous" since walking away from ATI 8 years ago, other than how I used it just now in this post! :)
Reading (ok, really just skimming on my phone) the analysis of the bad report/taking up offense teachings, I realized a few things for the first time. Some of my definitions of words still are messed up in my head. Loving language, I thought I had replaced all the twisted definitions but I still think of slander in the BG terms even though I understand that intellectually that there is far more involved and that speaking up for the oppressed is a high call and responsibility of society in general, Christ-followers in particular. More though, I also realized how effective these teachings were in silencing us kids, even to our own dad. My mom always harped on these teaching when I was a child, sometimes even today. I believe to keep us quiet of the abuses happening in our family. These teachings thrived in our family, so did isolation and disconnect. I will never forget even if I have forgiven these deep hurts, worse, I am still grieved how so many times I could not stand up for my siblings because it would be taking up an offense for someone else even when they were being hurt. I couldn't challenge my parents' authority, I couldn't ask for help, I couldn't do anything and still be a righteous girl all because of these teachings. My parents wonder why we have such a strained relationship but oddly enough, I believe it is because of this more than anything because it meant we could never open and be honest about how we felt. It was never safe. Fear does not equal respect, silencing does not equal condoning, submission does not mean love, outward behavior does not mean righteousness. I don't know what to talk about with my parents, all we can really manage is meaningless small talk of safe topics. If you can't take an offense for someone else, can't give a bad report, and can't challenge your "chain of authority", then all the hurt of our entire lives is an effective wall in our relationship to never being able to connect. This teaching directly prevented my family from being able to have meaningful relationships based on mutual love and respect. Such bondage we lived under. Not speaking against evil, not challenging even our authorities when wrong was observed, made many of us unintentional participants in evil, by our silence alone.
I will no longer remain silent. If asking Mr. Gothard and the leadership of IBLM to be accountable for the hurt of others is taking up an offense for someone else, then I believe we are in good company. Look at the example of Christ who challenged those that would oppress others. Giving a bad report? Yes, when fitting and deserved. Defiled by listening to an evil report? Yes, but not because it was wrong to listen, rather, because the contents of the report were so grievous in the first place. The walls that have been fortified by manipulative teachings to silence others are being torn down. I pray that relationships and persons that have been so trapped and unable to find true connection will be set free by truth speaking now.
Very well said!
Wow, this was so helpful! I didn't grow up being homeschooled in ATI. I was homeschooled using other curriculum (though we had the "character sketches" book) but had a few other Homeschooled friends who did use ATI and I did go to the basic and advanced seminars and study some of the books and materials handed out there, but I totally know this stuff! I didn't think I'd "get" so much of this, but yes.. it is drilled into one isn't it? I remember always being so confused about gossip and what was right to say and to whom and for what reason.
I was blamed for being propositioned by an older man in our church(he sent me a letter asking to run away with him.) He was later excommunicated for many reasons including molesting his daughters, but I was made to feel like it was my fault that he wrote me this letter. When I first got it I told my mother right away (I was about 17) even though he said not to tell my parents in the letter. I was angry! I'd treated him like all the other men in the church - like a father figure, and I was friends with his youngest (of 5) children. When I told my Dad, he acted very different than I'd expected. He wasn't angry or upset.. he thought there must have been a "misunderstanding".. really? How could that be a misunderstanding? I remember my Dad staring at me as I picked up toys on the floor and I asked him if he thought it was my fault. He said, "Well, you learned something didn't you?" -- that told me that he did think it was my fault and what I learned was that I shouldn't be friendly to people or smile or treat older men in the church like Fathers or younger men like brothers. I was fearful for months after this because my Dad talked to this man in our church in front of his wife and smiled and hand shook and said there must have been a misunderstanding "blah blah.." and I did my level best to avoid this man at all costs (but I didn't feel protected by my dad or anyone else at that point.) He grew a scary looking beard and spent every Sunday glaring at me. God used that letter and interaction to expose his sin to the light and his children and wife have grown and found healing.
Thank you for sharing how B.G.'s teaching is false and in what ways. It helps me understand why my own father treated me the way he did; I was giving a "bad report". I needed to talk about what was going on at the time and didn't know who to turn to because if I said anything it might be "gossiping" about this evil man!
Eventually an older christian sister was able to speak truth into my life when I told her what had happened. She told me it wasn't my fault and it was important for me to talk about. I needed to heal and learn to not be afraid of everyone anymore.
Dear Lynne,
I am sorry about what happened to you because of the false teaching in your family. ATI/patriarchal style teaching always put the blame on the victim and not on the perpetrator. I have met other people who have had similar experiences.
I grew up in a home where my parents divorced due to domestic violence. I didn't want people in my church to know because I had heard comments about children from "broken" homes being "damaged." I was a Christian and growing. I was not the damaged one!
Thankfully, I became involved in churches with healthier views on marriage, families and parents when I went off to college. But, I still cringe when I meet believers who blame the victim for the damage done to them through the sin of others. It is why I think that what RG is doing is so valuable--exposing a sinful system of abuse that allows Gothard to stalk, violate and then toss his victims away.
I am sorry for all the confusion, false guilt, and heartache you went through! And I can relate to wondering what constitutes gossip. I've been clobbered with Gothard's false definition, and it is confusing. Part of the reason it's confusing is because I am (we are all) prone to sin, and if someone declares I'm sinning by sharing something, it hurts, and just maybe, there is a little truth to it. The real truth is, sometimes we need to talk, and sometimes we don't, and God's Spirit through the whole counsel of the Word can give us wisdom. We don't need definitions that go beyond what the Bible says. Now you ABSOLUTELY needed to share that letter with your parents, and I'm sorry for their very poor response to it. I'm glad that man was caught, and hopefully, stopped. But you needed to share his letter in order to send out a warning about a dangerous man and his activities - to protect yourself and to keep others from harm.
My mouth (ie - what comes out of it) has by no means been perfected, but what I do nowadays is reflect what I need to share about detrimental information. For example, I know people who go back with Gothard many years, but as they have moved on and are coping well with life, I do not see the point in calling them on the phone, e-mailing them, etc. and asking them to read this site. Last night someone messaged me asking about this site, and I privately messaged that individual back about my thoughts.
BUT - you can bet your bottom dollar if I thought someone was headed toward the danger of this teaching, or moral danger, that I would make sure that person read through this site, and other places! Yes, it would be pointing to a bad report, but it would not be illicit gossip. Not one bit!
If any of your friends have any known (or even unknown) connections to this organization or teachings, they may still find it beneficial. The first two years of articles focused on teachings many of us did not realize were still shaping our lives, faith, and relationships.
Is there going to be an attempt using another form of silencing of people speaking up at Recovering Grace?
From an article in The Christian Post titled; "Bill Gothard, Family Planning and Homeschooling Advocate, Accused of Sexually Harassing Young Women and Teen Girls
Allegations Reminiscent of Lawsuits Filed in '80s by Former Institute Employees Regarding 'Moral Failures'" written February 14, 2014:
"George Mattix, executive international director at IBLP, told The Christian Post Thursday that the board was aware of the accusations made against Gothard and would prayerfully consider what course of action members would take before releasing any public statements. Mattix had initially passed CP's request for comment on the allegations to the nonprofit's attorney, whom he said subsequently turned the matter over to outside counsel."
http://tinyurl.com/no5p4wr
Fortunately, a month ago the U.S. court ruled that bloggers have the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist. This significantly reduces what IBLP can do legally to silence Recovering Grace or any other blog.
Blogger gets same speech protections as traditional press: U.S. court By Dan Levine
SAN FRANCISCO Fri Jan 17, 2014
(Reuters) - "A blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless she acted negligently, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/17/us-usa-blogger-ruling-idUSBREA0G1HI20140117
Thanks Myron, I'm aware of that ruling.
Am I the only one who finds it curious that a highly placed Gothard executive wasn't able or willing to make a statement. He then passes that request for comment to in-house counsel, who is also unable or unwilling to accommodate The Christian Post request.
While an exec and a lawyer can't speak for a board (and there is no indication CP asked them too) - why would this request for comment be passed by a Gothard lawyer to outside counsel?
That doesn't make sense.
Maybe all these witnesses' coming forward with accounts of BG's abuses have left him speechless.
There is a difference between giving an "evil report" and a "report of evil". May God continue to grant wisdom to the Recovering Grace leadership as they expose the error and errant behavior in the IBLP organization.
Exactly! In my eyes an "evil report" would be false, slandering, gossip, and intended to harm. Reporting an evil act is to shed light, start healing, possibly bring justice, warn others that could be hurt, and give the offender a chance to repent. The two reports are so far apart. The definition we were all taught of an "evil report" is so twisted.
You know, about all these "operational definitions," one of Gothard's former associates, who recently confessed to an illicit romantic relationship with a woman, whose name is Doug Phillips, once said that he who defines, wins.
This is so true. I see now what Gothard was doing in the wake of the 1980 scandal - defining terms, and getting people to act according to them, so he could silence opposition, and thereby "win."
This is why it is so important to know the Bible teachings that apply to believers, especially what is in the wisdom literature of the Old Testament, and in the letters to the churches in the New Testament. We should have in our minds the whole counsel of Scripture as it relates to our daily walk. That way, when someone tries to foist a bad definition of anything on us, claiming the high moral ground, we have the right to ask, "Just where did you get THAT from Scripture?"
Hi!
I just came across this site a few weeks ago and have been reading all the articles I can. I was not raised in ATI, but our church has been greatly influenced my BG. ( Ever hear of Denny Kenaston and his Godly Home series? Well, he was greatly influenced by BG)
Sorry, I accidently poted before I was done:(
Anyway, I have been raised in an anabatist background, dresses, headcovering, etc.
Grace has been an exciting, freeing gift to find! How thankful i am I don't have to do it all right!
So my question: I want to grow in grace, and not go back to all that, but niether do I want to knowingly disobey God. I just don't know what is "free to decide" and what is a command, because so much has been taught as commands to keep.
Take for example, the headcovering. I would have been taught that is a direct command in scripture, and there are pages of arguements given for prove. Also, the veiling is considered a protection from evil. "But only if your heart is right."
So can you understand my fear of letting go? HAs anyone out there been through this and have any thoughts?
Sorry if I am posting this in the wrong spot. I wasn't sure where to put it.
Thanks, all of you , for the great articles and comments. They have shed so much light on so many things!I am so excited to be free in Christ... just kinda like a kid in a candy store:)
God Bless.
Step back from the rules for a second. Why do you do what you do? Out of faith that God wants you to do it? Or fear that something might go wrong if you don't do it? Also, I believe that the passage on head coverings was pointing out the there was nothing wrong with the sybolism of a woman's head covering. I think the passage was settling a dispute between different church customs, not giving guidelines on a new practice that was to be carried out.
Hi, JustTruthPlease, I can absolutely relate, in fact there are some things I still just don't know about. I relate to desiring to please God too. One thing that may be helpful to remember is that when we put so much stress on 'standards' or 'principles' or even 'commands' we are ignoring God's work in our life, and doing our own work of so-called 'righteousness', even though it seems godly. What does God want the most? You. Not a million and one rules, He wants you.
The Scripture that says, 'if you love God, you will obey Him.' is not something Paul intended to beat believers over the head, imo, it was kinda like saying, 'if you're a mother, you love your children.' It was something that is obvious, but he said it anyway. I do not believe he said that to guilt or shame us into 'submission'. I think of it like this: I do things for my husband because I love him, and it really truly makes me happier to see him happy, than to do something for myself. It's not something I even have to work at, per say. So it's an attitude thing. When it's something you really want to do for God, as opposed to just 'doing your duty', that is the most pleasing to God, and means the most to Him.
Hopefully that made sense.
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-christ-fulfilled-and-ended-the-old-testament-regime
if the law had not been given there wouldn't be much need for Grace.....He is the fulfillment. you can cover your head but good luck with the other few hundred laws to go along with it.
Dear "Just Truth Please",
How wonderful to come out of bondage and to find freedom in Christ. You are at the start of a wonderful adventure that only God can lead you through.
God does not make cookie cutter Christians. When all who proclaim they are Christian start to look alike, talk the same, eat the same, etc, that means only one of them may or may not be the true follower of Christ. All the others are just following what that first one did.
God gave you a unique personality. There are things about you that make you YOU! The way you walk, talk, what you like to eat or don't like to eat, how you arrange the furniture in your house, favorite and least favorite colors, how you like to wear your hair, etc etc, the list goes on and on. As long as what you do is not immoral or against the law (see just a note at end of paragraph), you are just fine. Also, it is between you and God to follow the Holy Spirit in your life and He will direct you as to how you live your life. (Just a note---by law I mean local and national laws. Law from the old Testament involves God's people the Jews at that point in history. Those laws are not in effect for today's Christians, since Jesus fulfilled the law by His life and death. Besides, to follow them all, you would be so worn out and many of them would not make sense in today's modern culture. (Just like Gothardism or any other cult.)
Jesus knew that mankind likes to make lots of stupid rules that are not needed so before He went back to heaven, He left only 2 rules....love God and love your neighbor. He also said His yoke is easy and His burden is light....so if you know He is telling you to do something, He will give you the strength to follow that.
God bless you as you walk, stumble, get up, follow, rebel, give-in, and make mistakes and triumphs in your Life In Christ. Fly, little bird, fly!
As a pastor (which I get may hurt my cred) who has come out of the legalism/Gothardism BS, I'd say camp out on what the gospel is and what is grace. Pursue understanding who Jesus is and what He accomplished FOR you. Fight to get the place where you believe God sings over you in delight because you are His child and He Loves you. Consider the deep and wide ranging implications that the Gospel is the power of God for your justification [becoming a Christian] and sanctification [growing as a Christian] (Rom.16-17, 1 Cor. 1.18ff), that what the law was powerless to do God did for you in Christ (Rom 8), that it was for FREEDOM that Christ set you free (Gal 5). In other words major on what the gospel/grace if FOR you. Then when you feel like you've begun to grasp that you can circle back to questions like head coverings.
I'd also specifically recommend two of the books recommended by RG- One Way Love and the Discipline of Grace (and many others) helped me rethink my screwed up Gothard view of grace and law.
I've asked a question of the headcovering crowd and never gotten an answer. Did Eve wear a cloth headcovering? The Bible says she was naked, but headcovering is supposedly a creation ordinance.
My feeling growing up in a legalistic church is that we need to major on the majors. We spend too much time tithing our mint and cummin and not enough on the weightier matters.
"Did Eve wear a cloth head covering?"
It is a little known factlet that Eve did wear a head covering. After she thought something was missing from her fig leaf ensemble, she found that an upside down bird nest added that little something extra to her outfit. But like all men after him, Adam just went with a well-worn ball cap with the name of his favorite team. The Bruins, who Adam named, sparred often with the Tigers, whom Adam also named. What is lost to history is the exact game they were playing.
Esbee, you are one creative person:) Love your humor.
Sometimes I take for granted the love we share in Christ. When I read the responses to what "JustTruthPlease" wrote, I'm reminded what a gift this is...our fellowship with believers who are really caring for one another. I want to express my appreciation to each of you who have given such solid and loving advice to our sister.
"JustTruthPlease":
I, too, have struggled through the issue of head coverings and finally resolved it for myself. I encourage you to keep the main things the main things, and not allow yourself to get side-tracked by this minor issue or any others. Just keep telling God about your concerns, ask Him for guidance, be like the Bereans, trust the Holy Spirit to confirm truth with His peace, remember that wisdom comes from many counselors...and yes, I also will add to trust those in spiritual authority over you to help guide you -- and choose godly spiritual authority. Personally, I have gained much help in my walk over the years, aside from a biblically sound local church, from the online M - F teachings from www.reviveourhearts.com. There are archives of past teachings you can browse through by subject.
Hope that helps.
Thanks, to everyone who answered!
Yes, I want to keep my focus on what is important. But as some of you all know, sorting out what IS important is hard. I believed for so long that all the extras ARE very important.
I can remember the sermons on Matthew 7:21-23 How many "out there in the world" THINK they know Jesus but will find out it is those who do His will( all the extras) who will be known of Him. I can remember the fear getting to judgement and finding out I just THOUGHT I knew Christ, and also the frustration of not knowing which side you are on!
Also it makes it confusing when nice, normal christians from "out there" are led by the Spirit to come out of the world, and speak of all their joy and peace. And then people like us are led by the Spirit to go "worldly." Does God lead some in opposit directions?
To Mark: I know what our pastors would say to your question:
Eve didn't wear a covering until after the fall, when sin entered the world. Since then it has been the custom for centuries until just less than 100 years ago for woman to cover their heads.........I'll stop.:)
Thats just in case you ever wanted to know what they would say.
Thanks again.
I think God's Spirit can direct individual believers in different directions: in the early church, some ministered primarily to Jews, others to Gentiles. Gentile believers were not required to be circumcised -- Paul even wrote scathing denunciations of those who insisted that they had to be! -- and yet he had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3) so it would seem that the Spirit led individuals differently. Also, some believers felt free to eat meat offered to idols; others did not.
I think because of our different backgrounds, personalities, and propensities, God may emphasize different things to us, or different issues are very close to our heart. Coming from a highly legalistic background, I feel it very important to stay away from man-made rules and to exercise my Christian liberty whereas someone coming from a lifestyle of drugs and promiscuity may feel led to lead a more ascetic life to proclaim the difference between his old life and his new and also to avoid temptation to return to sin.
We are all different parts of the same body; different parts may have different functions, even different appearances. Also we may be led to focus on certain things because of the people with whom God leads us to interact. ("To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews" - 1 Cor. 9:20)
Above all, though, we are to love one another, and I definitely think that part of love is choosing to view other people's choices with the most charitable explanation possible (for example, not "she's wearing jeans because she wants to show off her body" but "she's wearing jeans because that is a common clothing style in our culture and she is free in Christ to do so" even though oneself may not personally feel free to wear jeans.)
Many of the "extras" are just man-made regulations designed to make people look good on the outside. i.e.- to look like "Christians." But true Christianity is a relationship with Christ. If Christianity is just a list of rules- wear this, don't wear that, listen to this music, don't watch that tv show- it becomes no different than any other religious system, and it becomes all about human efforts instead of God's grace. Jesus Himself told the Pharisees that they make the Word of God to no effect through their traditions. Mark 7:13. Focusing on the externals and the "rules" actually HAMPERS the work of God in people's lives!
The issue is the heart, not the externals. That is what it has always been. When our hearts are truly changed and we truly want to please our Heavenly Father, then changes to our externals may follow. But changing ourselves on the outside without a heart change doesn't do any good. The Bible says that our righteousness is like filthy rags. God's love for us is the same, always- He cannot love us any more or less than He does now. Wearing a head covering doesn't make Him love you more. Watching TV doesn't make Him love you less.
I hope this does not come across as a lecture to you. Although I wasn't raised legalistically, I have come to have some of the same questions about true Christianity as many here have said. These are all things I have come to realize recently. It can intimidating to take the journey into a deeper knowledge of Christ, but it is also worth it. God bless you, friend!
Thanks Mercy,
That makes sense. I really want to do as Shane and others ( above) advised: to get a firm grasp of God's love and grace FOR ME and then if still needed, to go back to the lesser questions.
Love is certainly key: once one can understand God's love and give it to others with out limits, like I use to.
A book called "the naked gospel" by Andrew Farley is a helpful read for people who are coming from a legalistic background and need something to help cut through to the main point of what is truly important.
JustTruth,
I understand the questions; I too come from an Anabaptist background. I would like to share some blog posts that I wrote on the subject of liberty: http://www.aradicalforjesus.com/tag/liberty/
Ask the Shepherd to lead you!
If we're going to nail down scriptural inaccuracies we need to use a Bible that is NOT The KJV. That one's horribly translated and loaded with errors. I would suggest a closer to the greek translation like Young's Literal For example, Matthew 15:19 has a much different list from the KJV which was translated to suit Catholic doctrine and politics of it's time. The Young's translation is;
19 for out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, whoredoms, thefts, false witnessings, evil speakings:
You will find many other subtle differences and sometimes even OVERTLY obvious differences in scripture between the lousy KJV version and better translations of the Bible that stay closer to the greek.
Travis
I'm not sure if this fits perfectly with this topic but I discovered this on BG's website concerning authority and protection under "the umbrella" - http://billgothard.com/teaching/authority
The conclusion is striking in how it handles the imperfections of failures of leadership of those in authority:
"All human “umbrellas” have faults and limitations. For this reason, those under authority are instructed to pray for them."
It then ends by quoting 1 Timothy 2:1–4, about living in submission to the authorities and praying for them while living peaceful lives. I was astounded. Nothing about how to handle the faults..just pray for them?
In my experience, "I'll Pray For You(TM)" is Christianese for doing nothing and feeling good about doing nothing.
[…] “Defilement of listening to an evil report,” as published in 1981 as part of the concerted effort to silence and discredit former IBYC staff. […]
[…] Discrediting the Truth […]