Editor’s note: We would like to highlight a few points from among the many interesting aspects of the following open letter and Bill’s Gothard’s response:
1. According to Gothard, parents who have utilized his teachings to justify breaking the will of their children should cease immediately. If a child resists discipline, the parent should stop and examine his or her own wrong attitude.
Mr. Joseph Bayly, vice-president of David C. Cook Publishing Co., was author of several books, including The Gospel Blimp (Zondervan).
2. According to Gothard, a wife or other person should maintain a right attitude of obeying God above man, and say “No” to lying or covering the sin of an authority.
3. According to Gothard, “it is unwise to cite hypothetical situations. By their very nature they do not contain vital facts nor the power of God in a particular situation.” What does this say for his own style of teaching?
4. Gothard’s public teachings should be vigorously discussed in a public forum. Recovering Grace is one means of doing so. Also, concerned laypeople and theologians will want to visit and sign the Open Letter to the Leadership of the Institute in Basic Life Principles. IBLP is aware of this call to examine the organization’s teachings, and we hope for a meaningful statement on the issue.
Basic Conflicts: An open letter to Bill Gothard
by Joseph Bayly
ETERNITY, June 1977
Mr. William Gothard
Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts
45055 North Adams
Hinsdale, Illinois 60521
Dear Bill Gothard:
God has given you great opportunities and responsibilities in recent years, and I, along with most evangelical Christians, am thankful for your ministry. Many people have told me of their growth through your Institutes. I therefore approach you as a Christian brother, believing that we share deep concerns for the church of Jesus Christ and its testimony in the world.
Two years ago I was ministering to a group of missionaries in South America. During a session on the biblical teaching about the relations of husbands and wives, I asked a question: “If your husband were at home, and the phone rang, and he said, ‘If it’s for me, say I’m not here,’ would you do it? Would you lie because your husband told you to?”
I was surprised when not one of the women answered “No.” The closest anyone came to saying she would not obey her husband was one woman who said she’d delay long enough in replying that it might tip the person off to the fact her husband really was at home.
After the meeting, another woman said to me in private, “Yes, I’d lie if my husband told me to do so. God would judge him for the lie, not me. I would only be doing what God tells me to do; obeying my husband.”
When I asked her and some of the silent ones (who later revealed that they felt the same way) the basis for their willingness to lie on their husbands’ instruction, they said that their opinions had been formed at your Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts. Several told me you used Sarah’s willingness to pass herself off as Abraham’s sister as the biblical precedent.
Since then, others have told me that this is a misunderstanding of what you teach about the relations of a man and his wife to each other, to sinful acts and to God.
As a believer in John Dewey’s principle, “Lord, deliver me from my disciples,” I was willing to believe this, even though other women in the intervening years have told me that they received that same impression from your seminars.
Now I’m not so sure, because of two recent incidents about which I’ve heard. It is for this reason I write an open letter to you, with opportunity for you to disclaim the impression people have received.
Since this is an open, public matter involving tens of thousands of people who have sat under your teaching, rather than a private matter between the two of us, I feel that this public means of your denying or confirming the teaching is appropriate and biblical. (An example would be St. Paul’s writing public letters to the Corinthian church and other churches, rather than going to individuals in private.)
Three weeks ago an attractive woman told me that her pastor is a firm supporter of you and your seminars, and that she had said to this pastor, ” ‘ In the business world, an occasional husband who wants to succeed or get a big contract will offer his wife to his boss or a purchasing agent. If my husband told me that he wanted me to have such a relationship, should I do so?’
“My pastor told me that I should try to talk my husband out of this idea if he ever proposed it. But if he wouldn’t back down, I should obey. He said I would not be judged by God for adultery; my husband would be judged for telling me to do this. I would merely be doing what God tells me to do: submitting to my husband, which pleases God.”
A week later, in another city, I heard of a case that may be familiar to you. If it is, I think you may welcome this opportunity to set the record straight.
A father who claims his idea came from your Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts has recently been found guilty by a court and sentenced to seven years in prison for killing his young son. This man was a respected member of an evangelical church—in fact, he was about to start teaching a course on child discipline.
The father, believing that it was his duty to break his three-year-old child’s spirit, an obligation which he said you taught, had an argument with the child about birds perched on a wire which they could see through a window. The child—precocious and strong-willed—would not respond as his father desired. So the father struck his son, and for the next two-and-a-half hours, when the child continued to oppose his father, repeatedly struck him. At this point the child died.
[At the request of Mr. Gothard, I wish to add the following facts not available to me at the time I wrote the letter. This information is from accounts in the (Portland) Oregonian and Journal newspapers. The three-year-old boy was not the man’s son, but a foster child. (From another source I have learned that his previous years were tragic: both parents died in separate incidents.) The child did not die of the beating, but died of drowning in the bathtub where the man said he put him to revive him after beating him with a wooden stick. The autopsy further showed that the child had suffered multiple bruises in the buttocks, thighs and calves. “Over the most minimal controversy, (the convicted man) took it upon himself to beat a baby almost to death,” noted Multnomah County Circuit Judge Clifford Olsen.]
During this time [of the beating] the man’s wife came into the room, but did not intervene. The reason: she believed that it was not her right to object to the beating, because she would be taking authority away from her husband (which she had learned in the Institute was wrong).
I was told that the man, who pleaded guilty, does not feel that he disobeyed God; rather, he did what God commands Christians to do. The result of his obedience must be left in the hands of the Sovereign God.
Here are the questions I should like to have you answer, for the sake of the people who have attended your seminars; and for those who have not, but have been exposed to your teaching second-hand; and for the sake of the evangelical Christian community’s testimony, with which you are closely identified.
1. Does a Christian woman who is a wife have the responsibility to obey God rather than her husband, when the two are in conflict? Specifically, does God hold her guilty of lying, of adultery, of complicity in child abuse/manslaughter when she does not cross her husband but obeys in these areas?
2. Do you follow the New Testament doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers, including women, reaffirmed by the Reformers, with their immediate access to God; or is a married woman’s husband her priest, the connection between herself and God?
3. Is Old Testament Sarah a proper example for Christian women, in her obedience to Abraham when he told her to lie about their being husband and wife? If you have taught this (and a number of people claim that you have), do you give any weight to God’s act in the New Testament in striking Sapphira dead for agreeing with her husband to lie (Acts 5:lff.)?
4. Does a Christian parent have a responsibility to break his child’s will? If so, to what lengths should he go to achieve this end?
5. This question is not so important as the others, perhaps, but I’d like to know whether it is a concern for you that people such as I must depend on second-hand accounts of what you teach in your seminars if we do not have the time or money or inclination to attend? Do you not feel a responsibility to put any of your ideas or explanations into print for the general public? Must we always judge your ideas by what others report?
Thank you for answering this open letter. I assume that you can do so in the next four weeks. If I receive your reply by April 10, it will be carried at the end of my column in ETERNITY magazine where this open letter will be published. Otherwise the letter will be published without a reply.
Sincerely, in Christ,
Joe Bayly
* * *
(Perhaps, in the absence of a reply from Mr. Gothard, I should detail our contacts after he received the above letter.
1. Mr. Gothard called me on the phone after three weeks, telling me he had been away and, later, sick. He said he had not yet read my letter but it had been summarized for him. We discussed areas of disagreement, and he suggested I “interview” him instead of publishing the letter. I said No.
2. A psychologist who “advises Mr. Gothard” (in his words), and who has been blessed by his ministry, phoned me to say that he hoped I’d not publish the letter. Would I accept an answer from someone other than Mr. Gothard? When I replied No, he said that he had advised Mr. Gothard not to reply, since if he replied to me, he’d have to “defend” himself against all sorts of people—something that he has not done. Rather, Mr. Gothard, he said, has refused to answer criticism to date.
3. Mr. Gothard called me several days before the April 10 date, and again discussed various aspects of this open letter with me. He said he was writing a reply, which I’d receive by April 10.
4. On April 11, Mr. Gothard’s secretary spoke on the phone with my secretary, giving several very brief comments from Mr. Gothard. I feel no Christian responsibility to publish these round-about comments, nor to pursue the matter further. It is my considered opinion, however, that no servant of the Lord is in a privileged position when it comes to answering the allegations of unbiblical teaching. And no leader, Christian or otherwise, who programs the minds of tens of thousands is above answering responsible criticism. (JB)
Republished with permission from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (AllianceNet.org).
How Basic the Conflict? An open letter from Bill Gothard
by Joseph Bayly
ETERNITY, August 1977
I have now received a written reply from Bill Gothard to the open letter published here in the June issue.
Questions which I raised, to which he addresses himself, were:
1. Does a Christian woman who is a wife have the responsibility to obey her husband rather than God, when the two are in conflict? Specifically, does God hold her guilty of lying, of adultery, of complicity in child abuse/manslaughter when she does not cross her husband but obeys in these areas?
2. Do you follow the New Testament doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers, including women, reaffirmed by the Reformers, with their immediate access to God; or is a married woman's husband her priest, the connection between herself and God?
3. Is Old Testament Sarah a proper example for Christian women, in her obedience to Abraham when he told her to lie about their being husband and wife? If you taught this (and a number of people claim that you have), do you give any weight to God's act in the New Testament in striking Sapphira dead for agreeing with her husband to lie (Acts 5:lff.)?
4. Does a Christian parent have a responsibility to break his child's will? If so, to what lengths should he go to achieve this end?
5. This question is not so important as the others, perhaps, but I'd like to know whether it is a concern to you that people such as I must depend on second-hand accounts of what you teach in your seminars if we do not have the time or money or inclination to attend? Do you not feel a responsibility to put any of your ideas or explanations into print for the general public?
Here is Mr. Gothard's written reply.
Dear Joe Bayly,
My great reluctance in replying to your open letter was not because I reject criticism. On the contrary, I not only welcome criticism, but I actively seek it from many, especially recognized Bible scholars throughout the country. Neither is it because I don't want to clarify publicly what is taught in the seminar.
In answer to your questions: the seminar teaches that a person should never do evil, even if asked to do so by one in authority. On the other hand, it does emphasize that we must have a spirit of obedience, even if we must refuse to do evil. Daniel illustrated this spirit when he refused to defile himself with the king's meat and later when he refused to obey the king's command not to pray. In the first instance, he was able to design a creative alternative. In the second, he willingly went to the den of lions. In both cases he had a spirit of obedience but did not do evil. The apostle Peter condemned Sapphira for agreeing to tell a lie; but this same apostle used Sarah as a model of an obedient spirit. He urges all women to learn Sarah's spirit without doing evil: "...whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well..." (I Peter 3:6).
In our day the source of most conflicts with authority is not over commands to do wrong actions but in demonstrations of wrong attitudes by those under authority. Chief among these are ungratefulness, disrespect, disloyalty, and pride. For this reason, it is unwise to cite hypothetical situations. By their very nature they do not contain vital facts nor the power of God in a particular situation.
The seminar teaches that every Christian has direct access to God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
The seminar emphasizes that a person should never break his child's spirit. Instead, he must win the child's will without breaking his spirit. If the child resists discipline, the parents should stop and examine their own attitudes. All too often, a child will reflect the wrong attitudes of the parents back to them.
My reluctance in writing a response to your letter was because of a deep respect for you as a Christian brother and a commitment to the scriptural principles behind Matthew 18 and Galatians 6: 1. These require that we privately check all facts when a brother misses the mark, and that we do it in a spirit of trying to restore that person rather than trying to expose him. These apply to your report on the child abuse case. When someone who appears to be a "respected church member" brings shame to the cause of Christ, it is absolutely vital that all the facts be checked out before commenting on them publicly. Only then will others understand the real causes of the problem.
Those who were directly involved in this case have given me the following information: that the father who killed the boy was involved in a previous marriage and was accused of abusing the child of that marriage; that his present wife was unaware of the former child abuse and his pastor was totally unaware of both the previous marriage and the former child abuse. (We explain in the seminar how conflicts in previous relationships will affect a parent's ability to give proper discipline, and Scripture explains that if a man covers his sin, he will not prosper.)
Further information given to us is: that the man stated to his pastor, "I was not following seminar teachings"; that the three-year-old boy was not their own son, but was a ward of the court from another family; that the man was absorbed in many books on child discipline and claims that these influenced him; that the man used an object for spanking which is not scriptural; that there were bruises on the child from his knees to his head; that the child did not die by spanking but by drowning; that the wife did interfere, but was ordered by her husband to go downstairs; that the man has acknowledged his wrong to the church and asked for their forgiveness.
Joe, I spoke to you privately on two occasions after checking out this information. I urged you to do likewise and give a fair report based on the facts. You refused to do so. Now I ask you publicly, is it "responsible criticism" when a critic's use of incorrect information incites public indignation; when he refuses to check out secondhand reports, even after being told that they are false but instead puts the full burden of defense on the one being publicly criticized? I believe this question is vital to the cause of Christ and his reputation in the world.
If we are to turn back the forces of evil, we must demonstrate to the world a spirit of accuracy and of genuine love in all of our words. I would be grateful for the privilege of personally meeting with you and discussing these points together with any other questions you may have on the seminar ministry.
Sincerely in Christ,
Bill Gothard
* * *
In about two hours of telephone conversations. Bill Gothard and I have discussed many matters related to my open letter. I have reassured him, as I did in the letter itself, that I am thankful for his ministry, that many people have told me of growth and problems solved through his seminars.
I should like to make several comments about the letter.
Concerning Mr. Gothard's judgment that I violated Scripture by not discussing these matters with him in private, I can only say that in this (as in several other areas), I realize more than before that our understanding of Scripture differs. This was no private "trespass" by Mr. Gothard against me (Matthew 18); it was a question of Christian doctrine that may have been taught or misunderstood by a multitude of people in the United States and Canada. (Mr. Gothard's estimate is that a million people have attended his seminars.)
Because of this involvement of the church, the relevant example---if I may mention it with any semblance of humility---is Galatians 2:14, "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, 'If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?'"
Nor do I consider Mr. Gothard a man who has done wrong and needs to be restored (Gal. 6:1). He is instead a Christian leader whose teaching needs to be examined, as does my own and that of any other person with a public ministry.
One thing the church has lost in the past 30 years is the public discussion of issues on which differing opinions are held by Christian speakers and writers-what might be called creative controversy. And this loss has left us vulnerable and isolated. It is my opinion that on significant matters of faith and life, Christian periodicals can rightly and biblically provide such a forum---but only if they are open to such discussion.
Concerning Mr. Gothard's statement that he asked me to investigate the influence of his seminars on the man who caused the death of his three-year old foster child in Portland, Mr. Gothard did suggest that I check with the social worker about this. Since I had previously heard directly from responsible members of the man's church---people who knew him-of his repeated attendance at the Basic Youth Conflicts Seminars, and that there was a significant relationship between this and his practice of discipline, I felt no necessity to find what a social worker assigned to the case might say.
I can understand a pastor's desire not to cause any problem to the seminars; I can understand the man's desire not to harm something that meant so much to him.
Out of a rather tense exchange between Mr. Gothard and me, precipitated by my open letter, has come a positive result: I can now quote Mr. Gothard directly to all those missionaries in South America; the lady whose pastor told her she could commit adultery without guilt can show Mr. Gothard's letter to him, and everyone will in the future know that this is not what Mr. Gothard teaches.
Perhaps one further statement is in order. There may be "creative alternatives" to the suggestion of violation of the ceremonial law (defilement), as in Daniel 1, but there is no creative alternative to a command or suggestion to sin. The only answer is disobedience (Daniel 6:10 ff; Genesis 39, in which Joseph proposes no alternative to Potiphar's wife). Christian believers in Russia know this. Unfortunately, many Christians in Germany during the Third Reich did not.
I appreciate Bill Gothard's gracious spirit and anticipate fellowship with him in the future.
Republished with permission from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (AllianceNet.org).
For posterity, the following links are to relevant articles from Eternity magazine.
1. “Bill Gothard’s Seminars Go Marching On” (Eternity, November 1973, pp. 29-38.)
2. “Getting It All Together” (Eternity, November 1973, pp. 32.)
3. “Basic Youth Conflicts: A Closer Look” (Eternity, November 1973, pp. 33-50.)
4. “Basic Conflicts: An Open Letter to Bill Gothard” (Eternity, June 1977, pp. 41-43.)
5. “How Basic the Conflict? An Open Letter from Bill Gothard” (Eternity, August 1977, pp. 41-43.)
6. “The Power Abusers” (Eternity, October 1979, pp. 23-27.)
7. “Shaking the Gothard Chain” (Eternity, September 1980, pp. 16-17.)
"The seminar teaches that every Christian has direct access to God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
If Gothard actually believed this his entire authority teaching would not exist. Thus, it is what he makes this statement MEAN that is the issue. On the one hand, Gothard says we have direct access to God through our Lord Jesus Christ -- but on the other, he defines this access as one that will point us to an authority. In short, Gothard teaches direct access to Christ will result in Christ delegating His authority to our supposed umbrella of protection. Just look at his, "umbrella of protection," diagram. Does it picture DIRECT ACCESS? Does that diagram picture Jesus Christ as the ONE Mediator between God and man? No, in fact, that diagram is the very antithesis of that Truth. Clearly, Gothard does not understand the role of Jesus Christ as the ONE and ONLY Mediator between God and man. Rather, he creates additional mediators, or sub-mediators, in addition to Christ, under which we must live in order to escape the attacks of Satan and keep safe in Christ. He does not understand that the very definition of Christianity is CHRIST IN YOU -- personally and directly. Is CHRIST IN US enough? He does not understand the finished victory of Jesus. Gothard's is a system of LAW, and not LIFE in Christ.
David, I love the way you explained "Gothard's is a system of LAW." It is so hard to "pin" BG down, but you did.
The simple explanation I have used for years is, there are many statements BG makes that are technically true, but are false by misdirection. Thank you for this clear example of his cunning lies and misdirection.
"The seminar teaches that every Christian has direct access to God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Yes, but some have more "direct access" than others. :-)
I mean, we don't want to believe in moral anarchy, do we?
"Yes, but some have more “direct access” than others."
You've hit the nail on the head. It's fascinating to me that this "more direct access" in Gothardism is not determined by wisdom, spiritual maturity, or even age. It seems to be based purely on the physical human anatomy. If you are male, congratulations---You have direct access to God! If you are female, you'd better hope you've got a good male in your life to speak on behalf of God.
"Yes, but some have more "direct access" than others. :-)"
Now now, let's be fair. We can't forget that Bill Gothard fasts every January for 40 days! That certainly earns one lots of God points and direct access.
Bill Gothard and IBLP even say so:
"Fasting greatly increases spiritual alertness and authority."
http://mailings.iblp.org/getresponse/output/index.php?day=083
How can any of you dare challenge the authority of someone who fasts for 40 days straight?
Just clicked on that link.
Oh. My.
"One of the greatest rewards of fasting is finding relief from the bondage of sensual addictions." So coming from Bill, how are we supposed to read this? Either he didn't fast long enough, or the principle doesn't work. Which one is it?
1) Maybe he didn't fast long enough
2) Maybe the principle is just make believe
or
3) Maybe he really didn't fast, as he claims he did. A little egg salad sandwich now and then when no one is looking. Things are not always as they appear- Sonic Bloom anyone?
Yes but......
"One of the greatest rewards of fasting is finding relief from the bondage of sensual addictions."
So obviously he needed to fast MUCH longer to get it under control. UGHHHH!
Or Beverly, he is confessing to bondage and sensual addictions......
This is some of the best material that I've read on RG to date: addresses issues and pressure points that actually go beyond Bill: the proper use of public forums, and the great need for such in light of the paucity of real, meaningful PUBLIC discussion of areas of major disagreement in the body of christ.
Said it before, will say it again: Bill lived in the shadows, loves the dimly lit rooms, and I mean that theologically as well as literally. His statement that he welcomed his scholarly critics: ... I'm reaching for a word that won't offend the part of this audience that speaks PG or better... nope, can't find those words just yet...
"His statement that he welcomed his scholarly critics:"
..UHHH, No I remember that it was 20 years that the one Bible Professor tried to make a Gothard theological discussion and connection and BG wouldn't return his requests with the courtesy of a meeting. I am confident that others were rebuff by BG, because who could possibly know anything not in that red notebook?? Choking on my words here.
I think the most subtle danger of the authority system is the concept that the meaning of Scripture is interpreted for you by your authority. In extreme cases of this, if the authority tells you "this is what the Bible means..." then you have no recourse, even if the plain meaning of the written words is something very different. Thus, even if you are authorized to "disobey" if commanded to sin, the practical effect is that you will never do so because your authority has nearly unlimited power to define what sin is.
This is actually more dangerous, I believe, than a purely authoritarian system where those in charge can openly arbitrarily make up the rules, because it twists language and makes the followers doubt their own intellect or even sanity. You might break away from an authority you recognize as bad, but only if you have confidence that your own conscience and the indwelling Holy Spirit can lead to something better.
All your talking points sound remarkably like what fueled the reformation; and isn't that ironic. Those in the status quo would love to push us into thinking that we are options are 1)obey them/their interpretations of the Word 2)be rebelious and disobey
Thank you RG for this. Thank you for the hard work that you keep doing to bring light to this madness. Bless you. This is so very helpful.
So is this where my parents got the "break the will not the spirit" view of discipline? I thought it was Dobson; maybe both. I hate that phrase, the concept, and the resultant discipline even in the hands of a caring parent. It is such a bad view of the human person and a parent's or anyone's ability to divine the will from the spirit.
Unfortunately, getting Gothard on record didn't alleviate the problems with his teachings.
My parents used the same phrasing. I used that method on my oldest son, regrettably, and fortunately not on my younger two. It definitely came from Bill. He was viewed as a much more serious christian than Dobson.
Yeah, I'm not sure where my folks got their notions, but the terms and phrases being discussed here seem all too familiar. In my case, I think "will" and "spirit" were defined as interchangeable terms. Without going into detail and rehashing and painting a graphic picture, the discipline I experienced was incredible asinine, unevolved, and I generously use the terms "cruel" and "unusual" to describe the techniques. BG seems to put imaginary conjured-up "tools" (i.e. convoluted ideas) in the hands of amatuers (by the thousands). With such outlandish notions, one can only expect that these "tools" will be misused, misconstrued, overused, recreated, etc etc, by the diverse overly zealous users.
Regardless of the fact (in my opinion) that BG's branch off IBLP is a cult, this problem boils down to an elementary level that a problem which is universal across various organizations, clubs, and churches. Let's go to the playground: if the big kid on the playground is doing the monkey bars, then all the little guys will also be attempting said feat within moments. Little tykes want to be like the big shot. It's no different in these organizations, both religious or business: people want to grow, be top dog, do it too, do it better, do it best, be accepted, be promoted, be recognized, be included, leader of the pack, leader of some of the pack... this concept of natural human behavior and desires could endlessly be explained. Point being, when you ARE top dog - watch your mouth, do the right thing, don't do stupid stuff, be moderate, clarify clarify clarify... you don't talk nonsense nor suggest that everyone go home and try a new technique of physical force on your kids... talk about liability! A good head honcho guards against misguiding those that fall under him and promotes positivity.
~End of Rant~
"The apostle Peter condemned Sapphira for agreeing to tell a lie; but this same apostle used Sarah as a model of an obedient spirit."
In my experience, I would say there was a very strong emphasis, express and implied, of the "Sarah obedience" and a very weak emphasis, if any at all, on the individual responsibility (with the necessary implied freedom of choice) of Sapphira.
MatthewS- this is very important. Gothard seems to have plausible deniability because he does teach that obedience should not include evil. But he so emphasized the importance of obedience and the perils of rejecting authority that the caveats got lost for many many people. What one emphasizes (properly, over, under) in ministry is what produces the ethos of the ministry. In IBLP the teaching was bad though technically contained truth. If you squint it looks like a Christian ministry. When you look at the culture it produces it definitely does not.
Well said, Shane.
In my experience, and I readily grant that each person's experience is different, the emphasis given to the one passage in the OT that "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft" effectively caused submission/rebellion to be THE operational hub of all Scripture, everything else turning on it.
In contrast to that, I now see Jesus's words against "lording it over" as abolishing that. I don't mean abolishing the meaning of that one verse - I mean removing it as *the* central hub along with the application of giving a place of such privilege to those in power. Also, the concept that we will each individually give account to God for how we each lived our own lives implies responsibility but also freedom to make our own decisions. Oversimplifying, I think I would say the hub for me now would be more like walking in step with the Spirit or the fruit of the Spirit vs. fruit of the flesh.
If you read that verse in context - "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft" - it interestingly is not talking about a human rebelling against another human authority. It is talking about a human (Saul) rebelling directly against God because he wants to please other humans (his followers, who wanted to keep the battle plunder for themselves).
The verse is directed at the human authority in the story, not those under authority. And the next part of the verse establishes "stubbornness" or "arrogance" (depending on your translation) as another "equal" sin - which would include lording it over others, no doubt.
Thanks Vivian. I was thinking the same thing. I laughed when I read your post because BG's teachings are often so easily overturned with good basic rules for understanding. Context is not his strong suit. The problem isn't simply a lack of engaging passages in context, I believe it's his fundamental view that the Bible is primarily a book of principles and that principles properly applied to all of life bring blessing. So stories are pillaged for their aphorisms that in turn are used to back a set of principles. Laws are traced back to some underlying principle rather than forward to their fulfillment in Jesus. This is legalism/moralism.
"I was told that the man, who pleaded guilty, does not feel that he disobeyed God; rather, he did what God commands Christians to do. The result of his obedience must be left in the hands of the Sovereign God."
Reading this in the light of the woman set to be hanged for being Christian in a Muslim country sure puts our whole American brand of Christianity into a whole new light (and not a good one)! She too is refusing to recant her obedience to her faith- she is also pregnant, thought a husband is not mentioned, she is accused of adultery.
Her story can be read here----and both her and our American brand of Christianity need much prayer!!!!!!!!!!!
http://news.msn.com/world/sudan-judge-sentences-christian-woman-to-death-for-apostasy
Bill G. wrote:
My great reluctance in replying to your open letter was not because I reject criticism. On the contrary, I not only welcome criticism, but I actively seek it from many, especially recognized Bible scholars throughout the country. Neither is it because I don’t want to clarify publicly what is taught in the seminar.
My question to any who would know: has Bill ever had any well publicized give and take on a public forum about any major area of disagreement. Any blog interchange, any 'open mike' session, anything.. I'll be shocked to find out if this ever happened, but I welcome feedback on this.
Personal impression: I believe that he was quick to apply "don't answer a fool according to his folly" and for the most part was against public debates and discussions about those kinds of disagreements. The perhaps not-always-unintended side effect of that being that to disagree with Bill is to automatically be a fool. There may also have been a generational thing, more of an emphasis in a previous generation of keeping disagreements in-house and out of the public eye.
What stands out to me is that by shunning any and almost all public back and forth, BIll actually (unintentionally, perhaps ) accelerates the confrontational nature of these kinds of disagreements. He makes it more dire than it needs to be, and by his reluctance, makes the outside observers decide 'who's the bad guy , here.." What could be more constructive, becomes more adverserial. Bill's 'meekness' plays into the 'oh poor me' posture also.
MatthewS- you're more generous than I. Given this account and those of Drs. Allen and Radmacher and also Venoit and others; I think it's about messaging and control. This fits with the narcissistic tendencies others have pointed out. I'm suspicious it's more about controlling the playing field and therefore the outcome and a refusal to submit to any real accountability.
greg r- I found his statement that he welcomes criticism and seeks it out laughable. If RG is anything it's a warehouse of evidence to the contrary.
Both of Bill's characterizations of how he handles conflict are egotistical. 1. That he rejects it. (we know this is actually how he handles it, which is egotistical and narcissistic)
2. That he seeks it out. (who seeks out criticism but a bully)
I used to just think his teachings were misguided. I can like someone who I think has misguided teachings. I don't like Bill, I think he is bad news.
It would not surprise me one bit if Bill actually sought out 'criticism', the way the Roman caesars did, asking their raving fan boys, "enough of what I think of me, what dost thou think of me ??" that may be a little over the top, but what I mean is that those voices of criticism will be carefully selected (or avoided) depending on the predicted outcome.
And Bill is very good at predicting outcome. Clueless he isn't.
The Psychologist from the article wrote: When I replied No, he said that he had advised Mr. Gothard not to reply, since if he replied to me, he’d have to “defend” himself against all sorts of people—something that he has not done. Rather, Mr. Gothard, he said, has refused to answer criticism to date...
Sooooooo... which is it ?? Bill says "I WELCOME constructive criticism...shoot, ya'll, I seek it out, whatever's helpful , blah, blah, blah...."
his mouthpeice says Bill dare not go there, or else he'd be defending himself to the masses...
His 5 point answer could've been this easy.
1. A christian woman does not have the responsibility to obey her husband over God. She should never be forced to break to law or her own moral code.
2. A WOMAN has direct access to God and doesn't need to go through her husband. (His answer is so lame)
3. A Wife or daughter should never be asked to lie or commit immorality.
4. A parents responsibility is not to break their child's will but to provide a loving, safe, educational, and nurturing environment.
He believes that a parent is to break their child's will. (No excuse for that belief)
5. I will see to it that my teachings and booklets can be purchased by all people not just those who have attended a seminar.
Really??? Was it so hard?? So much criticism from those answers? He did not like anybody to challenge him.
In our day the source of most conflicts with authority is not over commands to do wrong actions but in demonstrations of wrong attitudes by those under authority. Chief among these are ungratefulness, disrespect, disloyalty, and pride..
this is Bill in the proverbial nutshell: I've found the problem(s) ...and it is NOT ME, or anyone else in authority. This gets at Shane comment above about what is emphasized in a body of teaching: for Bill , the source of the conflict is (most always) those under authority. what bs
In other words, attitude (ungratefulness, disrespect, disloyalty, and pride and other negative emotions) is the sin...
Actually that is my big problem---- my attitude sucks! I may do the right thing but with the wrong attitude. I clean house but cuss the whole way through. so therefore, I have decided that since I sin while cleaning house, I will avoid that which makes me sin!!!!!!!!
But who was obedient in
Matt 21:28 “What do you think? A man had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 21:29 The boy answered, ‘I will not.’ But later he had a change of heart and went. 21:30 The father went to the other son and said the same thing. This boy answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but did not go. 21:31 Which of the two did his father’s will?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, tax collectors and prostitutes will go ahead of you into the kingdom of God! 21:32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him. But the tax collectors and prostitutes believed him. Although you saw this, you did not later change your minds and believe him.”
Jesus knows I battle a sucky attitude at times, yet sees my obedience in spite of it. Esbee doesn't sound like you have an attitude problem standing in the way of your faithfulness.
We ALL battle suckie attitudes, that's not the bs part; the bs part is saying that the attitude 'perp' is LIKELY to be the person under authority, that's crapola: we are all, leader and joe-sheepee just as likely to pull out an attitude, I know I do quite often.
Greg r, like you I have seen plenty of leaders with bad attitudes. Usually happens when someone decides not to be within their boundary of authority ASSUMED.
I just do not allow my attitude when complying to become an issue. I feel the above verses exempt me from having to enjoy cleaning bathrooms. Obedience doesn't require a smile for every task.
There is so much talk lately about courtship, even in the mainstream media thanks to the Duggar girls!
The authority teaching has devastating consequences on the whole courtship model as well. Technically, I think couples are advised to seek their parents' "blessing" before entering a courtship and a marriage. But in reality, a grown believer who pursues a relationship against her parents' wishes is considered to be in open rebellion to authority. (Although it would be next to impossible for her to even proceed without her parents' permission from a practical standpoint!)
A young adult is taught that she can not trust her own heart to discern the Lord's will for her life. There is the implication that God would speak instead through the couple's parents, as though an intermediary was needed. One of the most important decisions a human being makes (aside from accepting Christ) is undermined. In some cases, this may work out fine, but in others it's quite tragic.
The courtship movement is so much more than an emphasis on purity or spiritual/emotional connections (vs physical aspects of the relationship). It is another method of control, and any teaching that attempts to put stumbling blocks in a believer's direct relationship with Christ can not be pleasing to the Lord!!
Sorry to get emotional about this, but I have seen friends be terribly hurt by this process, which is supposedly designed to "protect" young people from heartbreak. It is an excellent example of the insidious twisting of Scripture, abuse of influence, and manipulation of sincere motives.
A lifetime of being married to a die-hard "ATI guy" would definitely be my very own personal hell. No offense, ATI dudes! :) Seriously, being married to someone that I may or may not be attracted to and disagree with on a spiritual level... how can I make a marriage out of that????? No spiritual/soulful connection and questionable chemistry... what an uphill march. As a teen, this was always my biggest fear - that I would blink and before I knew it, I'd be betrothed to another ATIer and trapped forever.
People do change over time, and I've seen ATI marriages blossom, in the wake lightening up and creating their own identity after marriage. No matter ideologies, not everyone's a jerk, so that helps too.
Cheers to nice guys & Catholics. :)
Before the Courtship movement ever came along, it was pretty common among both Christians and non-Christians to desire and seek parental approval for a potential mate - and still is, even outside the Courtship movement. This is often a good thing, since most parents love their children and want the best for them. The state of being "in love" really does cloud one's judgment (as secular researchers have ably demonstrated). If a young person has a good relationship with his/her parents, trusts their judgment, etc. and the parents find reason for cautioning against a romantic involvement with a particular person, it may be wise to listen (even more so if other trusted friends/family are expressing the same concerns).
Gothard has taken that which has long been considered wisdom and common sense and morphed it into a legalistic, rigid formula wherein parents are given a license to act like tyrants in the lives of their adult children, thus destroying the chance of having a real relationship with them in which mutual honesty, trust, respect, and grace can thrive.
was it Gothard that morphed it(parental involvement) or perhaps the rabid parents and critics that have morphed the idea?
"it was pretty common among both Christians and non-Christians to desire and seek parental approval for a potential mate - and still is"
Lori, in my Non-Gothard circles it would be unheard of for a young man not to ask the father's permission to marry his daughter. It is an act of respect not only toward the father, but also toward the young lady. Likewise, before a young man asked the father he usually brought the young woman home with him to introduce her to his parents. Even though my husband and I eloped my husband still asked my father's permission before we did. DH had a death in his family and we didn't want to continue with a formal wedding so close to a funeral. My father understood, and respected the thoughtfulness to those who needed a longer mourning period. Because of their mutual respect they became the best of friends. Why add to a system that already works?
@Lori - agreed, and what you've explained here so well is exactly what was such a disappointment to me. Although I had left ATI and trashed my courtship booklet containing various signatures, I still wanted parental involvement. After including my parents in my dating relationships, it was an absolute disaster. I was forced to exclude them from this pivotal and important part of my life until engagement. Before anyone points a finger at me, please believe, that out of everyone, I was the most disappointed in this situation. (and the most blessed - I have an awesome husband!)
"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God."
Today's discussion has opened a new window for me on the authority issue. The great revivals in Scripture seem to occur when the Word of God is preached and the Spirit moves in human hearts. It never comes by assertions of authority. Gothard, and others who abuse authority, measure us, and encourage us to measure each other, by whether we obey the teacher. God works with us in our response to the Word. Paul, in II Corinthians particularly, met others' bold claims of authority with clarifications of his own humility ("see how bad my writing is?").
It is not any real improvement to transfer the authority from the "teacher" to myself. It must be the Word and Christ, my Head.
I have always been disagreeable, but the Pastors who were not offended by my disagreements have been the ones who were used by God to communicate the Word and borne fruit in my life. Preach the Word, in season and out of season, and let the Spirit command obedience by granting faith and gracious sanctification.
Did any prophet ever condemn disobedience to the prophet?
"For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another." Gal. 6:3-4. Not in regard to another.
When I readthe account of Sarah and Daniel , I don't necessarily get the same opinion that they had a spirit of willingness to obey their authorities or that that is even the point of the stories. In Sarah's case , Abraham told her he would die if it was known she was his wife. And where would that leave her? Daniel knew that to disobey the king meant death for him and also for the guard over him. In both cases, the motivation seems to be to preserve their lives. Also, the bible does NOT say that Daniel went willing to the lions den. Rather it says they threw him into it. He had no choice!!! It's these little twists that can be overlooked if one does not read carefully.
will - noun
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
4. wish or desire: to submit against one's will.
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: to have the will to succeed.
I don't understand. Why would someone want to break a child's will? They need it to become self controlled, creative, independent adults.
ummmm.... control
When are they going to figure out "control" is over rated. Just think of all the wonderful experiences that are lost due to someone desiring control. Do controlling people ever get pleasantly surprised or delighted?
Nancy2- I don't get it either. The affect in my experience was that my decisions, thoughts, and desires could only ever really be an extension of the person in authority/power. The goal wasn't (at least not primarily) "to become self controlled, creative, independent adults". It was CONFORMITY. Conformity to the authority's since of who what I should be, think, and do. Very corrupt and corrupting.
I guess they forget self control is part of the Fruit of the Spirit. A healthy understanding of the will helps with walking in step with the Holy Spirit when He convicts one's heart of sin, righteousness and judgement, or revealing what is true. To break it instead of pointing toward following the One who transforms it is counter productive in Christian development.
Shane, "very corrupt and corrupting" indeed it is. "my decisions, thoughts, and desires could only ever really be an extension of the person in authority/power." And now we are back to Destructive Narcissism, a person that crosses boundaries, because everyone and everything in life is seen as an extension of self.
Conformity --- starting with "blanket training", which they call teaching self-control!
Gothard/Duggar's Self-Control = Everybody Else's Fear Controlled?
Just the thought of blanket training makes me want to rebel, and I was never a part of their organization.
I was called a "control freak" by my father when my son was 6 months old because we had these little different color bears that my son loved. I would hand him the bear and always call it by it's color. My father showed up for a visit, and I said look what DS can do. "Hand Mommy the yellow bear." I got handed the yellow bear. Then, "Hand Mommy the blue bear. He handed me the blue bear. My Dad freaked out, and told me to quit pushing DS beyond his age. Then he told me his Grandson wasn't to be trained like a pet monkey required to do tricks, called me a control freak then went home.
He would have called CPS over blanket training.
Exactly! Don't get me started on "blanket training"! The entire concept there is to discourage infants from being curious about their world. It's training them to NOT want to explore or develop the necessary stages of growth that God intended them to go through to be a healthy, functional child. These parenting ideas were SO messed up.
"Blanket training" has its place and it has helped our "more hyper" toddler learn to focus. Of course, i tend to think the Ezzos have a termendous amount of wisdom.
Please abandon Ezzo!
Ugh, the Ezzos. They were all the rage when my 17-y-o was a baby, but it found their teachings repulsive, and went the attachment parenting route instead (following my heart and instincts). Ll I can say now is thank The Lord I did. My daughter has Asperger's syndrome. If I had followed the Ezzo method, her natural asocial tendencies would have been magnified like crazy. Instead of having a child with uncommon (for an Aspie) compassion and ability to connect with others when she chooses, I'd have a daughter much more typically autistic. And here's the key: There was no way of knowing when she was an infant that she was autistic! The damage would have been irrevocably done before anyone would have realized there was a problem.
Rant over.
Angela, every rant about the Ezzos is certainly justified. How do they keep finding people to read their junk? I warned my duaghters about those things back when they were having babies about 23 years ago.
Because if a naive child exercises his or her own free will, they might make a wrong choice and be forever damaged and miss God's best. At least, that is my guess as to their motivation to control everything their child does.
There is a line from the trailer for the movie "The Giver" that says it well. "When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong."
Back at Dreamer - yes, the missing "God's best" was a card played often in my experience in ATI and in my family. This was most often played as a reason to explain and justify why I couldn't or was going to do something that I personally didn't want to. How dare I dodge God's best???
how was this teaching on "God's best" justified in light of Romans 8:28? If we are born again believers, the argument can be made that we "can't" avoid God's best .... am I missing something?
grateful, I don't have a reference for this, but I think it's the same reasoning which led to believing that pride would prevent God from giving grace. This thinking decreed that if I didn't experience the 'desire and power to do God's will', it was due to my own sin and that sin must be confessed/repented of before I could experience grace again.
Thankfully, God pursues even the proud and self-righteous with His amazing grace; I really like how this is presented in Surprised by Grace: God's Relentless Pursuit of Rebels.
@grateful: I was raised to be very meticulous and concerned about my position with God based on Armenian beliefs. In my individual family/situation, missing God's best was a likely predicament every day. To this day, I am indecisive in long-term planning and second-guess myself often.
What I never knew was how to know God's best. As far as I could see, only my father knew God's best. He had access to answers and information from God, and shared it with us. My siblings and I somehow never ranked enough nor were spiritual enough to announce to our parents what "God's best" was for ourselves. When we tried to express an interest or even attempt to assure our parents that one of our ideas was part of "God's best," somehow, Dad always got a different memo from God than we had received.
My situation in being raised as part of this cult was compounded by additional errant beliefs and practices of my parents. I share the ATI experience in common with most other ATIers, but I recognize that my immediate family unit also held its own toxic dynamics apart from ATI. ATI seemed to simply provide that confirmation and outlet for the crazy to come out in my parents.
This is so sad. All this stuff was out there even before the 1980s and still millions of people continued to pay good money to be brainwashed by Gothard's dangerous Scripture twisting.
It is sad, and although there were critiques out there, I'm not sure they were widely known. Eternity Mag had a limited sphere of influence, and other publications were also limited by geographic range (e.g. local newspaper accounts) or audience. Unlike today's ease of electronic dissemination of information, it wasn't as simple to gain a national forum.
Living in NoCal, I was surprised to learn from RG that the L.A. Times ran an article in the early 80's voicing concerns about IBYC/IBLP. Up here in the the SF Bay Area, we never heard about the problems that had happened in L.A. until decades later.
"Unlike today's ease of electronic dissemination of information, it wasn't as simple to gain a national forum."
Alas, Too true! Good observations.
I spent most of my adult life in conservative Evangelical churches and now am an Eastern Orthodox Christian. From this vantage point, it seems to me folks within Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism in general--not having any universally recognized doctrine-vetting authority to turn to for guidance in the interpretation of Scripture and by these movements' very history already having multiple streams of the interpretation of Scripture within them--are a bit more vulnerable to this type of false teaching than those of us committed to more traditional churches (e.g., Catholic and Orthodox) where a general framework for the interpretation of Scripture has been pretty well established for centuries (e.g., the Nicene Creed). Both these more ancient Christian traditions have the added feature of having a legacy down through the ages of officially-recognized "Saints" as models of what real Christian maturity and Spirit-filled godly leadership looks like. It is notable these Saints are not cookie-cutter images of each other, but each glorifies Christ in different ways--so rigid conformity to a stereotype is already a red flag for false teaching where such a "canon" of Saints is available in addition to the canon of Scripture.
This is certainly not a guarantee no Christian leader in the Orthodox or Catholic churches will abuse authority or begin to disseminate false teaching, as Church history shows, but I do think it has led to a demonstrable stability in what is deemed to be official doctrinal "orthodoxy" over time as well as what is considered to constitute a genuinely holy quality of life over the Protestant traditions. Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestants, comparatively seem much more prone to falling for whatever persuasive, charismatic, or "successful" self-appointed leader shows up on the contemporary scene throwing around verses from Scripture to support their teaching because they lack these kinds of historical anchors to a sound interpretation and application of the Scriptures.
Did anybody else think the "I welcome criticism especially from recognized Bible scholars" comment was BG's way of being snarky toward Mr. Bayly? He sets himself up as such a Biblical authority, and it's obvious he doesn't want to answer to anybody. Of course, he's not responded to any of the other more "recognized" scholars either.
The immediate questions I had were: 1) which of these bible scholars have you talked to lately (or not lately) and 2) what did you discuss maybe 3) when have these conversations been made readily available to anyone who might have the same questions 4)bonus question: when was the last time that one of these scholars changed your thinking on something radically,, and what was that change ??
Good questions Greg. Apparently, they always agreed that he was spot on, and hence, no need to change anything.
fwiw: I don't believe one half of a syllable about what he said about searching out other views, especially dissenting views. Love to be shown wrong on this, but given the history...
He doesn't discriminate: he didn't reply to my complaint that I filed with him at age 11, regarding his method(s) for resolving anger. :) I let him know that it didn't work and his steps must be incomplete. I was/am a far cry from a scholar of the Bible. :)
I guess we now know he had an age limit.
Didn't respond to an 11 year? I suppose he had more pressing issues like running a ministry.
Lol. Guesso.
There has to be some middle between Dr. Spock and Dobson/Gothard. Dr. Spock taught parents not to discipline, that children would figure out right from wrong eventually. This was taught in the 40's,50's, and 60's. As a result, the young people had no respect for government, church, school, or country. They were self-centered, egotistical, and hateful. These were your parents and your parents generation. They were mostly raised in the public schools, all the same with the same hair style and clothing. The same false ideologies, the hopelessness, the drugs, the crime. There was no escape. Very few Christian schools, no homeschools. When they became Christians they wanted something better for their kids. I know we have discussed this before on here but thought I would bring it up in this thread. They wanted to train their children to obey. Breaking the will is a very bad term that Dobson has changed I believe ( I am not a fan). It was originally used to help little Johnny not want to hit his little sister but to obey mommy and be nice. It morphed into something cruel. I hope this generation can find a great way to raise children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
I'm a child of the 60's and 70's. I went to public school. Never did drugs or run around having sex. Didn't wear the Hippie clothes. There was too much to do serving at church to be self-centered or egotistical let alone hateful. NOT EVERY ONE REBELLED! I wasn't raised with Dr. Spock or Bill Gothard. Neither had an impact on my life.
What impacted my life was simple. It was my parents interpretation of Prov 13:24 Spare the rod spoil the child. The rod was never defined as a tool for punishment. It was defined as a standard of measurement. It had very exact qualities we were to use to measure our character and what was going on in the world around us. The Rod was defined as The Lord. He is the standard we measure everything by. He loves us. He watches after us. He sent the Holy Spirit to reveal to us our sinful nature and our need for Him. He commands us to love. He reveals to us by His very life the connection between love and sacrifice.
I watched parents who loved and sacrificially serve their Savior, family, country, church, and community. I was a military brat. My father spent time in Vietnam. I knew he was in harms way. I watched the news and knew fathers were getting killed. Yet my mother showed us what hope was through a strength of character dependent of The Lord. Hope was connected to our prayers for while my father was away. Hope was connected to a very real person not just a Bible story. Hope walked with us. Hope was an Almighty Hand and Heart too real to deny.
There very much is a Third Way. It is a way that refuses to be harsh. Yet it also doesn't leave us in our sinful state.
Just to clarify, only about 35% of my graduating class in 1973 would be considered rebellious. According to my husband only about 30% of his graduating class were leading rebellious life styles. He graduated in 1969 HS and 1973 college.
My concern is the BG focused his seminars on the worst that was going on to the point many of the good things happening were over looked. It is troubling that he had to use those false comparisons, his best vs the present systems worse, to impact the audience's buy in. Now he wants to blame others for the worst that has come out of his teachings.
I concur completely with your second paragraph here, Nancy2. Completely. And I did the same for many, many years - using fear tactics to get my point across. Oh how wonderful to be free from that and to be able to "see the good" and walk in truth with the Spirit of Christ leading. He is the answer to fear tactics.
You know, Nancy, I really agree with you. Both my parents were pretty good kids in the 60's, and they were raised in nominally religious homes with quite a bit of common sense. They both came to faith in Christ in the early 70's in solid churches, but with the passion of baby Christians with little discernment, they swallowed most of BG hook, line, and sinker.
I think of BG as my parents' "Christian rebellion," a misplaced passion for all things that called themselves "Biblical" while totally chucking a lot of the common sense they were raised with (though certainly they did not come from families).
Unfortunately they embraced a lot of harsh discipline and authoritarian techniques along with the black and white thinking of BG, and even though we were only involved with ATI for a few years, these patterns have done so much damage to our family. All of us kids know and love Christ, but because we haven't embraced all of their particulars, my parents have a hard time getting along with any of us.
So very, very sad for all of us as they invested so much time and energy into us but they have thrown away so much of their hard work by their refusal to love their children more than their personal applications if Scripture.
I am a child of the 40s and 50s, I never heard my parents speak of Dr. Spock. Never heard of him until I was older. They certainly disciplined us and it usually helped develop our character. Sometimes it was a little overboard but we all 6 survived and while 2 of my siblings are deceased the others are all still married to their first husband or wife. No divorces. But one thing that was on my side was that I grew up in a small farming community in NW Kansas and we all had to work hard to survive. Small schools, good teachers (some of whom taught my dad when he was in school) and grandparents close by. We were taught respect for teachers, church and government. Maybe it was different in the large cities but for us in rural Kansas it was a good time to grow up. It was a different time for sure. I remember seeing World War II military convoys driving through town sometimes so long it would take 30-60 minutes for them to all go through. And the airplane formations - bombers and fighters flying over for several mintues going somewhere so that they could enter the fighting somewhere in the world. News Reels at our local small theater showed war movies so real that it made us sad. Maybe this is a little off of Gothard but he is only 4 years older than I am so he would have grown up in similar time frame.
I grew up all over the country. We were in Los Angles during the Watts Riots. I remember sitting in my front yard on the hill watching it burn. My Dad was gone during that time. A young mother came up the hill seeking shelter as her home was being burned. My Mom took her and her children in until she contacted someone who could help her long term. I remember Mom talking to her about faith in Jesus and them praying together.
We knew a lot of God fearing families that were not part of the cultural revolution. They were living stable devote lives.
Eva you sound about the same age as my Mom. She talks about ration cards, and news reels at the movie theater. They always had their ear to the radio longing for good news.
I don't think it is off Gothard. He painted a picture of our world that was different than our experiences. Other posters talk about our decades of growing up magnifying the rebellion as a reason Gothard's principles were needed. I don't think he was lying about the rebellion in the world at the time, but he was selective in the viewpoint of the world he shared. He painted rebellion with a board brush to sell people on their need for his principles. For those who loved their children and became frightened of the world accepting his principles would have been a logical step. Then once they embraced those principles they used fear in how they carried them out in practical living and it lead to a lot of abuse.
Over the years, Gothard should have trouble shot his system. Where there was abuse he should have stood firmly against those abusers and protected the innocent. Instead he came up with ways to blame the victim. Where is the shout from the top saying, "This is not how you carry out this principle in a godly way!"? Where is his moment in time of standing against the testimonies of harshness going on in ATI families? If all problems within the system came from members misusing or misunderstanding his teaching at what time did he stand before his audiences and rebuke that type of behavior?
Maybe those who know of times he stood against the abuse in his system can speak up.
Hello again,
I find it interesting that RG published an article from 37 years ago by a man who died 28 years ago. Do people not change as they grow older?
Certainly we've learned since then, have we not? Why blame one leader for misguiding everyone? Times were different then.
Why not take responsibility for our own lack of insight and judgment? Surely, even as misguided children and young adults, we instinctively knew what was right and what was not. If not, then did we not fail also?
You're right Mary. I'm willing to take responsibility. I am willing to look at any evidence you may have that suggests Bill has changed.
Dear Ryan,
I can ask Bill Gothard if he's changed and in what ways, and let you know what he says, if that works for you.
But, if you want evidence, that is, cold, hard facts, then you need to tell me what kind will satisfy you, because most likely you will not believe anything he says at this point.
Mary,
I'd be very intereted to read Bill's response to your query. Please do let us know if he responds and what exactly he says. Thank you.
I have left him several phone messages with my number, I guess he could start by returning my call like a normal human being.
Dear Ryan,
You sound like a very hurt, angry young man and my heart goes out to you.
Perhaps you might consider changing your approach a little. For myself, I find it difficult to want to respond when faced with anger, sarcasm, misinterpretation and even contempt, and I haven't, before coming to this site, considered myself as an enemy.
By the way, Ryan, I didn't design "Total Forgiveness." I think it comes from Jesus while he was hanging on the cross just before He died when he said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34)
As far as your question about the death penalty, jail or probation, I believe "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans 12:19) Who I am to decide how that is worked out? I think I understand why it is done, though.
My youngest adopted son was diagnosed in high school with what they called a "conduct disorder". He was incarcerated at age 19 for two years for 12 counts of burglary. I visited him every other weekend, standing in line with all the other mothers, and it humbled me. But he learned, and hasn't been in trouble since, so yes, I think "jail" might have been a good lesson for him at that time. Again I say, who am I to decide the consequences for anyone?
Thanks for keeping in touch, Ryan.
Mary Olive, I've re-read Ryan's two comments in this sub-thread several times and I'm having a hard time seeing where you are getting "anger, sarcasm, misinterpretation and even contempt." Are you being fair?
Hi Matthew S,
Actually, it said:
"For myself, I find it difficult to want to respond when faced with anger, sarcasm, misinterpretation and even contempt, and I haven't, before coming to this site, considered myself as an enemy."
I was not suggesting that Ryan was responsible for addressing me like that. Sorry it came across that way. I was trying to say how difficult it is at times for me to want to respond when a comment may have one or more of those elements in it. I was thinking about Bill Gothard and why he may choose not to reply at times.
Thanks, Matthew. My special needs adopted son is named Matthew.
'Why blame one leader for misguiding everyone.'
Why is this leader not required to take responsibility for doing the misguiding? Why does the burden fall on those of us who were deceived? (especially those of us who didn't and couldn't have known better because we were children.)
Secondly, since we're talking about matters of faith, I've never heard a believer give any pastor or leader a pass on 'misguiding' his people, nor did they call it 'misguiding'. It's called false teacher. That's a bad business, the Bible is pretty clear on what we're supposed to do about them.
In my opinion, I take responsibility for believing whatever I believed, by exposing the lies to the public. If someone knew a person was a false prophet and DIDN'T warn me about it, I'd be pretty upset.
Hi Megan,
If you think what I am trying to say is bogus, then I suggest Total Forgiveness by R.T. Kendall.
"Dr. Kendall is the author of over thirty books...He has learned firsthand the challenge and the power of walking in Total Forgiveness." He was the pastor of Westminster Chapel in London for 25 years, but was born in Kentucky and educated at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Oxford University.
"Total Forgiveness.. when everything in you wants to hold a grudge, point a finger and remember the pain, God wants you to lay it all aside."
As I mentioned before, I work as a registered nurse on an inpatient mental health unit at the hospital. It's a crisis unit, so I work with folks who are so angry and hurt they either try to harm themselves or others. Part of my job is to help keep them and others safe.
Some of the things these patients have done or have had done to them are unspeakable. These patients come from all walks of life. They are rich, poor, educated, illiterate, abused or abusers.
All I'm trying to say is no one can change the past and those who are stuck in it will continue to suffer.
I think you missed the point of my comment.
With your total forgiveness theology I assume you don't believe in the death penalty, jail or probation.
"Why not take responsibility for our own lack of insight and judgment? Surely, even as misguided children and young adults, we instinctively knew what was right and what was not. If not, then did we not fail also? "
Ultimately I do take responsibility but when I heard the words "touch not God's anointed" and stories about how God "punishes" those who do, many are discouraged from even discussing it or going to the Holy Spirit."
and it is not instinctive to know the truth about God, why do you think there are so many religions in the world and atheists. If it were instinctive there would be more believers. It takes a Holy Spirit working on our hearts and minds to change that instinct. Human instinct is about me first, others second or maybe never. Christian love is others first.
Dear Esbee,
And you are a Christian, yes. I should have said "even as misguided Christian children and young adults, we knew what was right and what was not." I see I fell short of accurately writing what I meant. Thanks for telling me.
1. Gothard's teachings have not changed in 37 years. His teaching on blind submission to authority remains the same. I was reminded of that recently as I was reading the account of the Maccabees. It took me back to the 'History Resource' of one of the Wisdom Booklets which claimed that the Maccabees' rebellion against Antiochus Epiphanes was doomed to failure because they used violent force against the defiler of the temple instead of making an appeal and suffering for their convictions. I studied that 'History Resource' in the 1990's and again with the new booklets in the early 2000's.
2. IBLP/ATI is still in existence. Gothard's false teachings are still being taught. If I might draw an analogy, we do not leave identified rapists or murderers free to victimize others. Why should it be different with false teachers? Should we stand idly by and let others be drawn in to false teaching? There are seminars being held in South Asia - should we allow the new church there to be led astray by old heresy?
3. The Bible is very clear that those who claim to be religious leaders and teachers are held to a greater responsibility. I would recommend the book of Ezekiel, especially chapters 13, 33 and 34. If we knew instinctively as children what was right and wrong, why did we need to be taught? I am responsible now for rejecting such false teaching, but I cannot be blamed for believing a false teacher with the innocent trust of a child; the more so when I was only imitating the example of my parents and other adults around me.
make an appeal to Rome... riiiiggghhhhhhtttt; this was my joke of the day
Dear Greg,
That's a good idea. Right?
@mary olive: yes , Paul made an appeal to rome and make a useful, lawful, appeal to his citizenship. But more often than not, Christians then , and increasingly today, were adjured to pray to GOD and just do the right thing, and let the chips fall where they may. Not unlike John Bunyan asked not to preach, and he would not be imprisoned. There was no 'appeal' to be made. He said 'no',and off to jail he went. this is more often the course of things, Bill is very wrong on this. As we slide into a non-Christian culture here in the west, you will see this more and more. the answer is not better, or more wise appeals, the answer is more pure allegiance to Jesus.
@greg: It is also worth noting, that while the appeal to Rome saved Paul from being sent back to be killed in Jerusalem, it also meant that he had to be sent to Rome - as Agrippa said, "This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Caesar." Both good and bad, as are many of the choices we find ourselves making under the force of circumstances - like the Maccabees' decision to rebel.
Also, the appeal to Caesar was to a secular authority, and has no bearing on how we deal with spiritual leaders.
Good points; I would add that just because Paul, in THAT instance appealed to Rome, this is not our marching orders, necessarily when we are asked to make a similar decision. I think Bill made up his mind on God's protocol, and then went proof text hunting (mostly in the OT, btw) to verify what he made up his mind about. As in many areas, the KING and HIS Kingdom tends to run roughshod over many such neat and tidy theologies. the KING is beholding to no one, though HE showed respect to even pagan rome, and its leaders.
@quiet one,shane,anybody; would highly recommend Eugene Peterson's works as a great antidote to what Bill is selling; A Long Obedience in the Same Direction is a good place to start. there are SO many good authors and teachers out there, no need to try and extract a few calories out of Bill's bag of ... well... you know..
I think it's called freedom of speech. Who is to decide what is false doctrine and what is not?
What about children in public schools who are required to learn about evolution, mysticism and diversity? Shouldn't that "false teaching" be prohibited, too?
Galatians 1:6-9 and 3:1-3: 'I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.'
'O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth,before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?'
I Corinthians 5:12-13: 'For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.'
Bill has politically protected free speech, for which we are all grateful. He can be an apostate, an heretic, a deceiver, but should NOT go to jail unless he breaks the civil law. this does not prevent the church from pointing out his toxic effects on the church, and working to safeguard others. this has nothing to do with 'free speech', and of course Bill is even encouraged to offer wise rebuttal to whatever he is charged with. Seems as if he usually chooses silence.
Have you heard of the Council of Nicea?
@Mary Olive:
From a neutral standpoint, actually I would like for my children to learn about evolution, mysticism, and diversity. I want to them to understand the society in which they live and are being raised, and not have their heads in the sand. I consider myself neutral because I don't practice religion. At the same time, I want my children to be exposed to religion and understand it's place in society and how religion can be a personal experience if they're interested.
I am comfortable with not having control over the life choices that my children will make. I do feel a strong responsibility to educate, support, and love my children. Ultimately, people make choices for themselves.
I feel it benefits them to know about such large scale topics in our society. After I left ATI, I had to catch up on so many topics which are common in our society. Not only were people shocked that I didn't know about certain things, but I couldn't hold a conversation with people when they spoke of things of which I had never heard. I either just shut up and listened to them talk, asked them to please be so kind as to educate me about the topic, or, I'd Google it later, thanks to my friend who taught me how to use a search engine. I didn't know what "don't drink the Kool-Aid" meant until after I was married. I didn't know what "Jose Cuervo" was, and I was really frustrated with the lyrics in Ten Rounds by Tracy Bird. I had no idea was "hose quibble" or "hose quiver" or whatever he was saying. :) I didn't know I could Google the lyrics until about 6 months later. That's a long time to have lyrics bugging you.
Lest my examples be merely of beverages, I also didn't know that an auto shop doesn't have the legal right to keep possession of your car if you decide not to hire them for their services. I didn't know from where racism in the U.S. came. When asked why I questioned the accuracy of evolution, I couldn't answer, because I didn't know enough about the theory to which I'd forcibly denied validity.
I don't intend to start an argument about freedom of speech or what's false teaching an what's not, but in answer to your stated question, no, I don't need that information prohibited. I need it blown out into the open where we can all talk about it in a sensible way... before my kids are 20.
My kids know that after school, they can ask mom's take on anything that they've heard during the day, and they do ask. I daresay that my kids do place weight in my answers... that's why they ask, 'cause they want to know.
Parents should have a little more faith in their kids' lucidity. I think I'm a decent parent and I think my kids are awesome - and it's not because I have control of them. It's because I don't.
When people from Western society travel to not-Western societies, very often, they'll study the other culture prior to arriving to that nation. They study the history, the language, pop culture, social customs, and no-no's. I don't understand how it's different when it comes to raising children in isolation from the society in which they were born. How does this help them??? I don't see it.
Excellent post Brumby!
I still see the same things taught (and even worse added since then) that we were subjected to over 30 years ago. I wish I had read what Joe Bayly wrote back then. It might have made a difference. I might not have ever gone to another seminar. Actually it was over 40 years ago that we first went. Before the birth of my youngest who is now 40.
All these comments are excellent along with a great article,but Bill Gothard's replying and perhaps subtle denying of his teachings once his feet were put to the fire of public scrutiny by the open letter seem to reveal a most horrible undercurrent of evil and master manipulation.So this man who claimed he was influenced by Gothard's teachings in the death of his foster child;was he overzealously "influenced by the "spirit" of the teachings or the "letter"?The man going on the momentum of something he "caught"from the seminar,the act of horribly,brutally beating a three year old boy,in which Gothard shrewdly categorically denied,"Trusted God?,"over the obedience of the "teaching" over the trivia of a perching bird?This is the undercurrent of the insidious teacher,who went 30 more years and then some with who knows what was somehow "misconstrued"," misinterpreted" while the undercurrents were there to do whatever potential evil could result from an unharnassed legalism.Infuriating,to see all the dodging,double talk,hypocracy of a man refusing to accept "the bill for his goods".
Watchmen on the wall. I wondered where they were at and why we didn't hear from them. I'm glad that there were a few tho I was unaware of them at the time.
According to scripture if I saw something that was sin or false teaching, and I know that then I am to address or I would be guilty too.
I am thankful that there are watchmen/women on the wall out there and that they are not staying silent but speaking out... hopefully others will hear and not stumble into the same traps that have befallen too many.
This is a must for any who have sat under Bill's teaching!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29LlmlrL7fw&feature=share
If only I had this teaching in my early years! An MK, Christian boarding schools, Christian colleges... missions... marriage to a lovely Christian man AND THEN... ATI! Teachings that were muted in the past were now entrenched to THUS SAITH THE LORD! And who would deny the Lord? But to any who would listen and whom I considered 'safe' I would cry out from my deepest inner places: "What kind of ugly joke has been played on me? Gifting me with leadership, vision, boldness, but now telling me to muzzle all of that and suppress the very person I was created to be with all the trappings of 'a godly wife'! How am I to reconcile all this?" I recognize I am not alone and this beautiful video expresses so well my inner churning. Now a grandmother, how am I to now live?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acioHGmFg-Y
I'm going to be a little off-topic here (sorry!), but I want to post on a current thread - hopefully some of you can comment for me.
I've only recently come across IBLP in Australia, and I came across "no longer quivering" last year, and came across this site this week (as well as some blogs on "pantheos"). From reading posts here it sounds like IBLP has been in Australia since at least the '90s - I didn't know that.
I know a few IBLP people a little - not well enough to ask questions. Some who are still involved seem *very candid* about what can go wrong but are still committed and involved, while others I've met are just young and afraid of tertiary study (like others on this site have said). It makes me really sad that someone would be so afraid of studying even at a conservative Christian university, much less a secular liberal college. Having read people's posts I understand why, but it still makes me sad. I know other IBLP people who go to mainstream churches and are willing to study at whatever tertiary college they like.
Growing up myself in a very conservative Christian environment I can really understand some of the things posted on this site as well as many of the other sites by ex- IBLP and ATI people - my experience wasn't as extreme, but I do get what you're all saying about the effect of dodgy teaching on body image, fear of dealing with the opposite sex, etc. I also heard objections to tertiary study.
I'm wondering if anyone contributing to these discussions has been involved in IBLP Australia? If so, do you think that there is any difference? Is IBLP in Australia any more laid back than in the USA? To me it seems like half very afraid, half not too much different to mainstream conservative evangelicals - but it's hard to tell from the amount I know. What about other countries - I'm not really familiar with how wide-spread IBLP is...
Thanks for your thoughts !... I'm trying to get my head around what some people I know are involved in...