29 Comments

1. 

   Don Rubottom November 18, 2014 Reply

   Rebecca's thoughts raise the question of how one can teach a high view of authority (maximizing the rights of the one in authority) while proclaiming "no rights". Maybe if the leaders were true servants, a right and "balanced" view of "submission and sacrifice (including "yielding rights") might be taught.
   Scary is Gothard's cited emphasis on giving up all decision-making responsibility. I fear greatly that this very aspect has crippled my own life.

   • 

     MatthewS November 18, 2014 Reply

     Very significant point.
     
     I see that as one of the core issues: the out of balance approach, and hypocritical approach, to the issue of rights. Leaders have them to extremes, everyone else is denied them to extremes. Out of balance both ways, resulting in an environment that is ripe for abuse.
     
     The point about leaders being servants - Jesus said specifically that his followers should not require preferential treatment, and that leaders in his kingdom do not "lord it over" others.

2. 

   LynnCD November 18, 2014 Reply

   Yep. Reminds me of Orwell's line: "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others."

3. 

   rob war November 18, 2014 Reply

   Good comments. A couple of ideas come to mind. First, Bill made the psycho babble connection between anger and bitterness and claiming that the cause of anger in bitterness in people's lives is that they are angry do to "rights". This is a totally bogus assumption on Bill's part. People are angry or become angry do to many different reasons, usually do to some injustice suffered in their life. Then Bill prescribes the solution to anger which is not dealing with the cause (hurt or injustice) but blame the angry person that they haven't yielded their rights and if they do so, they would no longer be angry. Bill also implies that having anger is sinful. Anger is an emotion like a number of other emotions and usually is a sign of something wrong. Yes, we can sin in anger but it is an emotion pure and simple. Bill does not consider that forgiveness and healing are processes in peoples lives, they are not instant denial of feelings and emotions.
   The other thought I have on all of this is Bill's low view of the dignity and value of the human person. That may sound kinda strange considering he is pro-life but if one considers that all of us are made in the image and likeness of God and that every person alive should be treated with dignity and respect then when that dignity is violated especially by abuse and sex then as Christians we should be standing with the victims no matter who they are and against those that would violate this. This sort of thinking is based in natural law and even comes in play with social justice teaching. Natural law is what is played out in our preamble. "We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalliable rights". These are God given rights not man made ones. They are not to be violated and if they are, we as Christians are to speak up and out. Evangelical Christianity has forgotten this. That is why someone like Bill can come along a bamboozle people with his goof up ideas and teaching.

   • 

     David Pigg November 18, 2014 Reply

     thank you Rob

4. 

   nicole gardner November 18, 2014 Reply

   Greater principle and overriding reality are pointed out in this article and comments. These level the mountain of lies that the king of the hill has stood on for so long.

   • 

     GuyS November 18, 2014 Reply

     Nicole, this is a perfect example of what we were talking about on the other thread. If you are in a seminar and BG is talking fast enough that taking notes is hard, you only have time for fleeting thoughts to process.
     
     You might remember the story of Abraham and Lot...Abraham gave up his rights to pick the land.
     You might recall the place in James where he admonishes those who plan to go on a year's business trip... should be, "if the Lord wills"...
     You might remember Jesus washing feet, he gave up his right to have others wash his.
     
     It all seems so reasonable. BG is just taking it to a new level. He wants us all to be more holy. What could go wrong?? Sounds good.
     
     For clarity, the three examples are ripped from their context and do not apply to BG's madness.

     • 

       rob war November 18, 2014 Reply

       Guy,
       you make some great points here. In looking at the three examples that Bill used, they really have nothing to do with the dignity of self as being made in the image of God. The first, Abraham deferred to Lot. That is over a piece of land and has nothing to do with rights. The example of James with the quote "if the Lord wills" is about planning for the future and not getting so set in one's plans because no one but God knows the future. The last one is Jesus washing feet and Jesus was demonstrating service and how we are to serve each other. Nothing of any of these examples have anything to do with the basic "rights" of a person in their personhood. No one should be violated by another. It is a slight of hand and after one has been hit with a bunch of Bible verses sitting in his seminars, it is easy to miss the misquote.

       • 

         GuyS November 18, 2014

         Rob War, This is so embarrassing. Twice today I have not been clear. My bad. These 3 goofy examples came from my own mind.
         
         My (unclear) point, I was trying to make was, as you listen to BG, trying to keep up, versers of scripture might come to you that seems to fit in. I knew lots of versers when I went to my first seminar. BG did not seem that bad. Sounded good. Everything seemed to fit with the verses I knew by heart. True, I never looked at then the way BG preached. But what did I know? I was very immature and seeking God.
         
         Thank you for helping clear this up for others. I do not want to make BG look worse than he is. It is so funny that my 3 goofy irrational nonsense examples were not that far off from what you might expect from BG :-) This proves I've been to way too many seminars! Thanks Rob.

       • 

         rob war November 19, 2014

         Guy, you made some great examples and i totally get the point that when one sits at the basic seminar, you can easily be over whelmed with all the Bible verses that Bill used and yes they all seem correct and support what Bill is teaching. I know, I was there too. I also think you brought up 3 examples which seem to show someone in the Bible giving up their "rights". I think you did a very good job because on the surface Abraham and even Jesus did seem to "give up their rights" in the mode of what Bill's teaching in this area. Bill had a low view of rights as in material or feelings. According to Bill, if you have hurt feelings or anger, its because one did yield their "rights". But the higher and even historic Christian view is that every person is made in the image of God therefore every person should be treated with dignity and respect and not violated due to being made in God's image. That is a higher and deeper meaning of rights. That is what the founding fathers of the US were referring to in the preamble. The low view of rights will justify abuse, the higher view will never justify abuse of anyone for any reason. Still, don't beat yourself up because you have nothing to be embarrassed or ashamed about.

       • 

         Don Rubottom November 19, 2014

         Rob, you keep referencing the Declaration of Independence as the Preamble. The Constitution was 11 years, much blood and sacrifice later. It is far more pragmatic but you are correct about the philosophy behind the American experiment. In the time of Lincoln, slavery was debated against as just a small time version of the divine right of kings: the idea that some were born to ride and others to be beasts of burden. America was built, imperfectly, on the rejection of that philosophy. But it never went away.
         A wonderful book on these philosophical issues, and their connection to the maturing of Christendom is: A New Birth of Freedom by Harry Jaffa.
         http://www.amazon.com/New-Birth-Freedom-Abraham-Lincoln/dp/0847699536/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416423384&sr=1-1&keywords=a+new+birth+of+freedom&pebp=1416423386137
         (Of course, all the legalistic secessionists among the Gothard-Phillps crowd will reject Jaffa's views. When you are the pastor or father, you have a divine right to secede from the church or state if you don't agree with them. But your flock or family has no right to secede from your merciful authority.)

       • 

         rob war November 19, 2014

         Thanks Don for the book, I will look into it. I think I knew I might have been off on the reference but I do know that the founders of the USA did have a strong basis in understanding of natural law and that is mentioned in my misquote. Understanding natural law means that there are God given laws which override our written laws and this included God given "rights" to every human. Gothard seem to dismiss God given "rights" which he wouldn't if he had a strong understanding of natural law and a view that every human is made in the likeness and image of God. I think this is similar to English common law which is likewise a basis of our legal system. I know you would have more insight into this as a lawyer. Looking at the bigger view of the dignity and worth of every person trumps the petty Gothard emphasis on his definition of "rights". Any abuse cannot be excused away because someone didn't give up their "rights". Abuse is never justified because it violates another person and their "right" to dignity which is given by God alone and should never be violated.

       • 

         Don Rubottom November 19, 2014

         Yes, you are exactly right about the principles involved. Sadly, they are being lost in western civilization today. Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) and Pera (an Italian politician) published in about 2004, a book of reflections on this loss in Europe. It is called "Without Roots" It is also on Amazon, a much shorter and easier read than Jaffa! But they are very insightful.
         Their view is that without the inherent dignity assigned to man by the Judeo/Christian tradition, there is no basis for civil freedom and rights. They argue that tolerance, the current civil religion in Europe (and Boston, New York and San Francisco) is meaningless if it requires toleration of the nullification of human dignity. Specifically, if they will tolerate the Islamists who want to kill them, Europe will be soon dead. Tolerance HAS to stand on an uncompromising foundation of the indisputable dignity of the natural human person. For Christians, that nature includes "male and female" created in the image of God.

5. 

   Kristi Wetzel November 18, 2014 Reply

   Rebecca Davis has made some excellent points that highlight the importance of paying attention to the details in the teachings of leaders all around us. I'm thinking of the passage in Acts 17 which references the Bereans who received the Word with eagerness AND who also examined the scriptures daily to see if the things that the Apostle Paul said to them were true. How necessary it is in our 21st century world for us to be like these Bereans! Just because a man of some renown stands in a pulpit or on a platform and teaches with an air of authority, even when he quotes Scripture, we cannot abrogate our responsibility to search the Scriptures for ourselves, to ask questions, and to think prayerfully and critically.
   
   (By the way, I noticed that the link to Rebecca's blog does not take you directly to the article "Replying to the One Who Says Christians Should Have No Rights" which she posted on September 24, 2014. I highly recommend taking the time to go to her site and read the entire article.)

6. 

   nicole gardner November 19, 2014 Reply

   I used to think- "Wow, that's alotta work", and be as glad as not when the meat of the Word was chewed for me by someone else. Then I learned how exhausting it is to get food poisoning!
   
   Guy, I think I start to hear ya: The smoothed-on, waxed-'til-it-shines-kind of over-processing is what makes BG seem like he's talking straight out of the Bible, since it's packaged like a whole package. Just like his hair. Just 'cause the roots never showed on screen doesn't mean it's the color God has (or would have) it be.

   • 

     Don Rubottom November 19, 2014 Reply

     Exactly. Rock music is evil because...evil is bad. Smooth but illogical.

7. 

   J.B. November 19, 2014 Reply

   A few months ago, I was thinking about just how vertically oriented IBLP was while doing a study with my church small group on the book "12 'Christian' Beliefs That Can Drive You Crazy" by Cloud/Townsend (the same team that wrote the "Boundaries" series). The study examined 12 ideas that have been adopted by much of the modern church but hold no true Scriptural basis, and in some cases, run completely opposite to what the Bible actually says. Many of them happened to be the bread and butter of IBLP.
   
   One was "If I have God, I don't need people." I immediately thought about just how much Gothardism discouraged "horizontal," peer-to-peer relationships without the involvement of an authority figure. Suddenly, it all clicked. Horizontal relationships threaten the rigid verticality that IBLP advocates. Everyone and their authorities live in their own thin, tall tower with nested umbrellas. They can't step outside the tower to visit other ones or meet other people in the middle, at least not of their own volition. The system has to be upheld, even when - especially when - romantic relationships are involved. It's like the book / movie "The Giver," where "the stirrings" among adolescents were suppressed, everyone lived in their "family unit," and babies were manufactured in a laboratory.

   • 

     GuyS November 19, 2014 Reply

     JB, very well said. This kind of thing is so crazy, it is hard to describe. It takes a lot of thinking and then to make sure you are clear, add a movie that is so extraordinary out of this world, and only then can it be communicated. Good job.

   • 

     rob war November 19, 2014 Reply

     The horizontal vs vertical. You have some interesting thoughts on this. Even going through United Methodist Sunday school, the vertical is our relationship with God and the horizontal our relationship with our fellow humans. Someone, we see them in conflict when they shouldn't be. When Jesus was asked which is the greatest commandment. He quoted back the great "Shema" from Deut. "hear oh Israel ..., you shall love the Lord you God with all your strength …" and the second commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" These commandments are not in conflict but we show our love for God by showing our love for our neighbor and when we love our neighbor, we are loving God. Mother Theresa of Calcutta struggle with this. She found God when she gave herself to serve the poorest of the poor. It's not how Bill split these up in that if we had affection or love for someone else, we were not loving God. James 1:27 say "The kind of religion which is without stain or fault in the sight of God our Father is this: to go to help of orphans and widows in their distress…" Real love towards God is expressed by our love to our neighbor.

8. 

   Hurting November 22, 2014 Reply

   A good case for Christians defending their rights is how Paul responded to persecution by the Romes. He didn't just throw his arms in the air and say "I forgive (i.e. don't hold you accountable)." He didn't just say "oh, well, you probably meant well, so I'll take all the blame." He basically said "Look, buddy, I'm a Roman citizen and what you just did to me was wrong, I demand to see Caesar." Acts 16:37 for instance says "But Paul said to them, 'They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out.'" See also Acts 21:39, Acts 22:25-29; 23:27. Paul understood that in God's sovereignty certain rights and privileges were provided him as citizen of Rome and it was an act of faith to use these rights to bring justice to him and fellow Christians and allow preaching of the gospel. The reason Paul was imprisoned in Rome wasn't because he had given up his rights, but because he was using his right to have an audience with Caesar to spread the gospel. When I came to an understanding of this, I was about to convince the executive director of Verity Institute to refund some of my tuition, to cover medical costs, because not only was I treating in a manner unbiblical, unethical, unprofessional and abusive at Verity by two staff members who had no business being in their ministry positions, but also because the manner I was treated was contrary to the spiritually supporting environment advertised and promised on Verity's website. The sad part is when the staff member was shown how he had violated Scripture, he just replied his intentions were good, while attacking mine, and the executive director wanted me to just accept the staff member's excuse. They also had me sign a paper saying I wound't discuss the details of the abuse, which they still didn't admit, publicly in exchange for getting some of my tuition returned. Originally they had privately also on the paper, but I made them take that off. The executive director claimed it was a private matter even though the staff members were acting in their professional position when they wronged/abused me. I warn everyone to stay way from Verity Institute since their name is a misnomer/oxymoron.

   • 

     rob war November 23, 2014 Reply

     If you have actual physical harm that required medical treatment, have you ever talked to a lawyer to go after them for this? Stories like this make me sick. Likewise, the fact that they were forcing you or trying to sign away your rights and excuse what happen to you should not prevent you from legal action. You did not sign with a free will and were forced to. I am sorry about what happen and if more people get the guts to take legal action, these bogus abusive ministries would shut down which is what should happen. Real healing and forgiveness happen when we seek justice and I'm praying that you seek out justice because there is no excuse for abuse at any time for any reason and towards anybody.

     • 

       Hurting November 25, 2014 Reply

       It was psychological and emotional abuse, which is harder to prove in a court of law. I have talked to lawyers who said that it wouldn't be worth a court case, but at least the lawyer in Indiana, where Verity Institute is located, said it was a strong case for reimbursement. The very fact that a school with truth in it's name would try to make someone not talk about their side of the story, thus the whole truth, is ironic.

       • 

         rob war November 25, 2014

         If you did find one lawyer that thought you had a strong case for reimbursement, I highly encourage you to pursue this if you haven't. I'm not a lawyer but I think the agreement that they forced you to sign could be thrown out in a court of law since it was not your free will and was intimidated to do so. I think there is a false notion out there that Christians can't pursue justice through our courts. But if laws are broken, then justice should be served. It will also bring some healing and even strength to you. When one is really hurting which I'm sure you are, the hurt is paralyzing. If you take some legal action, that is a step for yourself in the right direction. My husband and I had to pursue this in the Church we attend over our youngest. We didn't actually go to court but we went through the Church structure, complaining and looking for justice. We finally did receive it in a couple of firings 2 years later. It helped me with forgiveness as well. I think it will do the same for you. I will pray for you and for you to have courage.

9. 

   nicole gardner November 26, 2014 Reply

   Rob War,
   You probably helped the truth to come out so as to save MANY others from severe hurt. No doubt, while you were speaking the truth about the people's lack of integrity that harmed your child, these same people were probably still in the same track. So, while you were going through 2 years of trial in attempting to make the truth known, these people were still havin' at it. By the time you and your husband were listened to, there it was- these people's character played out again right in front of everybody else's face by that time.
   
   I don't know you- I'm half the country away- but I have a hunch that your 2-year trial was backed up by live evidence (in addition to your child as victim) of some such sort.
   
   It never hurts to speak up against pain being inflicted; you're right on. There are people who will come up and hug you in heaven, once what you saved them from is made known in the here-after.

   • 

     rob war December 1, 2014 Reply

     thank-you for your kind words. One of my favorite parables of Jesus was the widow with the unjust judge. What I take from it is that she didn't give up in seeking justice for herself, she persisted until she obtained justice. I think that is what Jesus was stating in that parable, not to give up in a quest for justice. The ideas that Bill teaches is that people should "give up their rights" is an effort to stop complaints over abuses in his ministry and teaching. My husband counseled someone that had this type of background and teaching. That person had an EAP benefit which he encouraged this person to use instead of private pay. It took nearly half a year of convincing this person to use what was rightfully theirs, free EAP counseling sessions. I think this sort of "yielding rights" has been used to stop people from reporting abuse and misuse. The sad thing is that para-church ministries have no accountable over site. Only when people either start to take legal action will things change in some of these horrific programs like Verity, Alert etc.

10. 

    Todd k December 1, 2014 Reply

    Like many others, my ancestors served in the military to keep our nation free and to fight those who would desire to remove our freedoms. For the gothadites to want Christians to "yield rights" is to say that those who served our country to preserve our rights did so for nothing. I find it ironic that those who fought in the wars to maintain our rights and freedoms did so also on behalf of the gothadites who in their right to excercize freedom have the freedom to say that we need to yield our rights. Uggggg. Only in America!

    • 

      rob war December 1, 2014 Reply

      Interesting contrast is that Bill used military type authority chain in his teaching yet, I do not see anywhere in ATI where children would be encouraged to actually serve their country in a real military. Likewise, following through on the logic presented by Bill, the revolutionary war in the US would never have happen because the colonists were claiming their "God given" rights and fought for them when they were threaten by the King of England. One simply cannot boil away issues with anger as a lack of "giving up rights". It shows such a lack of common sense and understanding of natural law and what that means.

    • 

      J.B. December 2, 2014 Reply

      It's funny you bring this up, Todd - I was going through an old box yesterday filled with stuff from my childhood, and sure enough, there was a pack of Wisdom Booklets from the ATI program buried in there. I'm not sure how much has changed in the materials since the early '90s, but in one of the books (#15, about being a "city on a hill," I think?), there was this diagram showing the "decline" of Christianity and the "rise" of secular humanism in Western society. One of the "Mastery Quizzes" for one of the booklets even had the question, "Why should governments adopt Biblical laws?" It's almost as if Gothard's perfect American society is a complete theocracy in which every family can participate in IBLP and ATI with no interference and advance through the apprenticeship programs and ultimately work for Gothard as their children became adults. But at the same time, there's no real regard for how America became independent by rebelling against "authority," or how Christianity is still the predominant belief system in our culture despite the division therein, or how Protestantism itself had shortcomings of its own that contributed to Western Christianity's modernization.

11. Replying to One Who Says Christians Should Have No Rights | BJUGrace March 3, 2015 Reply

    […] by Rebecca (First published at Here’s the Joy fall 2014, republished in part on Recovering Grace. Though we believe Bill Gothard first introduced the concept of Christians having no rights, we […]