TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF ...

TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN (MATTHEW 15:9)

by

Ann Marshall

Introduction I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints1 (Jude 3b).

Is Bill Gothard a heretic or a misguided Scripture pretzel- twister? Is he a Gnostic mystic or a New Testament “Mr. Fix-it”? Is he an Evangelical rabbi or heir to Norman Vincent Peale? Could he be called a Catholic, Seventh-day Adventist, and Charismatic syncretist? All are true—save one!

Purpose

This article is a discussion and critique of a most interesting book, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard & the Christian Life, by Don Veinot, Joy Veinot, and Ron Henzel,2 in which the authors sound the alarm concerning the ministry of Bill Gothard.

Of Gothard’s myriad teachings, several are of particular

interest to those of the Dispensational Free-Grace persuasion. We will examine his definition of grace and revelation, as well as his system for Christian living, which he bases on seven non-optional principles at whose zenith is his concept of authority, named “the umbrella of protection.”

It will also be valuable to note his prescription of mosaic laws

and Old Testament customs for the church today, and look into

1 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture citations come from the New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1982). 2 Don Veinot, Joy Veinot and Ron Henzel, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard & the Christian Life (Springfield, MO: 21st Century Press, 2002)

82 CTS Journal 9 (Spring 2003)

Gothard’s hermeneutical method, (unfortunately mostly derived from anecdotal evidence) which is the wellspring of many muddled interpretations. Lastly, we will look at the inner workings of his ministry and how it holds sway over people’s lives.

On my starting this analysis, trepidation crept in: the gravitas of joining a chorus of those pronouncing judgment on a man’s thirty-five-year ministry gave me pause. However, this type of judgment is given scriptural precedent by none other than the giants of the faith—Peter, John, and Paul. Indeed, we must make any ruling on one’s teaching solely based on accuracy of scriptural interpretation, not based on “the heart” of the teacher.

The apostle Luke instructs all believers to be like the Bereans

and hold a teacher’s doctrine up to the light of biblical truth. Correction in love with a view to restoration seeks to stem the tide of trickle-down delusion. One must put aside wariness and understand what is at stake, for large numbers within the church and society have been profoundly influenced. The examination of Gothard’s ministry has wider implications for all believers and teachers: how incorrect doctrine harms people and how to help those who have been hurt.

History of the Ministry

Bill Gothard started the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts (IBYC) in 1964 while attending Wheaton College. Over the years IBYC has branched out by adding various other seminars and ministries.3

3 These include the Basic Youth Conflicts Seminar, the Advanced Seminar, the International Pastors’ Seminar, the Children’s Institute, the Marriage Oneness Seminar, Anger Resolution Seminar, and the Financial Freedom Seminar. Educational ministries were started in 1984 with the Advanced Training Institute (ATI), a widespread home schooling program, that spawned several distance learning degree programs: Excel (for young women), Telos, (AA degree), Verity (degree), and Oak Brook College of Law and Government Policy, (advanced degree). Their community ministries include orphanages that

Teaching For Doctrines The Commandments of Men

83

Although Gothard no longer lectures to overflowing crowds in sports arenas, about forty seminars still take place each month and 20,000 home-schooling families use Advanced Training Institute (ATI) materials. Certainly, few Bible teachers can match Bill Gothard’s sphere of influence with 2.5 million alumni!

The ministry has also reached into the secular area of

business and government with its “self-help” and “character building” principles.4

The Big Red Book

Gothard states:

Since . . . the goal of my teaching is to provide Biblical principles and concepts of life to guide people in their choices. Just as there are laws of nature that govern the universe, so there are principles of life that govern our relationships. The laws of nature force us to respect rules for living. There are similar conflicts in relationships when principles of life are violated. . . . it is important for us to identify and explain the universal and non-optional Biblical principles of life that are the basis for many personal disciplines.5

provide housing, character training and academics headquartered in Indianapolis and Moscow (Russia), the Log Cabin program for troubled youth, Alert (a military-style training for young men), and Character First! (a non-Christian program designed to teach character in public schools and corporations). They also run an Internet access protection business called CharacterLink. His institute is now called Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP). 4 IBLP has established the Indianapolis Training Institute, which houses up to 100 children often sent by the state authorities, and a large convention center and hotel in Michigan called the Riverfront Character Inn. Additionally, the Institute publishes and sells many books, audio- and videotapes. Recently it started Life Study Groups, billed as a non-denominational Bible study program for “the systematic discovery and application of forty-nine commands of the Lord Jesus Christ and their related character qualities.” IBLP, “News and Reports” [article on-line] (accessed 10 October, 2002); available from http://www.lifestudygroups.com/news.asp; Internet. 5 Bill Gothard, “What I Teach” [article on-line] (accessed 20 October 2002); available from http://www.billgothard.com/aboutme/what_teach.php; Internet.

http://www/

http://www.billgothard.com/aboutme/what_teach.php


The following brief paraphrases of the Gothard’s seven principles come from his website. Principle of design: True happiness does not come from circumstances or our outward appearance, but from developing inward character. Principle of authority: All people are under God-ordained authorities (parents, government, the church), whose purpose is to provide protection, direction, instruction and provision. Even if an authority errs, God will give grace to those under authority to grow in character. Principle of responsibility: One should be responsible and not blame others or circumstances for one’s personal wrongdoing. Humbly seek forgiveness when you harm someone, for this maintains a good conscience toward God and others. Principle of suffering: Jesus commanded believers to not only forgive their offenders, but also to rejoice and be exceeding glad when others falsely speak evil against them. By understanding how this principle works, we will experience freedom from bitterness, and the power of love, joy, and peace.

Principle of ownership: This principle instructs us how to go

from the bondage of being a prisoner of our possessions to the freedom of being a steward of God’s resources. Principle of freedom: Scripture warns young people to flee youthful lusts and thereby keep themselves pure. Moral freedom is not the right to do what we want, but the power to do what we ought. Principle of success: True success is achieving the purposes for which God created us. He guarantees success to anyone who will meditate on His Word continually. Our life calling is to glorify God through our relationship with Jesus Christ and to teach others His commandments.6

The Basic Seminar is comprised of a thirty-hour exposition of these principles, printed in a 192-page workbook. Over time, Gothard added two more teaching categories, derived from what

6 Ibid.


85

he counts as 49 desirable character traits that correspond to Jesus’ 49 general commands.7

The teaching contains an intricate system that outlines causes

of problems and their solutions. The material derives from personal anecdotes and many testimonials. Gothard believes that attendees will avoid painful mishaps and blunders if they will follow his step-by-step plan: “These ‘principles’ rather than a relationship with God are the focus of Gothard’s teaching.”8

The Veinots and Henzel

Don and Joy Veinot and Ron Henzel head up Midwest

Christian Outreach, a teaching and counter-cult ministry located near Chicago. They initially received calls about the Institute of Basic Life Principles and started to look into the ministry. Their unease grew as they studied Gothard’s teaching and met with him and his leaders concerning his doctrine and practices (they describe these encounters at length in the book). Gothard’s behavior surprised them: he made contradictory statements, used countless delay tactics, and did not shrink from ad hominem attacks. The Veinots’ and Henzel’s laudable efforts are only the most recent attempts to bring correction.9

The lack of widespread knowledge of Gothard’s actual

teaching despite the hearty recommendations of innumerable pastors and churches, results from his shunning all publicity and from the fact that most of his teaching materials are unavailable to the public.

Bill Gothard insists that correction of his teaching should

follow the procedures laid out in Matthew 18. He seems unaware

7 Ibid. 8 Veinot, Veinot, and Henzel, Basic Principles, 49. 9 Critiques include master’s theses, journal articles, papers and a book: Wilfred Bockelman, Gothard A Man and His Ministry: An Evaluation (Santa Barbara, CA: Quill, 1976).


that the Matthew 18 model deals with disputes between individuals. When a man teaches widely in a sports arena or church hall, he has left the private sphere and his ideas are open to public debate. Besides, should not one who declares his teaching to be scriptural, welcome discussion or possible revision?

Since the IBLP seminars offer no time for feedback or

dialogue, a public forum is the only way to rebut Gothard’s ideas. Technically, however, the Veinots and Henzel followed Matthew 18, because they met several times with Gothard and his staff privately before publication and asked Dr. Norman Geisler to mediate. The authors attended the Basic Seminar as well, to comply with Gothard’s claim that only informed critics would not misrepresent his teaching.

Gothard states that making disputes with his detractors public

would blight the name of Christ. However, even the Bible did not spare any defects of believers or Christian quarrels from open view. Moses’ disobedience, David’s adultery and murder, Jacob’s ‘supplanting,’ Paul’s early persecution of the church and his doctrinal disagreement with Peter are all are shown to the world!

The Veinots’ and Henzel’s Book

At first glance, the book’s endorsements by such respected

men as Earl Radmacher, Ronald B. Allen, Jay Adams, and Samuel J. Schultz, with a foreword by Ron Rhodes, made me eager to start. As a mid-eighties alumna of the Basic Youth Conflicts Seminar, I had almost forgotten its contents, but for a residual memory of a red seminar book, the urging to stay at home under the “parental authority umbrella” until marriage, and a teaching on how problems come from our forefathers’ sins. However, I knew firsthand the seminar’s influence–for because of Gothard’s instruction, several friends home-schooled their children over the next fifteen years.


87

As I reached for the book, I was struck by the cover’s illustration. It depicts a hyper-realistic caricature of Gothard, whose grayed, shiny face in partial shadow stares out from behind a drawn red curtain. The direct piercing look is strangely unsettling and slightly frightening. “Just keeping my eye and ear on you . . .” he seems to say. Upon reflection, the dust jacket foretells much of the content of the book

Prologue

The prologue, based on Norman Geisler’s “How Secular

Humanism Took Over America,”10 explains how a Gothard movement could emerge and why. Some of the hypothesis might be debatable, but the synopsis of American spiritual history is fascinating and worthwhile. The authors’ thesis is that during the turbulent 1960’s (when many of America’s youth rejected mores and institutions) the time was ripe for a teacher who addressed parental fears. Mild-mannered Bill Gothard with his orderly system, red workbook, and biblical answers stepped into the breach.

A Real Citizen Kane

The Veinots and Henzel use well-known movie and book

characters to illustrate their charges. Initially, they liken Gothard to the unscrupulous Charles Foster Kane, whose public persona was that of a great philanthropist and champion of the little man, but who in the end, when caught in his own sin, vehemently attacked everyone else’s honesty and morality. Here, the authors recount a past scandal in IBLP, because of which, 75% of the staff and board left or were fired, and some payoff monies were exchanged.

Ironically, Gothard himself was accountable to no one, and when caught in sin he minimized it, maneuvered out of any consequence, and remained in charge. What he preached he did not

10 Veinot, Veinot, and Henzel, Basic Principles, 17.


practice. It appeared that he was willing to suspend his “principles” when necessary to hold onto power. Additionally, the authors state, “This unwillingness to be confronted biblically – apparent resistance to being under authority and lack of a consistent biblical hermeneutic has given birth to some very strange and harmful teachings.”11

Chinks in the Chain (mail) of Authority

Next the authors invoke the great and powerful Wizard of Oz,

who turned out to be a little man behind a curtain only seeming to have all the answers for Dorothy and her friends. This portion of the book explains the centerpiece of Gothard’s teaching—the authority model. There is insistent coaching ever to be under the “umbrella of protection,” which for wives and children is the husband and father, and for all of us, our church leaders, heads of government, and employers.

The following excerpts from Gothard’s seminar textbook

reveal his hermeneutical method. He claims that there are three purposes for authority: first “to grow in wisdom and character” (Luke 2:41–52); second, “to gain protection from destructive temptations” by “getting under the ‘protection of authority’” because rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft (1 Samuel 15:23), and third, “to realize how God gets His directions to us through those He has placed over us.” Gothard continues:

After the centurion asked Jesus to come and heal his servant, it occurred to him that just as his life was structured around a “chain or responsibility,” so the kingdom in which God operates must have a similar structure of authority. When Jesus realized that he understood this, “Jesus marvelled and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in

11 Ibid., 93.


89

Israel.” (Matthew 8:10) Our faith multiplies as we see how God speaks to us through those He has placed over us.12

Thus, he sandwiches together misconstrued and unrelated

Scriptures to produce a “basic principle” (here the emphasis is on the centurion’s faith, not that he understood the power of Gothard’s “authority principle”).

The Veinots and Henzel quote the following statement of

Gothard’s regarding Luke 2:41–52. He extrapolates that protection and blessing are functions of being under our “umbrella of authority.”

The only recorded incident in the life of Christ between the ages of two and thirty was a discussion with his parents, which involved authority. This occurred when he was twelve. Should he follow His spiritual calling and be about His Father’s business or should he become subject to His parents and leave His ministry at the temple? He did the latter and the following verse reports, ‘And He increased with wisdom and stature, and found favor with God and man.’13

The purpose of this passage was to reveal Jesus’ identity. It

does not imply that He was conflicted over whether to follow God’s plan or to submit to His parents’ authority. Nor does it indicate that because Jesus remained with His parents, He grew in wisdom. The authors state:

If Gothard’s interpretation is correct, Jesus deliberately remained behind in the Temple against what He obviously knew (since He was God) to be his parent’s wishes as His authority. This would mean that even before the boy Jesus had resolved His supposed ‘inner-conflict,’ He had already sinned!14

12 Bill Gothard, Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts: Research in Principles of Life (Oakbrook, IL: IBLP, 1981), 20. 13 Veinot, Veinot, and Henzel, Basic Principles, 102–3. 14 Ibid.


This umbrella of protection could turn out to be an umbrella of license because with such strict admonishment to one’s minions to “obey,” many authority figures turn brutish. What happened to Scripture about those under God’s rule that says, Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all (Mark 10:43–44)?

The chapter ends with an account of the awful experiences of

two couples, found to be “rebellious” by longtime Gothard followers who held leadership positions in their churches. One couple’s troubles started when they innocently questioned why the pastor did not include his salary on the church’s financial report. After several meetings and Matthew 18 proceedings, they were eventually escorted bodily out of the church. The other couple’s crime was to question using ATI materials in their home Bible study. Their church leaders labeled them divisive, slanderous, bitter, and malicious before they were ‘excommunicated.’

Gothard claims that his cause-and-effect system with its

countless rules seeks to protect believers from all error and harm. In reality, it usurps the rightful supremacy of God’s authority in the believer’s life, for we have no less than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit indwelling us!

An Evangelical Talmud

Christians usually use the term ‘legalist’ in reference to anyone who would 1) prescribe keeping the Mosaic Law as a means of eternal salvation, 2) keep the “letter” of the Law without the “spirit,” 3) create a fence of extra-biblical laws around biblical teaching, or 4) impose obsolete Old Testament requirements on New Testament believers. Gothard has said that no one can call him a legalist “because it’s not in the Bible,” but the Veinots and Henzel have done so! By their reckoning, his practices reflect a mania for keeping the letter of his law(s) and both qualifications 3 and 4 apply to his teachings. They state:


91

With all the non-optional principles of life that Gothard’s Basic Seminar Textbook contains, it is a kind of “Evangelical Talmud.” But this does not apply only to the Basic Seminar Textbook. As we work on this book we have literally thousands of pages of IBLP material stacked around us donated by concerned Christians, all filled with lists of ‘principles’ for living the Christian life. How could anyone who reads them avoid drawing the conclusion that the Christian life is one of extremely complicated rule-keeping?15

Over twenty-five years ago Bockelman reached the same

conclusion: A quick glance through the book can be overwhelming. For instance there are headings like these: 6 areas of basic youth conflicts, 8 qualities essential for success, 4 levels of conflict, 3 root problems, 4 basic steps to spiritual maturity, 6 ultimate goals of the seminar ministry, 16 rationalizations hindering a clear conscience, 4 right approaches for gaining a clear conscience, 5 wrong approaches for gaining a clear conscience, 8 cautions for gaining a clear conscience, 6 problems for gaining forgiveness, 4 steps in removing bitterness, 4 steps in yielding personal rights, 3 major sources of irritation, 3 steps in transforming irritation, 6 steps in understanding forgiveness, 6 steps in narrowing the scope of our lives, 5 steps in widening the scope of our influence, 6 visible symptoms of moral conflict, 6 steps of development of lasciviousness, 5 ways of responding incorrectly to guilt, 6 steps to achieve moral freedom, 5 basic steps toward becoming a ‘whole person’, 4 basic principles of the structure of our inner personality, 6 principles of eternal life, 3 principles of life on how to rebuild your thought structures, . . . 8 reasons for fasting, 3 prerequisites for successful dating, 15 scriptures for discerning genuine love. . . .16

This adds up to approximately 227 steps in nearly 200 pages. Being a successful Christian will take some work!

15 Ibid., 123. 16 Bockelman, Gothard the Man, 41–42.


Next the authors look at how different theologies view the role of the Mosaic Law. They deem Gothard a moderate Judaizer because he advocates keeping Old Testament laws and customs for “successful” Christian living, but not as a requirement for eternal salvation. In their epilogue The Veinots and Henzel quote Jerry Bridges, who comments that many declare “permanent bankruptcy” when they become believers, but after seeing some improvement in their lives, “think they are ready to emerge from bankruptcy and begin to pay their own way in the Christian life.”17 The authors continue, “Even when one subscribes to a theological system that acknowledges the need for grace (as Gothard’s does), when one’s approach is simply moralistic (as Gothard’s is), it becomes legalistic. This virtually nullifies the power of grace.”18

Ironically, Gothard uses Galatians 3:24 to defend his position

of the need to be under some segments of the Law: Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. However, the Veinots and Henzel state that 1) he disregards the verb tense, which is past, 2) “to bring us” is not in the text, but stands for the Greek preposition eis, which can have a temporal meaning of “until,” and 3) he leaves out the important following verse, Galatians 3:25, but after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.19

Gothard, too, has some concord with Theonomists for he

“believes that modern civil laws should be based on scripture.”20 He also agrees with Seventh-day Adventists, in that he “strongly promotes the ceremonial requirements of the Law for Christians

17 Veinot, Veinot, and Henzel, Basic Principles, 325. 18 Ibid., 142. 19 Walter Bauer, “eis” “2. Extension in time, to, until, on. a. w.indication of specific time, up to which something continues,” in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed., eds. William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Fredrick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 288. 20 Veinot, Veinot, and Henzel, Basic Principles, 129.


93

today.”21 Additionally, he evidently admires an Adventist writer Dr. S. I. McMillen who advocates keeping Mosaic ceremonial laws for hygiene and health reasons.22

Some of the many practices Gothard promotes for Christians

are circumcision, abstinence, home birthing, home education for children, courtship only with the father’s approval and no dating, no rock music, some types of exorcisms, and fasting. His medical booklets teach that ill health has spiritual causes and that generational curses exist. A tone of mistrust for the medical profession as a whole is clearly detectable.

The Veinots and Henzel state:

To focus on matters of health and hygiene or to interpret Mosaic ceremonies as moral requirements is to lose the prophetic function of those laws as pointing to Christ and risk removing Christ form the core of the Bible. Paul’s teaching, “which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Colossians 2:17; cf. Hebrews 10:1), recedes into the background. Keeping ceremonial requirements becomes the main thing, and one ends up trading the substance for the shadow. To all Christians, especially those who follow Bill Gothard, his teaching on the Law should be quite alarming.23

The authors’ remarks echo Paul’s admonition,

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage . . . You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace . . . For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love (Galatians 5:1, 4, 6).

21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid., 131.


“Christians can’t handle freedom.” Bill Gothard24

Next, the Veinots and Henzel color Gothard’s world

Orwellian, quoting Squealer in Animal Farm, “No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your own decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decision comrades, and then where should we be?”25

A former follower speaks of detailed rules for those who

adhere to Gothard teaching: what time to get up, what to eat, how to dress with colors and styles, what type of facial hair is acceptable for men (no beards), what music to listen to, when to watch TV (never), when to use contraceptives (never), when to have sex with your mate (according to Levitical law), how to clean your house, how to choose toys, how to worship, how to be right with family, how to choose friends, how to court and not date, when to leave home (when you marry), what are the grounds for divorce (none), and on it goes.26 This type of group could be called ‘authoritarian.’

Gothard states that his understanding of Scripture, from

which he forms his teaching, is derived not just from hermeneutical method, but also from ‘rhemas’ given to him personally by the Holy Spirit. Paradoxically though, he allows less autonomy to those who would follow his “principles.”

The Veinots and Henzel state:

The Gospel is about grace, and grace leads to freedom and godliness (Titus 2:11–14). Freedom, in turn, is about choice. Specifically: it is about multiple choices, based on multiple options. It is about enjoying the kind of latitude in decision-making in which more than one choice may often be right, and

24 Ibid., 160–61. 25 Ibid., 197. 26 Ibid., 198-99


95

sometimes even encountering situations in which there are no wrong choices and one may literally do as one pleases. However, true grace produces a truly godly life.27

Ideally, all Christians should be motivated by gratitude for

what God has done and our lives would reflect this in a manner pleasing to Him. But unfortunately, in the words of one who attended Gothard’s seminar, “There seemed to be a lack of teaching on God’s acceptance, or on the spontaneous growth that comes from a loving, accepting relationship. Instead, consequences of principle violations are given as the sole motivation for growth.”28

Again, the Veinots and Henzel write: In the end, Gothard puts the adult children of God back under a legal guardian. There is virtually no area of life in which almost every possible decision is not divided between “right” and “wrong” choices, without any middle ground. You may make a “wrong” choice and not even realize it, but rest assured that Gothard’s God will let you know in some indirect and unpleasant way. For instance, He may bring a financial setback into your life to let you know that you shouldn’t have painted your living room green. You may come down with the flu the week before you were going to leave for college and that could be God’s way of telling you that you shouldn’t go, but should attend Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute instead. Gothard’s God has quite an imagination when it comes to getting your attention, keeping you in line, keeping you terrified of making the wrong decision, and keeping you away from grace and freedom.29

The accounts by Sally, Rachael, Carmen, and Pastor Jones in

this chapter show that something is wrong here, for bad fruit is falling from the IBLP tree. My initial trepidation became exasperation!

27 Ibid., 165. 28 Bockelman, Gothard the Man, 81. 29 Veinot, Veinot, and Henzel, Basic Principles, 166–67.


Hermeneutics

One of the biggest problems with Gothard’s system is the way he misuses Scripture to formulate his teachings. There is a consensus that each scripture has only one interpretation, yet can be applied in various ways for our learning and admonition. However, if Scripture’s meaning becomes of private interpretation, chaos results. This is akin to the ‘relativism’ in our post-modern society, where truth and moral values are not absolute but relative to a person or a group.

In Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible,

James Sire describes two common errors. He states, “The simplest error of reading is the failure to consider the immediate context of the verse or passage in question.”30 Note also Sire’s Misreading No. 5, “When two or more unrelated texts are treated as if they belonged together, we have the fallacy of collapsing contexts.”31 Hereby we have prime opportunity to make Scripture say anything we want it to say.

Although Gothard pays lip service to proper hermeneutics, he

himself does not follow basic guidelines as his handling of Luke 2 shows. He states that when he asked his former Greek professor for the list of rules of hermeneutics, he was told there were only guidelines, but no set of rules. Therefore, Gothard deduced that other factors were involved. He asserts, “Interpretation is an exercise in spiritual discernment rather than just an intellectual pursuit;” “Jesus Himself confirmed that biblical understanding does not come from human reasoning but from spiritual enlightenment” (Matthew 11:25); and, “if a person who wants to interpret Scripture has sinful habits or practices in his life that grieve the Holy Spirit . . . the Holy Spirit will not reveal the truth

30 James W. Sire, Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1980), 52. 31Ibid., 58.


97

of Scripture to such a person.”32 Gothard then adds that Bible scholars “customarily” base their interpretations on the theological systems they have embraced, which is a problem because human error creeps in. Nevertheless, that doctrine is still important, because wrong doctrine leads to wrong behavior. He then launches into a teaching on receiving spiritual understanding (rhemas), which we will discuss in a following section.

Another demonstration of his hermeneutical method appears

in a large chapter on conscience from his Seminar textbook.33 He quotes 1 Peter 3:16 as saying that “having a clear conscience is essential in order to witness.” In other words, the purpose of a clear conscience is that we will have boldness to witness. Actually this passage describes having a good conscience as a result of doing good by publicly witnessing of Christ despite a threatening atmosphere. Gothard continues with illustrative stories without biblical foundation, speculating that having an “unclear” conscience will cause numerous troubles: one will not be able to make friends; family members will not be saved; one will be unable to make wise decisions or overcome temptations (“Satan uses a defiled conscience to defeat a Christian in ever-larger temptations”). He quotes Proverbs 28:13 saying that if a believer does not cover up his sins he will prosper financially (a misreading). Gothard states that one who follows his steps to gain a good conscience will have the reward of Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers; for they will be called children of God.” Literally fifteen pages of do’s and don’ts follow this section on “gaining a clear conscience”: remember past sins and attitudes, list your offenses, and then go to the offended parties. Gothard offers “correct” and “incorrect” wordings to use while confessing, as well as prescribing the proper time and method for seeking forgiveness (he cites Luke 15:17-21 and Ephesians 5:12 to justify not giving “sordid” details when asking for forgiveness). He outlines how to

32 Bill Gothard, “Applying God’s Law” [article on-line] (accessed 1 October 2002); available from http://www.billgothard.com/topics/hermeneutics.php; Internet. 33 Bill Gothard, IBYC:Research in Principles of Life, 48–77.

http://www.billgothard.com/topics/hermeneutics.php


handle exceptions and special circumstances, such as “my parents won’t let me” (Numbers 30:3–5). Thirty-seven pages offer questionable advice formed from his personal opinions, which are apparently viewed and received as if they were God’s Word—perfectly correct and “non-optional.” It would have been better for Gothard’s teaching, if he had asked his Greek teacher to help him with exegeting!

Grace

Gothard’s official doctrinal statement is orthodox. However,

the Veinots and Henzel found his paper titled “Definition of Grace” quite disturbing. In its pages he calls “unmerited favor a faulty definition” and further states, “In the Old Testament, those who found grace possessed qualities that merited God’s favor.” He justifies this by defining “grace as coming from cairw, which means to be ‘cheerful, happy, or well off, to be joyful or to rejoice.’” And that “Caris is defined in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible as ‘the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude, joy and liberality.’”34

The authors claim that while he avoids more authoritative

linguistic references, he also does not quote Strong’s fully or accurately, for he leaves out the further definition of caris as “gift” (unearned, unmerited): its most prominent usage. They continue, “‘Divine influence on the heart’ is but one kind of unmerited favor that comes from God,” and of the “155 times in the New Testament caris is used it is never translated as ‘divine influence’ . . . . When God does give us the power to obey Him, is it because we’ve earned it? Never (Ephesians 2:8-9)! . . . In addition, Gothard’s definition of grace is not supported by A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early

34 Veinot, Veinot, and Henzel, Basic Principles, 144.


99

Christian Literature by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, or any other standard lexicon or dictionary now in use.”35

Further in his paper Gothard defends his assertion that

‘unmerited favor’ is a faulty definition by stating that we do not find “unmerited” in Scripture and that it “encourages lasciviousness when it is applied to the Law. If growth in grace is totally separate from any action on our part, quoting only part of Romans 6:14 (‘for ye are not under the law, but under grace’) gives the false perception that we are to reject the Old Testament because we have a special dispensation of grace.”36

The Veinots and Henzel surmised that this all sounded rather

familiar and searched for a similar theology:

For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life …37

Rhemas

In the area of personal revelation, Gothard’s pronouncements

resemble the Broken Arrow or Salt Lake City schools of theology. The authors quote Gothard’s statement that he “memorizes large portion of Scriptures and prays for the proper understanding” and

35 Ibid, 143–46. 36 Bill Gothard, “Definition of Grace 2000” [article on-line] (accessed 20 September 2002); available from http://billgotharddiscussion.com/grace.htm; Internet. 37 Veinot, Veinot, and Henzel, Basic Principles, 150, quote The Council of Trent, The Sixth Session, CHAPTER XVI On the increase of Justification received.


that he calls this “a personal rhema from God’s word.”38 In defining rhema Bill Gothard uses a misinterpretation by W. E. Vine to mean a private and mystical understanding without hermeneutical basis.39

The following comes from an explanation of ‘rhemas’ on Bill

Gothard’s website:

In the New Testament, the Word of God is generally referred to by the Greek word logos. Jesus is identified as the Living Word (logos). However, there are many references that use the Greek word rhema to define the Word of God. A rhema is a precise direction of Scripture for a particular person or circumstance. When Jesus told Peter to cast his net on the other side of the boat, Peter replied, “Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word [rhema] I will let down the net” (Luke 5:5). Jesus did not tell every one to cast their nets on the other side of the boat—only Peter. It is on the point of the Holy Spirit applying a passage of Scripture to a decision that critics often rise up and claim that this is not acceptable hermeneutics. Their quarrel is not with believers who know in their spirits that God is directing them by the witness of two or three rhemas, but with the Holy Spirit Who confirms the application of rhemas. Jesus used rhemas in overcoming Satan’s temptations, and one of the passages He used affirms rhemas. “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word

38 Ibid., 100. 39 Gothard has stated that his understanding comes from the (last) citation on rhema in Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: “The significance of rhema (as distinct from logos) is exemplified in the injunction to take ‘the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,’ Eph. 6:17; here the reference is not to the whole Bible as such, but to the individual scripture which the Spirit brings to our remembrance for use in time of need, a prerequisite being the regular storing of the mind with Scripture.”


101

[rhema] that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).40

The standard lexicon states that this term refers to “that which

is said, word, saying, expression, or statement of any kind . . .” following after the Hebrew usage “ . . . thing, object, matter, event . . .”41 The word rhema is not used of a personal private revelation from God to a believer, but rather of the Word of God as a whole, the “word which was preached,” the “word of faith,” or simply meaning a “word” or “statement.”

Closing Chapters

The remaining chapters deal with issues such as Gothard’s

dictates on courtship and medicine in much detail. One whole chapter examines IBLP’s dealings with a family who had been involved with the ministry for 30 years. This family donated land and finances to build log cabins for a troubled youth project called Alpena Mountain Home. A series of documented events caused the family to leave the project six years later saddened and disillusioned after their efforts to have the ministry remodel its substandard and dangerous buildings fell on deaf ears. The authors demonstrate that Gothard does not follow his own principles and they recount in full Pastor G. Richard Fisher’s “Bill Gothard’s 21 steps to Conflict Resolution,”42 which would be humorous under other circumstances.

Without flatly stating that this is an abusive group, the

authors make it an operating assumption by the end of the book. The epilogue recaps basic Gothard errors and gives reasons why able people become involved in controlling groups. It describes the

40 “Interpreting Scripture (Hermeneutics)” [Article on-line] found at www.billgothard.com (accessed 10 August 2002); Internet. 41 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed., eds. William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Fredrick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 905. 42 Veinot, Veinot, and Henzel, Basic Principles, 232–34.

http://www.billgothard.com/


dynamics of followers’ conversions and recounts the difficulties of deprogramming after long involvement in the organization.

Summary

What respected fellow teachers, ministers, and board members have encountered over the years is a man who considers himself, his erroneous biblical interpretations, and his methods of dealing with ministry problems above correction. Gothard’s history of refusal to heed correction as recounted in A Matter of Basic Principles, and elsewhere, has led to this public disclosure.

As each chapter examined a particular error, certain universal

truths emerged. Teachers can get off the “truth course” when they bend Scripture to back up their pet doctrines, or worse, use no Scripture at all relying only on subjective evidence. This is precisely how Bill Gothard methodically turned the Bible into nothing more than a rulebook or fix-it manual, and unfortunately succeeded in duping many.

Daily we hear claims that various products cure all sorts of

ailments. Though no scientific evidence is offered, the incentive to buy comes from an enthusiastic “cured” patient—someone just like us. Often a problem clears up by itself, by a placebo effect, or by some other cause of relief. We have caveat emptor with products, but how much more cautious should we be when it comes to the teaching on which we build our beliefs, our lives, and those of our children!

The call for a deeper walk with Christ, becoming more

conformed to His image, appeals to Christians, and this desire has a great drawing influence. As time passes, the power of a group’s agreement on what is right and good causes staying power for a devotee. After people have become invested in the teaching, learned the specialized language, and are comfortable with their “in” status, leaving the group becomes equivalent to leaving God. Fear of making a mistake or appearing a fool also keeps some


103

attached, despite their disgruntlement. A person who grew up in an IBYC/IBLP family describes its allure:

Eventually Gothspeak was so commonplace that it became almost soothing to hear it all again the next year. His gentle voice and intriguing stories gave me a sense of security. He told me what I needed to know about the Bible . . . . I would have followed anything he said. I was in his world.43

“It’s the Seriousness of the Charges . . . “

Historically, heresy means denying an essential of the

Christian faith, such as the humanity or deity of Christ, the Trinity, the Resurrection, or His Second Coming.

Next to that heretical level on a pyramid of misunderstanding

is a level of teaching, which tends to divert from essentials, and could lead to heresy, but is not heresy itself. This description applies to much of Bill Gothard’s doctrine. His legalism and requirements in the realm of ‘doubtful things’ are not exactly heretical. However, believers should avoid his teaching if for no other reason than his view of merited favor for positional sanctification.

Conclusion

Apologetics and discernment ministries have increased their scrutiny of both cults and Christian ministries. Cult-like tendencies in Christian groups have been observed and the idea of ‘authoritarian churches’44 has been exposed. While we should laud

43 “Comments on A Matter of Basic Principles”, August 8, 2002 [article on-line] available at http://www.billgotharddiscussion.com/commentview.htm; Internet (accessed 18 October 2002). 44 “‘Authoritarianism’ is defined as an abuse of the authority given by Christ through . . . the Holy Spirit and revealed in God’s Word which the office holders of the local churches are to exercise.” “When pastors . . . speak with binding authority where God Himself has not spoken in His written Word [and] . . . usurp the Lordship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the lives of God’s people

http://www.billgotharddiscussion.com/commentview.htm


these efforts at doctrinal purity, the negative side is that the criticism can be harsh, nitpicky and sometimes even wrong. Occasionally the air surrounding apologists becomes so rarified that correct scriptural teaching is theirs alone!

Nonetheless, this book is so well documented and thoughtful

that every student of the Word should read it. While sometimes bogging down in small details of the authors’ many interactions with Gothard, the documentation provides solid answers for those who may be skeptical. Their excellent epilogue summarizes the main points of their book and attempts to find an explanation for how intelligent well-meaning people can follow such teaching.

An evaluation of Gothard’s heterodoxy provides a template

for analyzing other ministries, for many behave in similar ways. As we have moved away from creedal church settings, perhaps fueled by legitimate reasons for separation, abuses of doctrine have resulted. Then add to this, the abundance of parachurch ministries, which operate independently from oversight of the local church, and a possible explanation for errancy starts to emerge.

Sometimes pastors and heads of parachurch organizations

have complete autonomy and in practice are accountable to no one. Though absolute power corrupts, over time it leads to the belief that a human leader is infallible. Resultant aberrational pronouncements assume God-like proportions, often delving into areas about which the Bible is silent adding new requirements for living. Sometimes a special lingo develops, which isolates the group and sometimes gives them a super-spiritual complex.

This occurs with full cooperation of those in the pew, who

desire quick fixes or who have succumbed to the lure of elitism.

by deciding the will of God for them where Scripture is silent.” Steve Martin, “Authoritarianism in the Church” Founders Journal Issue 15 Winter 1994 [journal on-line]; available from http://www.founders.org/FJ15/article3.html; Internet; accessed 29 September 2002.

http://www.founders.org/FJ15/article3.html


105

They imperceptibly hand over God’s authority to their leader. Laziness, lack of time, or fear of reprisals has made them unwilling to be Bereans. The sheep and shepherd alike lack faith in God’s desire and ability to keep them in the paths of truth and righteousness. The leader’s increase in power alienates him from his flock. What perhaps started as heartfelt concern for them turns to indifference. 1 Timothy 4:16 teaches us to watch for these troublesome signs and to warn others when we see them.

Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save45 both yourself and those who hear you.

—End—

Ann Marshall earned a B.F.A. degree from the University of New Mexico and a M.B.S from Chafer Theological Seminary. Ann has been active in women’s ministries, and has taught at Grace Chapel women’s retreats. She has also been involved in hospital visitation, AIDS outreach, and street ministry for the past 14 years. Her email address is [email protected]

45 Timothy already possessed eternal life. Salvation here refers to deliverance from unsound doctrine and its practices.

TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF ...

Documents

Transcript of TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF ...