WITH
BILL
GOTHARD’S TEACHINGS
PARA-CHURCH
ORGANIZATION
1.
Though he
claims to support the church, in reality he has a very low view of the Church:
In fact, in a couple of places, such as
in his Training Faithful Men Resource
Manual, p.60, Mr. Gothard tells us that the fourth “scriptural
conviction…which every man must teach his family in order to protect them from
the destructive influences of wrong desires, false philosophies, and evil
companions… (is) My church must teach the foundational truths of the bible and
reinforce my basic convictions.” P. 60
2.
He supplants
the ministry of the local church by:
BUT... in one of
Gothard's other booklets (Ten Reasons for Alumni to be Encouraged, p. 13) he
proudly publicizes that his seminars offer segregated training for seminar
families: "While parents and
teenagers learn about seven Biblical principles in a Basic seminar, the
children in the family will be taught those same principles on their
level. By the end of the week, the whole
family will have a new Biblical foundation for functioning together as a
harmonious team."
1. Mr. Gothard continually announces his materials as
“discoveries,” which implies that the Lord has revealed these things to him,
thus placing himself in a special position as authority. The
implications of these ‘secrets” or “discoveries” or special “rhemas from God” may not be clear at first reading, being
so subtle. However, one gets the impression that God has appointed Mr. Gothard
and his Institute as the true remnant of God to save America from
destruction.
“I can still remember the deep sadness
which I felt when the following rhema was given to
me: ‘And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold’
(Matthew 24:12). I associated this with
the rhema of Isaiah 59:19 and understood that when
God raised up a standard against the floods of iniquity, the love of many
Christians who were not a part of the
standard would become cold toward the Lord, toward marriage partners, and
toward Godly Christians. When love
decreases, God’s way is to work with a remnant. That is precisely how this whole ministry began – by taking a few
who wanted to be totally dedicated to God and leading them to spiritual
maturity. When others see how God is working through a few, many are motivated
to follow. Each of you who loves the
Lord and who has embraced the living principles of His Word is now a vital part
of a remnant” (emphasis mine).
(1) The first
problem is that Gothard takes Matthew 24:12 out of its context to prove his
point.
(2) Secondly, he
arrogantly claims that those Christians who did not become a part of his
ministry, which he asserts is God’s standard and remnant, will have love which
will wax cold. The implication is clear – be a part of his work or be a
cold-hearted Christian!
(3) Then, there is
the false teaching that God raises up a special remnant outside of the God’s
visible Church. Biblically, the remnant
is not a parachurch organization, but true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Institute is not the remnant, and Gothard is not the new Moses.
(1) This type of
arrogance is personally nauseating. God appeals to Gothard’s name. God
presumably creates a homeschool program based upon the name of Bill
Gothard! Again, what is implied is that
this program is specially ordained. All others would be inferior. One could take this to mean that all other
homeschool programs, which make no such revelatory claims, are not godly, or at
lest not adequate to the task.
(2) In addition, a
biblical passage is used to justify this claim.
c. He also writes and teaches that believers
should be attentive to “promptings: they are inward urgings to do
God’s will (Phil. 2:13; Ti 2:11-12)
(page 31, Men’s Manual Vol 1)
“You can begin to make your family
“mighty in Spirit’ by training them to be more
alert to the inner promptings of God’s Holy
Spirit. As you and your family become more alert and obedient to the promptings of God’s Spirit, you will experience more of His
power and life within your spirit.” (p.
39)
“For if ye
live after the [promptings of the] flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through
the [promptings of the] Spirit do mortify the deeds
of the body, ye shall live.” Rom. 8:13 (p. 40)
2. Mr. Gothard believes God speaks and reveals personal
guidance to individuals through rhemas and promptings:
a. Point
"D" undermines and negates the rest since it gives as the final test,
"The Test of God's Spirit." This is based upon Colossians 3:15 and
explained as follows:
"A wrong decision may look right,
but if we are alert to the prompting of God's Spirit, we will not have peace in
the matter. You should have inward peace after the first three tests have been
passed. Let the peace of God rule (be the umpire) in your hearts"
(emphasis added).
The context of
Scripture quoted has to do with keeping peace in one's relationships with
others in the church. Colossians 3:12 urges kindness and longsuffering; verse
13 urges forgiveness and condemns quarreling; verse 14 urges us to love in our
responses and relationships; verse 15 deals with one's willingness to keep
peace with others. The verse has nothing to do with guidance or decision
making. The Scripture verse has been 'wrested' to prove a point.
So, in Gothard's guidance system an
inner feeling of peace is the ultimate test. If we do not have that subjective
feeling of peace, do we then question the objective statements of Scripture?
Feelings of peace should not supersede scriptural direction. Churches have had
to carry out discipline in obedience to Christ (Matthew 18) while feeling
stress, agony, turmoil and spiritual grief. –Fisher
b. Again, many
things need to be said about his view of Scripture and the dichotomy he places
between the
synonyms of logos and rhema. Here I present some concerns about this
statement:
(1) He uses Romans
10:17 to say something it does not. This is terrible interpretation, and not
even faithful to the Word. The context
of Romans 10:12ff is that without commissioning and sending men to proclaim the
Word, the Word does not go forth. In 10:14, Christ is the whom, Christ is the One Who speaks through the preached Word. So
faith comes by hearing Christ speaking through the preached Word, not through
one’s own mystical hearing of God’s directives from a private encounter with
the Bible. That’s the point of this text, not Gothard’s view of rhema.
(2) He also removes
Isaiah 59 passage far from its context and the Holy Spirit’s intended use. The
Holy Spirit did not put that text in
there to tell Bill Gothard where he was to initiate or perform youth ministry.
(3) This method he
employs is like the method of cult groups.
(4) This method on
its own terms justifies the person’s own interpretation of Scripture and his
activities in life. Herein is the danger
- who is to tell Mr. Gothard or anyone else that what he is doing is wrong if
indeed God has spoken to him so explicitly and specifically through the Bible?
On the other hand, how does he really know these are truly from God? If you say
he know because it is confirmed by experience, then experience becomes the
higher standard by which we judge what God says.
(5) Gothard, and others,
have not demonstrated from the Bible itself that this is how God desires for us
to use His Scriptures - like some magic
formula. Instead of this practice, the Bible tells us that the propositional Word as it is in its written form is sufficient for all things pertaining to
life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3ff).[1]
(6) Gothard’s view
is not too dissimilar from Karl Barth’s, which,
simply put, said the true word of God was that word personally given to a
particular person at a particular time.
(a) This understanding
sets up two levels of the Bible: one that is objectively factual and one that
is truly relevant. The relevant (which is the subjective) becomes a higher
priority and goal to attain. The other is only a basic necessity, if that.
(b) This also
implies even at a practical level that all the Bible as the inscripturated
Word is not sufficient for life and godliness. Only the higher, spiritual voice
from God spoken to me personally is the genuine Word.
3.
Mr. Gothard is
selective in his use of Bible verses in order to prove his point. Much of his
material is not only Scripture twisting, but also invalid proof-texting. In addition, he resorts to proving his
principles by using testimonials.
4.
He takes
singular words from the Scripture and makes full-blown doctrines out of them.
Some examples:
One example of such terrible misuse of
Scripture by redefining biblical terms is by his statement that “Faith comes by
hearing the rhema-word of God NOT the logos-word of
God. (Romans 10:17).” In other words God will speak a personal message to you
to reveal His explicit and detailed will through one or a few Bible verses.
(See pages 11-14 in the Life Purpose: A
Journal of God’s Power in Us, Volume 1, 1990)
c.
He teaches that there is a big difference between faith and belief.
a.
Grace is “the desire and power to reproduce
ourselves spiritually.” (Advanced Seminar textbook). This is not the
biblical definition of grace. Grace is “the desire and power to do God’s
will. Grace is not the freedom to reject God’s moral laws, but the desire and
power to keep them.” (Men’s Manual, Vol. 1; p. 113)
Then Mr. Gothard
continues, "Faith
comes by hearing the rhemas-word of God, NOT the logos-word of God! Romans
10:17....By the words that God gives you, not the Logos, but through the
Bible... For example: “ Gothard gives an
example when he was asking God to give him specific direction about youth work.
He was reading the passage, I believe it was Isaiah 59:19 , when God told him
through this Bible verse, “From the
rising of the sun to the going down... God was saying to me to go to New Zealand
because that's where the sun first rises... And sure enough I get a call from
New Zealand..."
Faithful Heart vs. Fearful Heart
(The title in the booklet, page
28 is A Good and Faithful Heart vs. an
Unbelieving Heart)
Purpose is to claim great exploits for God (Neh. 9:8).
The purpose of
a faithful heart is not to claim great exploits for God, but rather to glorify
God in all
things (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 10:31).
His material
in the booklet is presented differently than what he gave in the seminar. In
the
booklet he
defines a good and faithful heart as “one that consistently carries out the
acts of
faith that
come from the rhemas
of God’s Word. A faithful heart is loyal, trustworthy, and dependable.”
This view of his presents some
challenges to the Bible’s clear teaching.
For one, faithfulness is a required response of belief and obedience
(John 1:12ff; Acts 16:31; 2 Thess. 1:8; 1 Pet. 4:17). It is a commitment to God
(Rom. 4:24; 1 Pet. 1:21) and to His work of redemption through Jesus Christ
(Rom. 3:22, 26; 4:20; 10:9 1Jn 51), which is the
Good News (Mk. 1:15 cp 2 Thess. 1:10).
Secondly, faithfulness may or may not deliver “great exploits for
God.” God’s purposes
might be many, but may not necessarily include great things for Him.
a. Gothard tends to align himself with the camp within modern Christendom
which believes that only those great, dynamic, or miraculous things are signs
of faithfulness and indications of God’s pleasure upon a person or people.
b.
Sometimes faith and faithfulness did result
in miracles (Matt. 17:20f; 1 Cor. 13:2); but sometimes miracles or great things
happened without faith (Matt. 7:22f; John 5:1-9; 1 Cor. 12:9).
c.
This sets up a sense of defeat and guilt if
one were to really accept his view at face value. What if my ministry were
rather mundane, normal, without great accomplishments? What if I were not among
the few through whom God works incredible and mighty things? What if I were -
average? Then, by his definition, I am
not faithful. This is a ludicrous and
unbiblical proposition. I am faithful because it is what God wants me to be. I
leave the great exploits up to Him.
d. Authority – he develops
an unbiblical doctrine of the chain of command. Authority is the “umbrella of
protection.”
e. Heart – claims that
there are twelve different hearts (Minister’s Seminar, 1998).
In the Life Purpose: A Journal of God’s Power in Us, Volume 1, 1990, pp.
9-10, he concludes that the reference to the heart in Proverbs 23:7 is not
“poetic imagery”, but literal. He uses a
1985 newspaper report about how the organ of the heart is an “ ‘intelligent’
organ that communicates regularly with other parts of the anatomy and sometimes
even gives advice to the brain…” Mr.
Gothard then concludes, “Contrary to popular belief, the head is not the only
part of the body that thinks.” With this information, Gothard writes, “Because
God uses the analogy of the head to help us understand the role of the husband,
consider the rich insights of comparing the heart to the functions of the wife
and the responsibilities of the husband for his wife.”
Therefore, the
teacher is able to advance “Proverbs has much to say about the human heart;
therefore, let’s consider how the references to the heart could give us a
greater understanding of dynamic marriage. Keep
thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life (Proverbs
4:23). If we apply this verse to the husband-and-wife relationship it would
instruct the husbands: Guard your wife with all diligence, for out of her are
the issues of life. Realize how many
issues of life come from the wife.” So,
the exhortation is for the husband to guard his wife from “unnecessary
pressure, from corrupting influences, and from damaging discouragement.”
Gothard uses
Proverbs 13:12, “Hope deferred maketh the heart sick:
but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life” to
challenge the husband to carry out his promises to his wife as “quickly as
possible.” He applies Proverbs 12:25,
“Heaviness in the heart of man maketh it stoop: but a
good word maketh it glad” to marriage and
reinterprets it to say, “Heaviness in a man’s wife causes her to be
discouraged, but a good word makes her glad.”
The husband, of course has the duty to affirm or give and encouraging
word to his wife, because it is “amazingly effective in strengthening his
wife.”
He continues
this misinterpretation, “Victory or defeat in the Christian life is determined
in the mind according II Corinthians 10:4-5. For this reason we are to bring
every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. A husband is,
therefore, charged with the responsibility to cleanse his wife by the Word.
‘Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave
himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water
by the word’ (Ephesians 5:25-26). One of the important times that a wife needs
a ‘good word’ is during the birth of a child. A wise husband will read the
Scriptures to his wife until one verse stands out with special meaning. This
verse then becomes the rhema during the birth. Wives
whose husbands have done this have testified that such a rhema
has strengthened them during labor and freed them from the fear and the anxiety
which they would otherwise experience.”
This is a
terrible perversion of Scripture. If we
were to consistently use “heart” as a synonym for the “wife” then Scripture has
some very terrible things to say about the wife. For example:
·
“The intent of a man’s heart
(read: wife) is evil from his youth…”
(Gen. 8:21, NASB)
·
“…Do not look at his appearance or at
the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as a
man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but he Lord looks at the
heart (read: wife).” (1 Sam. 16:7; NASB)
“Deceit is in
the heart (read: wife) of those who devise evil…” (Prov. 12:20, NASB)
f.
Circumcision “means cutting away that which hides
impurity.” This is not the biblical definition. But he uses this definition to
say that one must cleanse his own heart “to remove all your secret impurities.
You must expose all your secrets to God (Jer. 4:4); and God will circumcise
your heart (Deut. 30:6). This is a man-oriented work. Gothard is clearly teaching that man must do
something first before God will do His cleansing work. This is another Gospel.
Gothard
defines it this way: "A circumcised heart means the cutting away that
which hides
impurity. The purpose is to remove all
your secret impurities. You must expose
all your secrets to God (Jer. 4:4); and
God will circumcise your heart (Deut. 30:6)..." Is that the biblical definition of
circumcision? No!
(a) Mr. Gothard
frequently starts with his ethical notions and brings them to bear upon
biblical words. So, for example, he uses his understanding of the necessity of
good moral character and virtuous qualities to define what circumcision means.
(b) Simply put, circumcision is cutting off the foreskin of the male
genital organ for ceremonial, religious, or hygienic reasons.
(c) While practiced by many ancient and modern
cultures, biblically it was a specific sign and seal of the gracious covenant
which God had made with man, particularly with Abraham on behalf of God’s
people (Genesis 17). See also Gen. 17:12; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer.4:4; 9:25,26;
Luke 2:21-24; John 7:22; Acts 15:1; Rom. 2:25; Gal. 2:3; Col. 2:11.
(d) Circumcision
in the Bible speaks to or represents several things:
(1) It was an
initiatory rite for believers and their children (Gen. 17:10-11; Ex. 12:48;
Lev. 12:3), separating them as His people to Himself.
(2) It represented
union and communion with a holy God (Gen. 17:7; Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6)
(3) It represented
genuine biblical repentance (Jer. 4:4; 9:25; Lev. 26:40-41).
(4) It represented
a heart cleansed by God (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Isa. 52:1)
(5) It indicated a
separation from those out side the camp of true Faith (Ex. 12:48).
If Gothard’s definition is
correct, then what shall we do with the circumcision of Jesus
Christ? He had
nothing to hide, and nothing impure to cut away (Psa. 2; 45; 110:1; Isa.
9; 53; Heb. 1.
Compare also John 8:46; Cor. 5:21;
Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John
3:5).
Further, circumcision of the
heart is an act which is done by God. Something which was
required of God’s people to have, but
couldn’t do on their own (Deut. 10:16;
Jer. 4:4). Circumcision of the heart was promised by God as His activity
in the New Covenant (Ex. 36:24-28; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 11:17-20
cp. John 6:45; 1 Jn. 2:27).
a.
It is a gracious work
of God, not our work of exposing hidden things of the heart.
b.
It is impossible to truly circumcise our hearts on our own.
What’s more, it is impossible to expose our secrets to God. God knows all
things, nothing is hidden from Him - not even our secrets (Psa. 44:21). Yet,
our hearts are so depraved that we don’t even know the worst that is within us.
(1) In Psalm 19:12
we see how the Psalmist asks God to cleanse those secret faults and presumptive
sins.
(2) Psalm 90:8
also says that God has revealed our secret sins. They are already and always
exposed. There is nothing hidden from
Him. Yet when we are revealed these sins we are to confess them (Psalm 51 cp. 1
John 1:9).
(3) Ecclesiastes
12:14 demonstrates that God will Himself judge those secret things!
Mr. Gothard’s use of Scripture is
self-serving, inconsistent, and dangerous.
Self-serving because he employs only such Scripture verses as fit his
lesson. Inconsistent because he does not apply his method consistently to all
of Scripture. Dangerous, since the method he employs with Scripture is the same
method cult leaders employ.
a.
For example, he tells us that the
reason for Job’s problems is that he neglected his family.
b.
A similar teaching is that the reason
for god’s first judgment at the flood is because the pre-Noahic
world was filled with people who dated, thus violating God’s principles for
only courting!
c.
He claims that Matthew 6:27,28 proves
that one’s over-emphasis and concern about clothing is a way to conceal or deal
with physical characteristics one does not like.
d.
He has a blasphemous assertion from
Luke 2 that Jesus struggled over
whether He should pursue His calling from God or obey His parents. He implies
that Jesus disobeyed His parents at the age of 12. This is a serious distortion
of the text and a slight against the sinless perfection of the person of Jesus
Christ!
e.
He uses Mark 3:27 to support his
teaching that “Satan wants to bind us with sin and then bring destructive
temptations to those under our spiritual care. We must learn how to use the
Word of God to bind Satan and then rescue those who are taken captive by him.”
(Men’s Manual, Vol. 1, p. 48). If this were so, then God would have
commanded it clearly in His Word. He does not.
f.
From Ephesians 5:26, husbands are told
they must cleanse their wives by the Word. Gothard is taking the work of Christ
and making it the work of man.
He said that daily cleansing comes by
God’s Word (John 15:3; 17:17). But then
he went on
to say that husbands need to cleanse their wives by the Word according to Eph. 5:26.
How do husbands do this? "As we
get specific rhemas
from God then we will be able to
cleanse our wives... I've been asking
God for rhemas for many years... when He
gives a
rhema, success occurs. He is giving
direction. The most (emphasis mine) important thing
for every man is to get rhemas from the Word-logos."[2]
A complete evaluation is warranted on
this point alone. This too is saved for a later paper. Yet a few points will be
made in this regard:
a.
This appears typical of Gothard’s hermeneutical approach. He
would be hard pressed to find a good Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic linguist or
biblical scholar who would support his position.
b.
His supporting text, Ephesians 5:26 is a reference to the
work of Jesus Christ, not the work of the husband. It is the work of Jesus
Christ for His Church that Paul writes about, not the work of the husband for
his wife.
c.
Words have synonyms.
What Gothard does is to take these synonyms and exploit one particular
definition for each of the words in order to create a doctrine. In many
instances in which he springboards teachings off of individual words, these
words are used out of context. For example, Gothard makes many points out of
the synonyms for Law: precept, teaching, statute, etc. Rather than looking upon
each of these terms contextually, with flavorful nuances, and as synonyms, he
sees them as distinguishable terms from which we can derive steps, principles,
or rules for living. He does the same thing by making the two synonyms for
“word” completely independent terms with completely independent doctrines. This
is not a careful use of Scripture.[3]
d.
The terms rhema and logos in the Scriptures are synonymous. To take
them otherwise is to make something out of nothing; which is what he does. The
contexts will bear out the meaning for each. Instead, Gothard reads his
definition into the text.
(1) This leads him
to faulty conclusions.
One such
conclusion is to say that God speaks personally to you through the Bible
by means of rhema, which I
conclude must mean intuitive, spiritual communication
that is
perceived by one’s feelings. [4]
(2) Sadly, this
places him in the company of cult groups who practice the same technique.[5]
e.
A simple reading of the Scripture, let alone any detailed
study, will tell you that Scripture nowhere tells husbands to cleanse their
wives by hearing God tell you what to do and what the wives are to do through
some mystical revelation.
(1) This is
extra-biblical language.
(2) This is an
extra-biblical requirement.
(3) This denudes
the wife’s personal responsibility to learn from the Word of God.
(4) This also sets
up the man with an authority a bit beyond what he is entitled to have. Is the rhema he receives
from the Bible God’s revealed will for the wife? What if that contradicts a most
reasonable or even biblical principle of life? What if that contradicts a rhema she would
receive. Is hers illegitimate? Less authoritative?
(5) What this sets
up is a foundation for spiritual brow beating. I could give testimonials of
this very thing happening; but I won’t.
f.
In addition, what does he mean by cleansing? Is the husband
atoning for his wife? What does it look like? What is the result? How does it
happen? Spiritually? Physically? Morally? Gothard leaves that to assumption.
g.
Allow me again to point out the superlative, most
in “the most important thing for every man is to…” No further comment.
Mr. Gothard at the seminar and in
his booklet, page 6, gives a testimony “from one who did
it.
When the husband tried to ‘cleanse his wife’ by getting her to read
God’s Word, she
reacted
to him. He then began to concentrate on a personal program of memorization and
meditation
on key sections of Scripture.” He then gives the man’s account as to what
happened: “As I began to memorize
and meditate, her countenance began to brighten, her
reactions to situations changed, and
our relationship improved dramatically. She finally
mentioned that she felt freer than
she ever had in her life.” There’s more, but the reader
gets the picture.
So what’s so wrong about this?
Certainly I am glad for the couple, but this is so much magic and
mysticism.
1.
What does he mean that her countenance brightened? How so?
Did his heart’s work in the logos
gain him so much of the rhema
that it overflowed with spiritual ooze
into his wife? If so, then wherein lies her responsibility?
2.
The use of one person’s testimony does not verify anything.
Testimonies do not necessarily prove teachings. The teachings of Scripture
stand on their own merit, proven by other Scriptures. This was merely an
example, not a proof, as implied.
3.
This of course could be countered by other “testimonies” by
those who tried this and it didn’t work. What do you say to those husbands who
do this and such miraculous transformation doesn’t occur? Does this not imply
that he has failed?
Even more
serious, what does this say about the work of Jesus Christ? The fact remains,
Jesus Christ cleanses the spouse, not the husband.
g.
Out of Hebrews 12:17 he exhorted
ministers that “God requires of a pastor to give account of the souls of his
people, so you must see into their hearts!” (Ministers Seminar, 1998).
h.
From Genesis 18:32, II Chronicles 7:14,
and II Thessalonians 2:3 Gothard demonstrates that civilizations are “not
destroyed because of the wickedness of unbelievers, but because of the
carnality of Christians” (Be Alert To Spiritual Danger: Supplementary Alumni
Book, Volume 6, 1980; p. 2). This is not only a terrible distortion of what
those verses teach but contradicts thousands of years of history. For example,
what about the destruction of the Inca and Aztec civilizations? There were not
even any believers in those civilizations!
i.
Galatians 4:2 is used to prove that the
primary responsibility of the parents (is) to provide a Godly home-education for
their sons and daughters – not the State. Children are to be ‘…under tutos and governors until the time appointed of the father’
(not the state).”
j.
Some of the material borders on silly.
Proverbs 6:6-8 advises us to think ahead like an ant and to make proper
provision for the future. The simple illustration and context are very clear.
But why leave it so simple and so easy? From the biblical illustration, Gothard
develops an elaborate 20-point system (with drawings and illustrations) around
ants.28 Men's Manual, Vol. 2, pp. 226-229. - Fisher
k.
From
he develops an oppressive doctrine of the sins of our forefathers, out of which comes a
ridiculous teaching on adoption: Direct Consequences of Our Forefathers' Sins
In one of his alumni booklets, Gothard
states, "We were in Adam and a part of his sin."9 The
imputation of Adam's sin to the human race is stated somewhat differently in
Romans 5. That this has anything to do with the D.N.A.
ladder, as Gothard goes on to state, is debatable. But Gothard's point is the extension of our solidarity with
Adam. This, he believes, indicates that we and our physical children are under
some kind of direct consequence, not just the social or environmental
consequences, of our forefathers' acts of sinning. That being so, according to
Gothard, we must agree with God about their sin and ask Him "to remove its
consequences from us and from our children."
"Exegesis" refers to an
interpretation, which is usually assumed to be on the basis of specific
principles of interpretation (i.e., a specific "hermeneutic").
"Exegete" as a verb means "to interpret;" as a noun it
refers to the person who does the interpreting. -Ed.
To enforce this view, Gothard cites the
story of a 3-year-old girl who "did not want to believe in Jesus"
until the parents realized their need to confess their sins and the sins of
their forefathers. His use of Jeremiah's acknowledgment of the past and present
idolatry of Israel (Jeremiah 14:20) is hardly adequate proof. His use of Exodus
20:5 demonstrates poor exegesis. Here he fails to understand this verse in
context. He makes no attempt to discuss the national consequences of Israel's
idolatry or to exegete the next verse.
Gothard emphasizes sins visited
"upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" and neither
emphasizes nor explains the pregnant phrase, "of them that hate me."
It is also regrettable that he does not properly consider verse 6 "But
showing love to thousands who love me and keep my commandments." His view
is novel and as far as I know cannot be found in any major commentary. Here
Gothard parts company with good men. A quick glance at his materials on adopted
children shows an extension of this error.10 Here he teaches that the new
parents of an adopted child must research the sins of the "biological
parents," confessing them and casting the consequences off the child. He
says: "Causes of Conflicts --
Adopted children are affected by the sins of their natural parents, and these
sins are usually very severe."
"Steps to Resolve Conflicts -- If
the child is too young to understand, pray for the child. Confess your sins and
acknowledge the sins of the natural parents. Ask God to rebuke Satan and free
the child from any unbelief or rebellion from the lives of the parents. Pray in
the name and through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ."
Then he goes on to say that if the
adopted child is old enough, "Explain that just as physical weaknesses are
passed down through parents, so are spiritual weaknesses such as pride, lust
and rejection (see Exodus 20:5)." He then tips his hat to Exodus 20:6 and
Ezekiel 18:20. But if these verses apply, what need is there of the "Step
to Resolve the Conflict" in the first place? No such exorcistic
ritual is ever hinted at anywhere in the Bible. -Fisher
7. A complete
evaluation is warranted on this point alone. This too is saved for a later
paper. Yet a few points
will be made in this regard:
This leads him to faulty conclusions.
One such conclusion is to say that God speaks personally to you through the
Bible by means of rhema,
which I conclude must mean intuitive, spiritual communication
that is
perceived by one’s feelings. [7]
Sadly, this places him in the company
of cult groups who practice the same technique.[8]
a.
Using the now debunked theory of
birth-order personalities Mr. Gothard develops the heretical notion that the
personality of Jesus demonstrates he was a first-born child.
Note his heretical and almost
blasphemous statement that “self-acceptance is the basis for glorifying God and
being conformed to the image of Christ."”(Secrets to Self-Acceptance,
p. 23)
9. Gothard is notorious for taking those things of nature and eisegeting them so as to develop “spiritual principles.” This is so far-fetched and quite dangerous.
It is the same method employed by cults.
10. He believes that the King James Version is the only true
Word of God in the English, though he often uses paraphrased versions to
substantiate various points.
11. Gothard believes in extra-biblical communication from God.
12. He makes dogmatic assertions and therefore rules, some of
which would fall into the category of “things indifferent” (Rom. 14).
All of
Gothard's early materials make plain that he does not believe a divorce can
take place for any reason whatsoever. He avoids the exception clause of Matthew
19:9 by saying Jesus is only speaking of Jewish betrothal. However, the Greek
word mnesteuo
(betrothal) is never mentioned in the chapter or context, only marriage. Tim
Crater exposed Gothard's error in his article, "Bill Gothard's View of the
Exception Clause."3 He exposed serious weaknesses and fallacies in
Gothard's hermeneutical system and shows how Gothard relies on subjective
impressions.
Gothard refers to the "Spirit of
Scripture" and speaks of views as "confirmed by spiritual
discernment," which led Crater to question Gothard's leaning toward
mysticism and subjectivism in interpretation. Crater's conclusion: Gothard goes
beyond Scripture. Jay Adams, in his book, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage,4
further demonstrates why the betrothal or "Engagement Thesis" is
erroneous.
Further confusion has been added by the
publishing of Gothard's Rebuilder's Guide, in which he says, "The
exception clause does refer to illegal marriages such as incest. It may also
refer to immorality during the Jewish betrothal period."5
Gothard appeals to two pages of notes
by Dr. Charles Ryrie for his subsequent inclusion of
the incest statement. Yet, ironically, in the complete set of notes, which runs
17 pages and was issued by the Institute in 1981, Dr. Ryrie
on page 6 dismisses the betrothal view by saying, "Porenia is nowhere else used in
the restricted sense of unchastity during the
betrothal period." He goes on to state his view that incestuous marriages
(forbidden in Lev. 18:6-18) give "the key to understanding ... the Matthean exception clause."6
-Fisher
1. He
gives far too much credit and power to Satan and demons than Scripture does.
There are many things (too many to detail here) which could open up one’s heart
to being demon possessed, oppressed, or influenced. Such as opening the
eye-gate or ear-gates of one’s mind and allowing demonic strongholds to take
over by reading non-Christian philosophies, hearing music with drum beat,
seeing Satanic symbols during Halloween, etc.
In our struggle against evil, we are
dealing with spiritual powers. Therefore we must put on the whole armor or God
and stand against the attacks of the wicked one. ‘For the weapons of warfare
are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong
holds.’ One powerful weapon that every
Christian father has is to pray a daily hedge of protection around each child.
Job did this and Satan complained about its effectiveness against him: ‘Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house,
and about all that he hath on every side…’(Job 1:10).
There are three parts to the prayer for
a hedge:
·
First, ask God to bind and rebuke the power of Satan in the
life of each one in your family. Be mighty through God to pull down his
strongholds. (Mark 3:27)
·
Second, pray in the name and through the blood of the Lord
Jesus Christ. (John 14:13). Christ’s name is Protector, the Good Shepherd that
gives His life for His sheep.
·
Third, claim the Scripture that relate to the kind of
protection that is needed. For example: protection from sin, ‘For sin shall not
have dominion over you…’ (Romans 6:14); protection from discouragement, ‘…I
will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.’ (Hebrews 13:5).
demons, and "praying a hedge of
thorns" around one's estranged spouse (see Rebuilder's
Guide, pp. 115, 119-121, 124). (Gothard also teaches the concept of
"ancestral" demons.) Ed Soboso, a
charismatic "spiritual warfare expert" has also appeared with Gothard
at his seminars.19 A 1992 booklet, Ten Reasons for Alumni to Be Encouraged,
describes a typical demon deliverance ritual now being conducted at various
IBLP meetings.20
Even spiritual warfare guru Neil
Anderson (author of The Bondage Breaker) appeared with Gothard at a 6/94
Homeschooling Training Seminar in Knoxville, Tennessee. Almost without
exception, demonizers are eradicationists.
Through their experience-centered error, the old man is "crucified, dead
and gone--extinct." Hence, it is a simple matter to substitute a demon for
the indwelling old Adamic man. Cast out the demon of
a specific symptom, and the individual is "delivered." (Source: Miles
J. Stanford, 4/97 report, Gothardism: Charismatic
& Covenant.)” Biblical Discernment
Ministries: Bill Gothard, General Teachings and Activities.
g. “Satan wants to
bind us with sin and then bring destructive temptations to those under our
spiritual
care. We must learn how to use the Word of God to bind Satan
and then rescue those who are taken captive by him (Mark 3:27)” p 48, Vol 1 Men’s
Manual
“Satan knows your weaknesses and your
unspoken desires. Based on these, he plants suggestions in your mind. These
suggestions are contrary to Scripture, and if acted upon, will cause you to
sin. ‘…Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.’”
P. 76 Men’s Manual vol 1
“Be a man of spiritual power:
Use the word of God to conquer the
power of Satan in your life and in your family:
1.
realize that
Satan is your constant enemy (1 Peter
5:8)
2.
recognize that
Satan attacks you by planting suggestions in your mind
3.
Learn how to
resist Satan in your mind
4.
Become
skillful in conquering Satan by the Word of God”
Note:
Gothard says that the power of temptation comes from Satan, pages 99-100
of Men’s Vol 1, to overcome Satan, see pages 101-108
(See
his teaching on binding Satan and building a wall of protection on pages 128ff
of Men’s Vol 1)
2. His unbiblical
teaching on adoption is so far removed from Scripture, and yet it is promoted
as dogma (see “Ten Reasons Why Adopted Children Tend to Have More Conflicts,”
IBYC, 1982, pp. 1-2)
3. Chain of
command:
“There
are three ways that you can motivate your family to remain under God-given
authority: First, make sure that you are under God’s authority; second, explain
what happens when anyone gets out from under authority; and third, illustrate
this point through appropriate incidents in your own life, or in the lives of
others.
Witchcraft
is a devastating sin, but God states that the sin of rebellion is just like the
sin of witchcraft (1 Samuel 15:23). Both sins take us out from under God’s
protection and put us under the destructive power of Satan.
God
places every person under authority - the authority of parents, government,
Godly church leaders, and employer. Every human authority, however, is under
the authority of God and the Bible.
As long as we are under God-ordained
authority, Satan cannot get through to us with his destructive temptations. If
we get out from under the protective covering of our authority, however, we
expose ourselves to the realm and the power of Satan’s control” p. 41 Men’s Manuel Vol. 1
Part
and parcel to his whole teaching on chain of command is an over-emphasis upon
the authority of the father. His position is a return to ancient patriarchy and
is a new form of patriarchalism. The problem with his teaching is that it gives
too much authority and power to the father while discounting God’s progressive
changes in redemptive history. That authority structure of Abraham’s day was
modified through the work of Christ and the establishment of His New Covenant
church. Gothard does not make clear the appropriate spheres of family, church,
and state, and their levels of authority.
a. As one of many
examples, Gothard teaches in Training
Faithful Men, Resource Manual, p.71, “How to guard your sons and daughters
from destructive temptations.” The
seventh method is to “Explain God’s umbrella of protection: Your children must understand that as long as
they are under your authority, they are protected from destructive temptation.
However, if they get out from under your authority, they expose themselves to
the realm and power of Satan’s control. (See 1 Samuel 15:23.) this requires
that you have no ‘leaks’ in your umbrella and that you never instruct your
children to do evil.” P. 72
b. “Gothard
teaches that children are to obey parents even when they know God's will is
something different. He teaches that there should be an unquestioning
accountability to the authority of parents, even after the child moves into
adulthood, and even if the parents are unsaved (cf. Psa. 1). This includes the
requirement that both sets of parents consent unanimously in their son's or
daughter's selection of marriage partners, again, even if the parents are both
pagans. Failure to obey this requirement, according to Gothard, will always
lead to future marriage problems (see Rebuilder's
Guide, pp. 78, 110, 154, 224, 235). (He also teaches that women are always to
obey their husbands instead of God in matters of conscience.)” (see Bill Gothard: His Teachings by Biblical Discernment Ministries).
4. Extreme views
on judgment…
“One
who judges will publicly expose those whom he condemns. This may cause others
to condemn him for having the same root problem such as pride, lack of love, or
a critical spirit. (Luke 6:37)” Training
Faithful Men Resource Manual, p.52.
“One who reviles or rails has the basic
objective of exposing one whom he has already judged. (Luke 23:39; Mark
15:29)” p. 54 Training Faithful Men
Resource Manual.
Merry Heart
vs. Discouragement
(Booklet, page 32 entitles this: A Merry Heart vs. a Discouraged Heart).
Purpose: to be joyful to God and to others.
Mr. Gothard summarized this portion of
the seminar with: "Now, what a dynamic thing it would be if your people
had these hearts! God requires of a
pastor to give account of the
souls of his people so you must see into their hearts! This is what they must
have! This is what you must do."
This was perhaps one of the more silly,
yet dangerous statements Gothard made. He began this teaching on the hearts
with a warning that to not understand the necessity for each person to have all twelve hearts would bring failure, he
now warns and exhorts pastors and
leaders that they MUST know the internal hearts of their people.
This is categorically wrong. He himself used to teach that to judge a person’s heart was
wrong. Matthew 7:1ff tells us it is wrong. All we can do at best is discern the
outward words and life of a person and measure that against the standard of the
Scriptures. The implication of Romans 14:1ff is that we have no business to
evaluate, criticize or judge another’s motives or matters of conscience. In
fact, only God has that prerogative, not man (1 Cor. 4:5; Jas. 4:12).
No man can ever judge another person’s
heart . Not even a pastor or spiritual leader. Indeed, of the list of duties
belonging to elders and deacons not one is listed in Scripture that requires
anything resembling what Gothard requires!
The text he uses from Hebrews 12:17 is
distorted to say something it does not. To be sure, those with spiritual
oversight will give account, not for the hearts of their people over whom they
watch, but they will give account for how faithful they were as overseers who
keep watch over their flock; NOT for how
they look into their hearts to make sure they have all twelve hearts!
5. Uses the Old
Testament Law’s Nazarite vow and applies it for
today. That vow was completed by Christ and fulfilled in Him, and is not
applicable for our day.
6. His views on
revival are heavily borrowed from Finney who believed
that revival could be contrived by the proper mechanics or steps.
a.
“Revival occurs when Christians influence the world.” (Applying Basic Principles: Supplementary
Alumni Book, Volume 10, 1984; p. 13).
b.
point 5 of his booklet (on page 17), one is told to “produce
conviction from public
testimonies.” "How do you get revival?” he asks in
his lecture after elaborating a few
points here. He quotes the
famous revivalist Finney and then says “I made
a careful study
about what are those laws
for revival... They worked in Illinois, so I said ‘I'm
gonna try
these same steps in South America. If
I'm right, then revival should start in four days.’ Sure
enough... What was the key? There is one verse (which he doesn't
give) that is the
amazing foundation for revival. It
works! I knew that when I could get five testimonies, one
for each principle (taught in his
basics seminar), then you will have revival. Why you get one
heart broken up and give the
testimonies, for by two or three witnesses a thing is established... then you
will have revival. It happens every time!"
This too could be a subject for a long
analysis. Some have already done so. Clearly
Mr. Gothard presupposes that
revival is a mechanism that if done correctly will produce the
intended effects.
This is classic Finneyism at its best.
There are many psychological,
sociological, but especially biblical problems with this. I will give only a
few:
a.
Such methodology is manipulative. By this I mean he uses a
particular method as a means for achieving an intended result. It is the
technique of sales rallies. There seems to be a dynamic of a crowd which has a
remarkable influence upon the psyche of a person. Many have heard testimonials
that are heart wrenching and moving in multi-level marketing meetings. Sales
and recruitment soar during these meetings. One can also see such effects among Mormon meetings, Oneness Pentecostals, and
even at political rallies. Often in such
cases the end result (increased sales, sign-ups, or conversions) supposedly
prove the legitimacy of those meetings. They don’t.
b.
What this does demonstrate is that a person’s will can be
relaxed or broken during an emotional event. But it also shows that at such
times people are much more open to accepting the presentation of the leader(s).
c.
Can the Holy Spirit make use of such meetings with the Word? Without a doubt. But,
is it true that doing it this way guarantees true biblical revival? Not
necessarily. There is a great danger in presuming too much upon the Lord here,
or giving Him credit for things in which He may not be involved.
7. Emphasis upon
character first rather than upon Christ first.
8. He promotes
his own methodism, claiming that believers can
achieve victory in the Christian life by applying his principles and methods:
Notice it is something the Christian is
supposed to do, as if the Word is used like some magical incantation to help
him in his immediate needs to gain victory.
“How
we yield to God
1. We experience
a Scriptural prompting (e.g., to invite someone for a meal, or to acknowledge
when we are wrong.
2. We visualize
the action required to obey this prompting.
3. We make a
decision to obey the prompting.
4. Our decision
confirms that we are God’s servant.
5. We yield the
members of our body to carry out God’s prompting (we use our mouth to invite
someone for a meal, our hands to prepare it) (Romans 12:1-2).”
Training Faithful Men Resource Manual,
p. 24
·
“How to inspire hope and direction in others by the light in
your eyes” (there are four steps).Ten
Reasons for Alumni to Be Encouraged, p. 3
·
“How to experience instant
(emphasis mine) freedom from fear, anger, and depression.” Ten
Reasons for Alumni to Be Encouraged, p. 8.
A man “asked God to cleanse him from
the sin of immorality through the blood of the Lord
Jesus Christ. Then he tried to ask God
to take back the ‘ground’ he had given to Satan in this
area, but again, the words would not
come through his mouth. Finally after several tries, he
said it, and a new and deeper peace
instantly settled over his whole being. He stood up,
lifted up his eyes, and said, ‘I’m
free! I’m free!’
9. Emphasis upon
saving our nation through morals.
10. He promises
success if you follow his teaching.
11. Claims that
one will only have a merry heart when he achieves all eleven of the other
proper hearts. (What about the fruit of the Spirit?)
12. “What parents
allow in moderation, their children will excuse in excess.” This often-quoted principle has become a
mantra with some of the adherents to the Institute. For some families then, the
tendency is toward a very strict a rigid discipline. The problem is that this is not a universal
principle. For some this may be true, but certainly for others it is not true
at all. To illustrate, what about those
children whose parents drank and smoke, but the children in adulthood rejected
both drinking and smoking altogether?
1. The
belief that reading Scripture to babies in the womb will saturate the
subconscious mind. This is Freud’s invention and is no longer accepted in the
field of clinical psychology.
2. Teaches that
birth order will determine one’s personality. This is a spiritualized
adaptation of psychologist Alfred Adler
(anti-Christian), which has been proven to be without merit.
3. His
application of the pop-psychological view of self-image, which becomes an
important doctrine for living.
4. “In an 8/97
letter from Gothard, he pleads that his teaching cannot possibly be
psychological because he was not trained in psychology nor has he "read
the works of secular or Christian psychologists or psychiatrists."
However, it is not necessary to be trained in psychology to use psychological
ideas. These psychological teachings have thoroughly saturated our society and
the church has absorbed them. Gothard's work shows clear evidence of this
through his teachings on self-acceptance, self-rejection, self-image,
self-love, self-worth, and the need theology teachings of Larry Crabb. Contrary to Gothard's claim, none of this comes from
"studying the Scriptures." (One attendee at a recent "All Day
Ministers' Seminar" in New Jersey reports that pop psychologist Dr. James Dobson was favorably referred to many times by Gothard. In addition,
left-brain/right-brain guru and self-love proponent Gary Smalley
worked for Gothard for ten years.)
Also contradicting Gothard's claim that
he is psychology-free, with all of his teachings firmly rooted in the
Scriptures, is a 1993 booklet published by IBLP titled How to Conquer the
Addiction of Rock Music. One section is titled (pp. 81-85), "How the Rock
Beat Creates an Addiction: Explained by a Psychiatrist." The psychiatrist
is a man by the name of Verle Bell, formerly of the
Freudian-based Minirth-Meier Clinic (Chicago), who
not only runs a psychological counseling "ministry" in the Chicago
area, but has also conducted in-house teaching/training of the IBLP
staff.” Biblical Discernment Ministries
c.
Using the now debunked theory of
birth-order personalities Mr. Gothard develops the heretical notion that the
personality of Jesus demonstrates he was a first-born child.
Note his heretical and almost
blasphemous statement that “self-acceptance is the basis for glorifying God and
being conformed to the image of Christ."”(Secrets to Self-Acceptance,
p. 23)
1. Regarding
adoption
2. Men should not
have facial hair since it is a sign of a lack of humility.
3. Women should
only wear dresses.
4. Restrictions
upon the kind of music one is permitted to listen.
The June 1990 edition of the Bookstore Journal noted that Gothard wanted to
wipe out contemporary Christian music, believing it would undermine parent's
authority and lead to a "life of sin," namely drugs and
immorality.
Gothard launched his
campaign against contemporary musical artists in two published booklets: Notice
of Complaint Against The Unrecognized Enemy of The Church and Contemporary
Christian Music: Ten Reasons Why the Rock Beat is Evil In Any Form. He again
sought to bolster his point of view through a collection of witnesses who
testified to the validity of his position. -Fisher
5. The types of
smiles you should have.
What’s more, in the booklet, Mr.
Gothard again demonstrates for us his awful hermeneutical
approach when he says “A merry heart
produces a bright countenance, especially bright eyes.”[9]
What proof do we have this is true? He quotes Matthew 6:22, “The light of the
body
is the eye…” which of course does not
in any way substantiate this particular teaching. The
point Jesus is not making is that the life of a person comes out of the eye, to be
seen by
others, but that it is “the light-bringer, the guide on which the entire body depends for
illumination and direction. It is because of the eye that a man is able to make
use of the
light.”[10]
How do you get a merry heart? Mr. Gothard
tells us in his booklet:
Understand
the power of a smile. “In a clinical
study, actors were asked to mimic a smile. The effect of the smiles on their
hormonal system was studied. Researchers discovered that even a mimicked smile
produced beneficial results to their immune system. The study suggested that
doctors might be giving out prescriptions for patients to smile so many hours a
day. It certainly affirmed the Scripture ‘A merry heart doeth
good like a medicine…’ (Proverbs 17:22).”
Now,
does this not contradict what he just said? That a “merry heart is a reward of
having
all the previous types of hearts?” [11]
Which is it? You get a merry heart by
obtaining
all twelve hearts or by “understanding
the power of the smile” ?
I
am in favor of smiling. I love to smile and laugh. Quite frankly it is what I wish
more
of his followers would do from the bottoms of their hearts! This teaching is
wrong
because
it promotes a pharisaic life. Just to mimic a smile misses the point of his
previous
teaching and encourages people to do something which might not be in
keeping with
the moment or soul. This can by hypocritical.
Smiling is good, and
sometimes
smiling does help. But there are occasions to frown, to be angry, to agonize,
as well as to
rejoice.” This doctrine of smiling is
quite silly. It encourages the propensity
for people to
produce a smile in order to claim a merry heart, which implies one has
arrived at the
pinnacle, or has obtained all the other hearts.
What’s worse, and there
are occasions
where this has happened, people will judge others as not having the
right hearts
because they aren’t smiling.
Another
problem we have here is his use of “research’ to substantiate his doctrine of
smiling. He
says that this research (which incidentally is not cited), affirms
Scripture (Prov. 17:22). Scripture does not need affirmations, though
it may illustrate what the Bible says.
It gets even more silly:
Know
and use three types of smiles. “The first type of smile is an obedient smile: we smile because God tells us to rejoice in
all things.” Searching the 187 verses,
there were many things about which people rejoiced. The most frequent
exhortation was to rejoice in our Lord. Paul does tell us that we are to
“rejoice always” in 1 Thess. 5:16. But he also tells us that we are to weep
with others who are weeping (1 Cor. 7:30). Rejoicing is appropriate at the
appropriate occasions; but the source of our joy is the Lord. Further, this text does not prove anything
about an “obedient smile”! Here is yet
another example of imposing a teaching or rule upon others which the Scripture
does not do.
“The
second type of smile is a ministry
smile: we are saying to those who look at our
faces,
‘I value you as a person, I am glad to see you, and I want to encourage you.’ “
Well,
that may be true that we are expressing the desire of our hearts to minister to
others
through the expression of a smile. But this is not a Scriptural requirement.
“The
third type of smile is a joyful smile:
we smile because of a merry heart.”
All
such atomistic digression is ludicrous
Learn
joyful songs and sing them to the Lord.
Now this is a great recommendation, yet does it not also contradict what
he said about having all the hearts first to receive the reward of a merry
heart? Still, are not all these steps ways to drum up or contrive a merry
heart?
6. Requirements
for keeping your house in order.
7. Drinking
alcohol is a sin.
8. Should not hug
anyone outside of the family for fear of impropriety, defilement, or arousing
lusts.
9. Must develop a
faithful heart in order to claim great exploits for God.
10. Husbands must
spiritually cleanse their wives
11. You may never
read or study any human philosophies
“What counsel should I give my sons and
daughters if they are ever required to study ‘humanistic’ philosophies, or a
false religion?” Men’s Manual, Vol. 1 pp 130-131
12. Worship
Yet another vivid illustration of
Gothard's authoritarianism is found in his Men's Institute Curriculum, where a
set of notes contains a page titled, "How to Make Your Worship Service a
Source of Scriptural Power." Under the subheading, "God's Order"
is found:
"1. Enter with praise
2. Give sermon first
3. Confirm message with singing
and testimonies
4. Examine self with
Communion
5. Unite in righteous
prayer
6. Conclude with the
offering."20 -Fisher
Men's Institute Curriculum, (Oak
Brook, Ill., Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, 1980), pg. 2.
13. Regulations on
sex:
At his Advanced Seminars in 1983,
Gothard introduced sex regulations based upon Old Testament commands. Under the
session titled "Six Purposes, Principles, and Keys To Fulfillment In The
Marriage Relationship," he told married couples to abstain from physical
relations: 1. During the wife's menstrual cycle; 2. Seven days after the
cycles; 3. 40 days after the birth of a son; 4. 80 days after the birth of a
daughter; and 5. The evening prior to worship.14
This is Scripture twisting, legalism, an imposition of Mosaic ritual and a
clear breach of 1 Corinthians 7:5. It is clear from 2 Corinthians 3:7-18, that
Christians are not only under the New Covenant but that the Old Covenant of
Moses has been abolished. So much of Gothard's teaching is based on an
imposition of Old Testament legalism that flies in the face of Hebrews 8:7-13.
His system is a subtle form and resurgence of the Ebionite
error.15
Some may even find
the sexual guidelines found in his 1986 volume, Research in Principles of Life
Advance Seminar Textbook, intrusive and offensive. What most would feel is
personal and private between a couple and their physician, Gothard spells
out. -Fisher
LACK OF GOOD
HONEST RESEARCH
1. The
materials from IBLP will often quote one or two sources as scientific proof to
substantiate their particular position or teaching. However, in the majority of
cases only a name is given and rarely is an actual study cited. Is this good
acceptable scholarship? In fact this
does not even comport with the biblical principle of having a thing established
by two or more witnesses.
2. One example is
his whole teaching on training embryonic babies. Thus far the scientific
“proof” is inconclusive and would not support his teaching.
1. “We must never
forget that a civilization is not destroyed because of the wickedness of
unbelievers, but because of the carnality of Christians. This is why you are so
important to what happens in our land!” (Be Alert to Spiritual Danger,
Supplementary Alumni Book, Volume 6, 1980; p. 2)
2. “Mare and
more, parents are becoming servants to ‘protective agencies’ of government.
This is God’s judgment on Christian parents for not being alert soon enough to
what is happening in the godless education of their sons and daughters.”
(Ibid., p. 3)
3. “The greatest
force against evil is an alert Christian who is mighty in Spirit and able to
detect and reject Satan’s lie.” (Ibid., p. 14)
4. “The growth of
false cults is a public indictment on the ineffectiveness of Christians.”
(Ibid., p. 14)
5. There is so
much that we as Christians can and must do when wickedness increases. In fact,
God’s judgment on cities and nations is directly related to what Christians do
or fail to do” (Ibid., p. 22).
MR. GOTHARD IS
INCONSISTENT IN WHAT HE TEACHES.
a. On the one
hand, Gothard condemns the reading, let alone the study, of non-Christian
philosophies. Yet, he spends a great deal of time throughout his literature and
seminars quoting and explaining the philosophy of humanism. (for example, see Applying Basic Principles: Supplementary
Alumni Book, Volume 10, 1984)
b.
IMPLIES THAT IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HIS
CONCLUSIONS YOU ARE UNBIBLICALLY WRONG
1. In The
Unexpected Enemy of Justice and Mercy: Supplementary Alumni Book, Volume 8,
1982, he begins by asking, “Can you
identify the enemy of justice and mercy?” Immediately following are six case
studies which asks the reader to answer simply yes or no to a leading
question. In most cases one would need
more information to give a reasonable answer.
Then, on the next page, he writes, “If you answered ‘no’ to any of the
cases, you are siding with the enemy of justice.”
2. He does the
same thing in his previous Volume 6. On the first page after the table of
contents, he asks twenty-four questions. Many of them are straightforward.
Some, however, can be understood in a couple of different ways. Nevertheless,
on page 3 he emphatically writes, “If you marked any statements ‘true’…
YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED!” (emphasis his).
a.
Now, these questions are unclear and misleading. For instance, “Children should be taught what
their personal rights are. True or false?”
Well, is he speaking about personal legal rights or is he talking about
covetousness? He confuses the two, and concludes that the answer is false,
“[t]he emphasis in educating a child should not be on personal rights but on
God-given responsibilities.”
There is no hint about which a parent
should emphasize! Additionally, a child should
be taught what his legal rights are, particularly when they concur with
Scripture. For example, does not a child
have a legal right NOT to be sexually or physically abused? Does a child not
have a right to remain quiet when agents from Child Protective Services
interrogates him without a lawyer present?
1.
A pure Heart
vs. Double Mindedness
Purpose: to be in God’s holy presence (Psalm 24:3-4)
It is not clear how he sees
double-mindedness as the opposite of a pure heart. There are
several antonyms to purity. Only one
issue will be made of this, though more could be said
on his view of purity and holiness.
Gothard’s view of holiness seems similar to the Roman
Catholic view of holiness, or even revivalist C. Finney’s view of holiness.
That is, Christ’s
work is sufficient for your sins, up to a point, but the rest
of the spiritual work is up to you.
In the booklet, on page 7, he writes,
“The ultimate purpose of a pure heart is to be able to
love God and love others without any
mixture of good and evil motives.” Apparently Gothard
believes
one could achieve this perfection this side of heaven. If not, that is what is
implied.
2. How to
Develop a Broken and Contrite Heart is also rather
informative, and sticks to the confines
of Scripture’s clear instruction.[12]
Then, he enters into a discussion on
helping others to have a broken and contrite heart
(also taught on pages 16 -17). He writes,
“[t]he ministry of counseling and preaching is for
the
purpose of helping people break up the ‘fallow ground’ of their heart.
However, as a person listens to sermons week after week, it is very possible
for them to develop a resistance to the truth. In agricultural terms, this
would be a ‘plow pan.’ “
Several steps are given, the first of
which is to “recognize ‘plow pans’ of the heart. The
second is to ‘appeal to the conscience
of the listener.’ Here he tells us, “Information can
appeal to the mind of the person, and
touching stories may appeal to the emotions of a
person; however the Apostle Paul
appealed to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
Appealing to the conscience involves
exposing the hidden sins and secrets within a
person’s life.” Third, you must “get
permission before appealing to their conscience;” after
which you should “prepare precise
questions.” He tells us the “following
questions can be
used to appeal to a person’s
conscience.
·
“Are there things you
have done wrong that your parent’s don’t know about? (As long as you keep
secrets, Satan is given authority in your life. But once you confess and
forsake them, you will be free from Satan’s power.)”
This is a
miserable teaching. God has providential rule and government over all the
world, to
include all unregenerates as well believing
Christians (Psa. 7:12,13; 11:6;
65:2; 103:19;
104:14,21,28; 121:3; 139:16; Matt. 5:45;
6:26; 10:30; Acts 17:6; Rom.
8:28ff; Eph.
1:11) God has given Satan restricted rule over the world (Job
1:12;
2:6; Luke 4:6;
Rev. 17:8-14). Satan has no claim or controlling-power over a person
who is in
Christ.
·
“Can anyone point a
finger at you and say, ‘You have offended me, and you have never tried to make
it right’?”
·
“If I were to ask your parents, would they say that you have
an obedient spirit, or would they say that you have a strong will?”
This is a poor
choice of words. As believers we are to think and speak as biblically
as we can. I
have yet to find in Scripture a pronouncement against merely a
strong will.
Daniel’s will was strong and determined, but it was on the basis of
biblical
principle, as unto the Lord. A strong will can be good. I would suggest that
the term defiant, or other such words of
rebellion be used.
·
“Have you ever stolen things from stores or homes, or have
you ever damaged property and not asked forgiveness or made restitution?”
Are these the only or the best questions
to ask?
3.
In the booklet he has a definition of pride. “There are several operational definitions
of pride,
such as ‘believing that I have achieved
what God and others have done for me’ and
‘building all of life around myself and
refusing to recognize God as God.” He continues on,
but the irony I wish to bring out here
is this:
a.
His system of regimented sanctification encourages the
mentality: “I have achieved or I am achieving what God has done for me.” His steps, secrets, plans, etc. clearly teach
that a person can in his own strength achieve moral character, or virtue, or
holiness, or whatever. There is an impoverished and disproportionate lack of
teaching and emphasis upon the work of Jesus Christ for the sinner and His
on-going work of grace by His Spirit. Frankly, Gothard’s and IBLP’s spirituality effectively produces such pride because
it is unapologetically man centered!
b.
Further, this system has helped to develop contemporary
Pharisees. The observations of many, aside from my own, is that more than some
IBLP folks have a presence which appears meek, but attitudes which breathe
arrogance. We cannot judge these people’s hearts, but we can judge the fruit.
So, for example: families who refuse to
speak or touch others even within their own church because they wish to remain
pure. Or, the condescending comments by girls of boys or boys of girls that
they don’t dress as modestly as they should; or one man’s judgment of another
that because he did not shave his beard he was filled with pride (facial hair
being a sign of pride). Or the condescending look given at a young Christian
family who own a television; and the refusal to socialize or get to know others
even within the church because they might become influenced or contaminated by
them. It is often said that the reason is because they do not wish to give
Satan a stronghold in their lives, so they don’t fellowship with other
believers. Frankly, the list seems endless.
The
attitude often conveyed by IBLP advocates is that they have something others do
not
have, something which brings them closer to God, further from fellow man, some-
thing
which allows them to be more holy or pure, hence better than others.
3.
Circumcise
your own heart
(4) Yet, Gothard
tells us that we can know “how to get a circumcised heart” on page 24 of his
booklet. Again, this is man working to
gain favor with God. Here is what he says:
(a) Make it your goal to worship God in your heart and spirit.
But, one
cannot come, nor does he desire to come to worship unless God
does the
miraculous work of circumcising the heart! He quotes Philippians
3:3[13]
which contradicts his very point. Paul says that believers are already the
circumcision,
not that we come to worship God in order to get a circumcised
heart!
Scripture says that man does not wish to worship God at all, nor come
to God (Gen.
6:5; 8:21; Isa. 2:8; 64:6-8; Jer. 13:10; 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; John
12:40). Even
the prohibition by God against false worship demonstrates man’s
inclination to
worship false gods, and not the true God (Deut. 4:19; 8:19; Psa.
86:9; 81:9)
(b) Ask God to search out secret sins of your heart.
(c) Remember that the Heart is deceitful above all things. “Since we are
prone to be deceived by our own hearts, it is essential that we expose every (emphasis mine) thought and motive to the scrutiny of the
Holy Spirit. For the one who thinks he can trust his own heart, Scripture has a
warning: “(he quotes Proverbs 28:26).
This
is curious. We cannot know the depths of our own hearts and certainly
cannot
even begin to expose our every thought and motive to the scrutiny of
the
Holy Spirit! Every thought? Impossible! Even in terms of the engagement
of our time,
we would spend our every waking moment thinking about our
thoughts.
But what’s
worse, is that Gothard tells us that we must
do this work! No sir.
We are to
confess as the Holy Spirit convicts and convinces us of our sins
(Acts 2:37; 1
John 1:5-10). He is at work in the life of the believer as the ever
constant
Refiner, the One Who convicts and convinces us of our sin by the
ministry of
the Word (Acts 26:18; 1 Cor. 14:24ff, etc.)
Then, Mr. Gothard contradicts himself
by telling us on the one hand to expose
every thought and motives (which come
from the heart) to the Spirit, yet not to
trust our own hearts (which means we
cannot even trust ourselves to expose
our every thought and motive).
4. Steps to having a Perfect heart vs. Lukewarm
heart
(The booklet’s title on page 29 is A Perfect Heart vs. a Whorish Heart)
Purpose:
to show God's power (2 Chron. 16:9)
In his lecture he was not clear by what is
meant to have a perfect heart. Does he mean
perfect in the sense of sinless? Does
he mean perfect in the sense of being without blemish of flaw? Does he mean
perfect in the sense of complete?
Further, how is a perfect heart the opposite of a lukewarm heart?
Yet in the booklet he more clearly
defines for us that it perfect as “complete, whole.” He also clarifies that
“a perfect heart does not mean a heart without flaws or failures.” This is a
good point.
How does one have a perfect heart?
Three ways, we are instructed:
1.
Love God’s law (Psalm 19:7; 1:2-3; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
2.
Realize that a perfect heart is mandated by Scripture (Matt.
5:48; James 1:4; 1 Pet. 5:10; Heb. 13:20-21; 2 Cor. 13:11).
Discover and exercise your spiritual
gift (Eph. 4:12-13; see also vv. 7-16).
[1] I suggest Jay
Adam’s book Update on Christian Counseling, Volume Two, chapter seven
for insight into this problem:
Adams, Jay. Update on Christian Counseling, Volume Two. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Co., 1981). Another good reference is J.I. Packer’s God Has Spoken. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979 ,1993).
[2] Our seminar
teacher informed me in his reply that “On the matter of the husband cleansing
his wife by the Word, you have misinterpreted
what I was referring to and then made
statement about what I believe, which are totally false.” At this juncture I
thought we had hope of a
biblical teaching and clarification. It was
not the point about cleansing one’s wife that were misinterpreted, but “I have
never taught, nor do I
believe that Scripture ‘is perceived by one’s feelings’ as you state I do in point 1-D(1).” More on this later.
[3] The reader should note that our teacher did not comment on this or similarly serious issues in his letter.
[4] Mr. Gothard’s
statement in his letter that he never taught nor believes that Scripture is
perceived by one’s feelings. First, a little quibble about
details: I never said he taught the Scripture can be perceived by feelings. I said that the rhema is the Word perceived by intuition, feelings, (see above). My second letter to him stated, “Then please be more specific about this teaching. If you do not receive a ‘rhema’ by intuition or gut perception or feeling while you are reading or meditating upon the ‘logos,’ then what is it you are doing to receive it? …Just how do you really, definitively know when you are receiving a ‘rhema’ if not by feelings? How do you distinguish the difference between rhema and logos? What do you mean by ‘inspired.’? How can the rhema be inspired and not the logos?”
[5] The teacher’s
retort to this was “you reach the shocking accusation ‘sadly, this places him
in the company of cult groups who practice
the
same
technique.’ If you had heard the message on this point, given by another
speaker, you would have understood that he was not trying to use Scripture to
control his wife, but rather, to cleanse his own life and allow God to work
through him for the spiritual benefit of his wife. Depending upon how wide spread you have made this
critique, I believe you owe the ATI families in your church an apology for
associating them with a cult.” To which
I answered, “As for calling you a cult, I said that this (your method of
biblical interpretation and subsequent teaching) ‘places him in the company of
cult groups who practice the same technique.’ If by this you understood I was
saying you are a cult, then please forgive me. From what I have read, you
endorse the basic essentials of the historic, Christian faith. However, let me
clarify that your method of interpretation
and your dogmatic assertions which you do not place under the scrutiny of the
Church…is cult-like. Cults practice the same method.”
[6] The reader should note that our teacher did not comment on this or similarly serious issues in his letter.
[7] Mr. Gothard’s
statement in his letter that he never taught nor believes that Scripture is
perceived by one’s feelings. First, a little quibble about
details: I never said he taught the Scripture can be perceived by feelings. I said that the rhema is the Word perceived by intuition, feelings, (see above). My second letter to him stated, “Then please be more specific about this teaching. If you do not receive a ‘rhema’ by intuition or gut perception or feeling while you are reading or meditating upon the ‘logos,’ then what is it you are doing to receive it? …Just how do you really, definitively know when you are receiving a ‘rhema’ if not by feelings? How do you distinguish the difference between rhema and logos? What do you mean by ‘inspired.’? How can the rhema be inspired and not the logos?”
[8] The teacher’s
retort to this was “you reach the shocking accusation ‘sadly, this places him
in the company of cult groups who practice
the
same
technique.’ If you had heard the message on this point, given by another
speaker, you would have understood that he was not trying to use Scripture to
control his wife, but rather, to cleanse his own life and allow God to work
through him for the spiritual benefit of his wife. Depending upon how wide spread you have made this
critique, I believe you owe the ATI families in your church an apology for
associating them with a cult.” To which
I answered, “As for calling you a cult, I said that this (your method of
biblical interpretation and subsequent teaching) ‘places him in the company of
cult groups who practice the same technique.’ If by this you understood I was
saying you are a cult, then please forgive me. From what I have read, you
endorse the basic essentials of the historic, Christian faith. However, let me
clarify that your method of
interpretation and your dogmatic assertions which you do not place under
the scrutiny of the Church…is cult-like. Cults practice the same method.”
[9] Page 32. Mr.
Gothard has a teaching about the importance of having a right countenance and
in reading other’s eyes. From what I have
gathered at this point, much of it sounds too mystical, and not unlike the practice of New Age medicine.
[10] Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the
Gospel According to Matthew. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
973, 1995) p. 346. I do not believe any biblical scholar or biblically astute commentator would agree with Mr. Gothard on his interpretation.
[11] Page 32.
[12] For example, some of the things he tells us to consider for
a broken heart is to look into the
mirror of God’s Law (James 1:25), accept
the reproach of enemies (Psalm 69:20,
109:22); live in the fear of God (Proverbs 23:17-18); prepare for participation
at the Lord’s Table
(1 Corinthians 11:29-30). In all there are ten ways.
[13] “ For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”