The Apostle Paul always seemed to know his audience. In writing to the Galatians, he challenged the way in which they were over-selling the law and under-selling the Gospel — a move that paved the way for rampant legalism. Meanwhile in Corinth, Paul was faced with the other end of the spectrum, an under-appreciation for the law that led to outright antinomianism and licentiousness. Yet at both ends of the spectrum, whether Paul is calling the Galatians to true faith or the Corinthians to true obedience, he finds the same point to be essential:

Paul was focusing his readers beyond the externals and religious rites to the heart of the gospel: a faith in Christ resulting in a new creation (Galatians 6:15, 2 Corinthians 5:17). The issue at hand was circumcision, and Paul and the rest of the early church bore out this adiaphora understanding in their actions. Paul saw no need to circumcise the Greek Titus (Galatians 2:3) despite his conversion. And when the early church gathered for its first church council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) — with this topic as the main agenda — their conclusion was clearly that the sign of circumcision as a Christian ‘rite of passage’ would place an unnecessary burden on the new Greek believers.

I am grateful that Mr. Gothard has taken the time on his web site to clarify his position on circumcision. There he states, “Circumcision is certainly not required for salvation or for achieving righteousness as a believer.”[1] However, the Institute of Basic Life Principles (IBLP) printed materials still draw a moral line in the sand for believers, stating that “The attack against circumcision in the United States coincided with the revolt against authority and morality in the 1960’s” and that “the term uncircumcised is synonymous with immoral men.”[2] These materials also conclude that “uncircumcised men have been more promiscuous than circumcised men,” and that even today there is a strong link between circumcision and moral purity.[3] The conclusion, in no uncertain terms, is that “Because this is one subject which is so strongly commanded and reinforced in Scripture, there is no question what the decision of Christian parents should be on the matter.”[4] A suggested ceremony, and a certificate suitable for framing, are included in the materials.

In the end, the issue isn’t ‘to circumcise or not to circumcise.’ I raise the topic of circumcision to address a broader, more methodological issue — namely, the general tendency of IBLP’s system of doctrine to ‘add unnecessary burdens’ to believers. Over the years, both in print and verbally at IBLP seminars and ATI conferences, Gothard has made dogmatic moral assertions into every conceivable realm of life. A true believer will rid their homes of idolatrous Cabbage Patch Kids which, by enacting a written agreement to love a doll, violates the First Commandment.[5] A true believer will not listen to music that places a downbeat accent on beats 2 and 4; it is “the antithesis of what God desires in the life of a Christian.”[6] A godly heart will not only avoid movie theaters, but is duty-bound to confront those who visit these “places of worldly amusement.”[7] IBLP and ATI attendees are instructed on the proper moral length of men’s hair, the anathema of blue jeans or skirts with slits, and the dangers of frivolous conversation with the opposite sex.

Much could be said about these and other regulations, and I will leave it to others to delve deeper. But the tragedy of these restrictions is that they create an alternate trajectory for spirituality. Like the Judaizers who taught the Galatians “after beginning with the spirit” to continue their Christian walks “by human effort” (Galatians 3:3), these extra-biblical moral restrictions for holy living replace the power of the gospel for the same goal. Paul states it directly to the Colossians, in a verse extremely relevant to the topic of ‘Basic Principles’: “Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” (Colossians 2:20-23)

“For in Jesus Christ neither long hair nor short hair, neither rock nor Bach, neither penny-loafer nor flip-flop, has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” Piling up a list of extra-biblical rules, with the inference that serious believers will be wise to follow them, replaces the burden Christ has lifted with an entirely new burden, that of moral conformity to earn the smile of God. Sanctification becomes a list of human-effort do’s-and-don’ts rather than — first and foremost — an encounter with a lavish savior and a friend of sinners, in whom I am already at the pinnacle of God’s acceptance.

Stated in the positive, the same gospel that justifies also sanctifies. In other words, putting our faith in the death and resurrection of Christ isn’t just the intro-level prerequisite course that gets our foot in the door, so that we can graduate to the advanced classes. Our growing maturity in the Christian faith doesn’t play by a different set of rules. The new birth and the new life are both gospel-driven. In practical terms, this means that every morning I live my life in Christ by placing my trust, all over again, in the amazing grace of my faithful Lord. This reminder is not meant to be an indictment on Bill Gothard; it is meant to be a challenge to my own heart, which so often forgets that the goal of my life is not to impress God with my obedience, but to rest each moment in the completed work of Christ.

I believe that the IBLP movement is a well-intended movement, and that Mr. Gothard has been motivated in his teachings by a desire to help others in living out the Christian life. But amazingly, Paul tolerated bad motives (see Philippians 1:15-18) if the gospel was kept pure. The converse was not true. His concern was that the beauty of gospel freedom not be maligned by adding anything to it. It needs no sequels.

The gospel that saves and the gospel that sanctifies have the same formula: Jesus plus nothing. The many regulations of the IBLP materials may have “an appearance of wisdom” but ultimately they “lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence” and gloss over the stunning acceptance that is already ours in Christ by faith. The good news is far better than we imagine.