Anyone who has spent significant time under Bill Gothard’s teachings can tell you that he likes to use analogies to illustrate his points. While there is nothing wrong with analogies per se, they are a terrible basis upon which to build doctrine. Why? What happens when you come across two analogies that advocate opposite conclusions?

Mr. Gothard likes to use an analogy from John 10 that sheep know the voice of the Good Shepherd and follow Him, but that they will not follow a stranger because they don’t know the stranger’s voice. He makes a further point of noting that John doesn’t say “words” here. Rather, the author chooses to use the word “voice.” Then Mr. Gothard concludes that “rock music is the voice of a stranger.” Good analogy?

I remember reading an opposite analogy by Neil Anderson once. He said that it is important that we not be constrained by our traditions as we minister, because the working of God is like new wine, and we don’t want to put new wine in old wine skins. (See Matthew 9) Followed to a logical conclusion, this analogy would impact everything from how we dress when we go to church, to whether we have Sunday school, to the type of music we use in worship.

So how do you know which analogy is correct? The short answer is that you don’t. You can conclude that the writer is bitter, or that the writer doesn’t want to limit his freedom, or that he has given ground to Satan. But if you want to be intellectually honest, you must concede that we just don’t know. And when I reached that point, I had to conclude that this is an area that really is just someone’s opinion as to the correct analogy.

Mr. Gothard also likes to use anecdotes to illustrate his points. I remember a lot of them vividly because that’s the part of his seminars I enjoyed most. I specifically remember an anecdotal account about someone placing a raw egg near speakers and that raw egg became hard boiled “by the rock beat.”Another anecdote involved some African nationals who were visiting a church in the United States. Upon hearing music with a back beat, they asked, “why are you using music to call up the spirits?”

I remember recoiling in horror when I heard such anecdotes. After all, I didn’t want to hard-boil my brain, and I certainly didn’t want to be in a church service sitting next to a demon.

In legal speak, we would refer to the above two anecdotes as totem pole hearsay, or hearsay upon hearsay. In court, hearsay is an out-of-court statement that one tries to introduce into evidence to prove the truth of that statement and generally is inadmissible. Why? Because there is no opportunity to cross-examine the speaker of the statement.

So, with respect to the egg, was it the rock beat that hard-boiled the egg? Or was it sound waves from an amplifier? Was it the heat from stage lights? What sort of scientific experiments have been conducted to demonstrate that an egg will hard boil when exposed to the rock beat? What were the variables under which those experiments were conducted? Is this story simply an urban legend?

Similarly, who were these African nationals? What was the song? What type of beat was it? Was it a hard rock song or a soft rock song? Was their comment triggered by emphasis on beats 2 and 4? Or was it triggered by the loudness? What was the religious background of these speakers? Were they already convinced because of denominational preference that rock music was evil?

My suspicion is that Mr. Gothard does not know the answer to any of these questions, and that, in all probability, he simply heard these testimonials from someone else and presented them as truth. There is also the issue of whether Mr. Gothard was correctly relaying what he heard. As anyone who has ever played the game “Telephone” will tell you, if you whisper in someone’s ear and they whisper in the next person’s ear and so on, seldom will the person at the end of the line repeat exactly what was said by the first listener.

Then there are the other “proofs” that I would call random statements. For example, Mr. Gothard states that “rock music” is an oxymoron because the term “rock & roll” is a euphemism for immorality. In reality, however, the term was a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Biblically speaking, sexual intercourse would be immoral if engaged in between persons who weren’t married to one another, but sexual intercourse between a husband and wife isn’t biblically immoral.

In spite of all of this, one may still say, “I don’t like Christian rock music.” And that’s perfectly fine. There’s plenty of room for individual preferences. (I personally hate Chipotle and my wife would eat it every day if she could.) But there is a huge difference between personally disliking something and building an entire doctrine around it that necessitates “drawing a line in the sand” (to use Mr. Gothard’s words shortly before he published his book How to Break the Addiction to Rock Music).