One of our goals at Recovering Grace is to shine light on specific logical fallacies found within the teachings of Bill Gothard and the Institute in Basic Life Principles. This article discusses a section of IBLP’s booklet entitled “Seventeen Basic Commitments.”
Click for Full Size Version
One the foundational tenets of Bill Gothard’s teachings is the idea that one’s level of spiritual maturity is directly connected to the number of commitments one makes to God. On the website description of the IBLP publication “Seventeen Basic Commitments” is found this statement: “Spiritual maturity is related to the number of Scriptural commitments that we make and apply to our lives.” While spiritual commitments are at some level important to one’s Christian walk, to equate them to spiritual maturity is at best unbiblical, and at worst enslaving.
Bill Gothard’s primary method of convincing people to make certain commitments to God is to tell them what will happen if they don’t make the commitments or hold to certain standards. Often this comes in the form of an anecdote in which a prodigal young person experiences some sort of personal tragedy simply because they did not make such and such commitment.
On the last page of “Seventeen Basic Commitments” is found another approach. Under the heading “Consequences that have already occurred if a son or daughter listens to Christian music that sounds like that of the world,” are statements describing six supposed “consequences.” These statements are worded in such a way that parents will believe that their children are on the road to moral depravity if they as parents do NOT make a commitment to keep the home free of all rock music.
I would like to briefly walk through this page and highlight the numerous logical and spiritual fallacies found within it. However, lest I assume that all of my readers are aware of Bill Gothard’s stance on music, let me begin with a brief overview of his beliefs.
In a nutshell, Bill Gothard believes that music contains inherent morality, and that all rock music carries the same evil/demonic messages. Bill Gothard teaches that certain musical sounds are inherently evil, specifically the “rock beat.” In other words, he literally believes that a certain combination of frequencies is evil. And because he is so hyper-focused on the evils of the “rock beat,” Bill will attack the work of Christian music artists while endorsing and even selling music by classical musicians who were neither Christians nor intending Christian messages through their music.
The fallacy here is that while music certainly CAN communicate ideas and thoughts that are evil, the sounds themselves are not evil. Saying that a particular beat is inherently evil would be the literary equivalent of saying that certain forms of paper and ink used to read and write wicked things are evil. Beats, timbres, and frequencies are simply the tools used to communicate meanings, not the meanings themselves.
It is also worth noting that none of the Scriptures used to support Gothard’s stance on music are used in context. In fact, if you take a look at the page under discussion, you will notice that Bill literally inserts the words music and wordly music into biblical passages that have absolutely nothing to do with music. Although one of the passages presents a principle that can be applied to music choices (1 John 2:15), the other eight Scriptures quoted require huge exegetical leaps to become even remotely applicable.
Now, with this background in mind, let’s walk through Gothard’s six “Consequences.”
Consequence #1: They [students] have already dulled the sensitivity of their consciences. (Music is a form of worship.)
The Truth: This is circular reasoning. This consequence requires the assumption that rock music is sinful. However, if one were to believe that the music is not sinful, then their consciences are apparently dulled. It is a closed logical loop. Gothard leaves no room for the possibility that rock music is not sinful, and no room for a student to come to that personal conviction for their life.
Also, the statement that “music is a form of worship” is absolutely false. Music is a not a form of worship. It is a tool of worship. Not all music is worship, and not all worship is music. Music is simply one of the ways in which we CAN worship God.
Consequence #2: They [students] are already “in tune” with the spirit of this world. (This is demonstrated by the law of sympathetic vibration.)
The Truth: This is also circular reasoning very much like the first “consequence.” There is no room for a person to believe that rock music is acceptable without being accused of being in tune with the world.
The use of sympathetic vibration as a proof for this truth is absolutely laughable from a scientific viewpoint. Sympathetic vibration, technically known as sympathetic resonance, is an acoustic phenomenon in which an item sharing harmonic similarities with another object vibrates when the other object is set into motion. [Note: To witness an example of this, hold down (without sounding) the key of middle C on the piano. While holding this key down, strike and release a C lower on the piano. You will hear the lower C and the middle C both sounding long after it is released because of the sympathetic vibrations in the strings.] The use of sympathetic vibration as proof for this “consequence” is ludicrous, (a) because it is a natural phenomenon and not a spiritual one, and (b) it is a harmonic phenomenon and not a rhythmic one.
Consequence #3: They have already accepted the goal of the false religion of “Do your own thing; satisfy yourself.”
The Truth: While much popular music specifically states this goal, Christian music typically carries messages that are exactly the opposite. Again, Gothard is assuming that the beat itself carries the evil message. Also, there are strong undertones of the belief that if something is enjoyable, it must somehow be wrong.
Consequence #4: They have already greatly increased their vulnerability to exploitation by the world. (Wrong music comes with rebellion, drugs, and immorality.)
The Truth: This is what is known as a “slippery-slope fallacy.” By connecting rock music with rebellion, drugs, and immorality, Gothard implants the idea that once one listens to rock music, they have no choice then but to proceed into these other “greater” forms of sin. From personal experience, I can say that this argument is absolutely paralyzing for many ATI students. The fear of sliding into immorality is enough to keep them from listening to anything with a rock beat. I can also say from personal experience that this “consequence” is an absolute lie. The rock beat does NOT lead to these things by default.
Consequence #5: They have already made their music more important than the sacrificial suffering of Christ (by causing weaker Christians to stumble, especially those who have come out of the “rock culture.”)
The Truth: This is a spiritual guilt trip. Gothard is insinuating that by listening to music with a beat, one believer can cause another to fall back into a sinful lifestyle. While the Bible teaches that we can do things that cause another brother to “stumble,” simply listening to one’s choice of music (especially in private) is not going to make this happen. Ironically, the passage used (Romans 14) to prove Gothard’s point on this issue is actually about the liberty we as Christians have in our walk with Christ, not about standards.
Consequence #6: They have already chosen to admire ungodly “heroes.” (“The greatest form of admiration is imitation.”)
The Truth: Gothard is assuming that the musicians the young people are listening to are “ungodly” simply because he believes their music to be “ungodly.” He is also assuming that the person listening to the music admires the lifestyle of the musician in addition to the music. By this logic, one should never seek to compose like Beethoven or sing like Pavarotti, both of whom lived lives that were not God-honoring.
As you can see, Gothard’s teachings on the subject of music are grounded in a circular system of reasoning that is neither biblical nor logical. He gets people to buy into this system through fear created by fallacious “consequences” that do not exist. Even worse, he twists Scripture to support this system of thinking, creating the impression that to ignore these “truths” is to go against God. My prayer is that those in bondage to such lies will see the truth and find the freedom that comes when grace is the motivating factor in one’s life as opposed to phony, man-made “consequences.”
Thank you for posting this. My family bought into the entire Bill Gothard philosophy on music. However, once I realized that these teachings were completely false, I experienced the most meaningful and intimate worship of my life with contemporary Christian music. I have actually had to work at forgiving my parents for subjecting me to the false teachings of Bill Gothard, because I know how many years I spent trying to force myself to like "holy" music.
I hope that this will help anyone who still believes Bill Gothard's teachings, and will help set them free from the oppression of his lies.
I too had the same experience. I was literally in anxiety listing to Contemporary Christian Music. I was told it was worse than regular Rock music. However, He reigns By the Newsboys moved me to my knees on my kitchen floor in total worship. I have been brought to tears in adoration to my Savior and King, all the while this would be sneared at by BG. Honestly, I think demons are behind the teaching it is bad because Satan hates it when people worship God in Spirit and in Truth.
This was excellent. Thank you for breaking it down so carefully. I do have questions. How does ATI describe the rock beat, is it a catch-all phrase? Would This include country music, big band music, or reggae?
I am so thankful for this site. I have learned much and it helps me to understand some of the Gothardites that are and have been part of our christian sphere. They have been so very hard on my daughter as she has been growing up. They also caused quite a bit of confusion in her walk. It is still a work in progress to forgive for both of us.
Lisa, the "rock beat" is all that Bill Gothard talks about. Once a student makes the commitment to avoid "worldly music," you're encouraged/expected to replace that music with classical music & hymns, so by virtue of elimination you wouldn't be listening to country, big band, reggae, praise choruses, or anything else. And yes, there are lots of "gray areas" and it is VERY embarrassing when you're in a restaurant and your parents ask the waiter to turn the music down...... or when you walk out of a church service mid-song...... or when you can't enjoy *any* public event because there's rock music playing and it "grieves" your spirit......
BTW, the "rock beat" is taught as being music with the accent on the 2nd & 4th beats of a measure, not 1st & 3rd. So I guess technically if you could find a rock/country/whatever song with the emphasis on the 1st & 3rd beats, then it would be okay...... but that's tongue-in-cheek because by even finding that loophole I'm proving that I have a questioning/rebellious spirit. :-)
Elizabeth said: "Once a student makes the commitment to avoid "worldly music," you're encouraged/expected to replace that music with classical music & hymns"
>>>>>>>>>
Bill Gothard fails to concern himself with the lifestyles of Classical composers. Tchaikovsky was a homosexual. Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin had quite a few problems.
Some hymn tunes are old drinking song if memory serves me.
yes! Some killed themselves as well.
FWD, I can name several others:
Mozart loved dirty jokes.
Beethoven was an alcoholic.
Schubert caught syphilis from a prostitute in 1822, which ultimately took his life in 1828 at only 31 years of age.
Wagner was a noted anti-Semite. In fact, Hitler's favorite composer was Wagner, which has forevermore tainted Wagner's reputation.
Brahms was an atheist.
Tchaikovsky, like you said, was a homosexual. So was Aaron Copland and so is Ned Rorem.
Technically, he says that the first beat should have the strongest emphasis, and the third the next strongest emphasis. If the emphasis is otherwise, it is evil. He defines rock music as music with the emphasis on the second and fourth beats.
Many people don't know enough about music to count the beats and figure out which one the emphasis is on. So they avoid anything which causes them to want to tap their foot, etc. Back when I still thought rock music was evil, I would carefully listen to the rhythm of every song, count the beats and check to make sure the emphasis was on the right beats. But when I explained it to people who didn't know the technicalities of music, they said that was ridiculous. If it was evil, it would be something anyone could figure out, not just people who have studied music. They had a good point.
Lisa, while I personally didn't grow up in an ATI home (praise God!), I had a part-time job as a church organist when I was in graduate school in my late 20's -- and in that church was a hardcore ATI family. At first, I admired their dedication to the Lord. But they started acting cold and aloof toward me after a few months and instructed their daughters to avoid me.
And then, as church was letting out a week or two after a special I did, which was a southern gospel song, the father of that family just LET ME HAVE IT! After a verbal lashing-out from him, I RAN from there in tears and got in the car crying and wondering what I had done wrong, and begged the Lord for His forgiveness.
The very next day I wrote a letter to the pastor telling him I was sorry for what I had done (still thinking I was in the wrong) and was resigning. I got a call from him the following Sunday afternoon saying that he read my letter and he was absolutely SICK at what he had read, and that he was NOT accepting my resignation and wanted me back at church the following Sunday.
Even so, I went online to study the issue, and even though I've never been to an ATI/IBLP conference (and now that I know what I do now, I NEVER will!), I still found what such people had to say hard to believe about CCM...but I went ahead and avoided it as much as possible, thinking that maybe there really was something wrong with it, although I never was really entirely convinced, not having grown up in such an environment.
Several years later, I found material online that refuted the idea that CCM was somehow evil, which was a relief to see. However, I had already gotten to where, oddly enough, I enjoyed classical and hymns and such, so this didn't make me go back it.
However, after reading on here about the things that Bill Gothard has been accused of, that whole brouhaha reminds me all the world of what Jesus said in Matthew 7:3-5. Given how Bill has carrying on like he has been with ladies young enough to be his granddaughters and has the nerve to call CCM evil smacks of hypocrisy. Therefore, now that I've seen those teachings for not just the lie but the HYPOCRISY that they are, I'm now listening to CCM again after not having anything to do with it over the past 20 years.
Unfortunately it's not just Bill Gothard. Ever heard of Larry Norman, the christian musician whose records were sold under the counter in some christian bookstores and you had to leave with it in a paper bag? At least some folks are willing to admit to me it's just not their taste in music. I'd just wish they would learn to be flexible. What I am willing to admit to is the vast majority of Christian musicans are just in it for the money, regardless of musical style.
Wow, that seems a bit harsh...
Andrew,
Your comment seems very judgemental. How can you possibly know their heart? The truth of the matter is that we all need to earn money to make it in this world. The Bible even commands us to work if we want to eat. I don't see that there is anything wrong with making money by being a Christian musican. Does that mean they don't love the Lord? Of course not. I think it is an added blessing when you get to earn money by doing something God that God has gifted you with and that you enjoy.
Great article John! May God use it to set other's free.
Tammy
Sorry if I sound judgmental but I am stating historical fact in regards to the late Larry Norman and how a good portion of the church reacted to the pioneer of Christian rock. My parents used to go to all-night gospels sings back in the sixties and my parents told me everyone knew that these gospel singers where in it for the money with some of this artists getting caught having smuggled their records into the country. Yes some artists are truly trying to praise and serve the Lord. Of course they do need to support themselves and need to raise funds. A Christian heavy metal band called The Daniel Band actually held regular jobs and at their 2nd album release concert gave away free copies. The major temptation full time artists can fall into is the money. And christian artists can have problems with groupies and drugs, incidents which are known in Contemporary Christian Music. Elvis Presley sang hymns, probably not a Christian yet some Christians liked his recording so they bought the record.
In Short when it comes to Christianity and music I am a realist and look forward to eternity where the music will be way way better then what I have to endure in my church(because my tastes are in the minority and the special music REALLY needs to practise A LOT More, if you heard it I think you would agree).
Andrew,
I think you could make that claim about anyone in the Christian arena - writer, speaker, etc. Shoot, even Bill Gothard, Rick Warren, John MacArthur and Billy Graham don't have a day jobs.
No doubt there are some Christian artists that are in it for the wrong reasons, but I think it's presumptuous to state that the vast majority of them are (unless of course you've met the vast majority of them and either they've admitted that to you, or you've seen clear and convincing evidence to that point).
RyanR
Not necessarily. Fulltime ministers aren't as problematic when it comes to sincerity, It is well understood that some fulltime ministers become seriously misguided(like Bill Gothard) while others get accused of being heretical(C.Peter Wagner). However fulltime ministry is biblical with passages like receiving a double portion being correctly used to justify salary. BUT we must remember the great commission was for missionaries/preachers/teachers not musicans. It can be said the late Keith Green was genuine in his ministry, I have read some of his teachings and he was known to interupt his own concerts to preach. But when you listen to Christian cross over bands on secular radio to their lyrics you really have to wonder. Or when you see them carved up with tattoos you have to wonder.(I have a real theological problem with tattoos to be clear but have none myself). A personal favourite band of mine, Jerusalem, a Swedish hard rock band is very dominionist with their lyrics. Look up the bands Holy Blood, Holy Bible, and Saviour Machine. I don't think they would be in most folks CD collection from what I have read on this blog. Other Christian bands like The Ressurection Band, Steve Taylor, Randy Stonehill concentrate on various social issues in their lyrics and really get away from the worship, praise, and doctrinal subjects like grace. And I have a real hard time accepting SwitchFoot, A Thousand Foot Crutch as Christian Bands. Flyleaf will at least say they are not Christian band but are individual Christians. On the more moderate side with have Amy Grant who divoriced and went secular "to reach the lost" (her own words). Michael English had a cocaine problem. Then there was that one lady who had a thing for married men. I can go on. Don't get me wrong I have these guys in my collection because they can rock. But I like to think I have grown wiser over the years. The author of the article is correct by saying we are at liberty, something I discovered and acted upon for years. And when you see how some of this guys come to and from concerts in limos you can't help but wonder
God bless Larry Norman, it makes me sad to see other Christians hating on this great brother.
Lisa, a "rock beat" is defined as emphasis on the 2nd and 4th beat, what we would call a type of "syncopation" and a "back beat". The teaching goes that only music that emphasized the 1st and 3rd beats in a 4/4 time signature is "godly" because it follows the rhythm of the heart-beat. Supposedly, a backbeat/rock beat throws off the natural rhythm of the heart, which Gothard "proved" by many "true life stories". Writing this out makes is sound so absurd to me now. :) Yet I swallowed the teaching completely in my teen years.
however, "rock music" was indeed a catch-all phrase. Mr. Gothard had very little concept of genres.
I remember reading some story, told by Gothard, about approaching a car full of teens that were listening to loud jazz music...and I realized that there is practically no way Gothard would know the difference between jazz and rock n roll, and that given the time period he was talking about, the music was probably rock! I can't believe the teens really took him seriously, if couldn't tell the difference between the genres!
He told that story as the turning point in how he got started because some of the "teens" enjoying themselves were from the youth group he was leading in his church. And according to Bill, he realized that he had to do something because he saw "young people" making bad choices (according to him). I wondered if the real problem wasn't a group of teens going out and enjoying themselves and in reality doing nothing wrong but that Bill was secretly jealous that he wasn't included or involved. So instead of looking at himself and maybe why he was isolated, he just makes a blanket reaction that this group of teens were wrong and going the wrong way.
I think Mr. Gothard completely misunderstood "sympathetic vibration" as a musical terminology (why am I not surprised, he did the same things in the area of medicine and psychology, trying to be an expert on things he understood not). I remember him defining it as "when your foot taps in rhythm to the music". So if we've already predetermined this as the "world's music" and there can be no arguing that "fact", then my body moving in rhythm to the music "proves" that I am now in tune with the world, thereby making this music evil by making me in tune with the world... Ok, I think I just blew a brain fuse.
John Philip Sousa makes me tap my foot..... actually thanks to years of flute lessons almost any music can make me tap my foot!!! The 1812 Overture is classical as can be but it makes me not only want to tap my foot but clap my hands (to the "cannon fire") as well..... so is the 1812 Overture "evil" music?! Yeah, I think I just blew a brain fuse, too, Hannah. :-)
BG never even addressed 3/4 time (like a waltz), and that'll get my toes tapping at any time. Ignorance can be a dangerous thing.
I knew someone who wouldn't listen to any waltzes where any other beat but the first was emphasized. Because that was the 3/4 version of a back-beat. :P
"Hannah", my dad is the same way. Tries to be an expert on things he doesn't understand. He and BG would be awesome company for each other.
And even now, in my liberated adulthood when I clap and even dance in church, I still am the only one in the congregation clapping on 1&3 because years of counting the beat leaves me incapable of emphasizing 2&4.
Sara,
Stomp or pat your foot on 1 & 3 and clap on 2 & 4. It works. Lol!
I was raised Baptist, so have limited church rhythm. There's no way I'm going to incorporate hands AND feet.
haha... =)
Sara,
I was raised Baptist and still am one. Personally, I perfer the tapping of my feet over the stopping. Lol! Definately gets me started clapping on the right beats. :)
I married a drummer who didn't get to drum for many years because believing Bill's heresies. I LOVE it when he gets to play in church which isn't all that often because we have a regular drummer and he has other administrative responsibilities.
It's a good thing Gothard has never (as far as I can tell!) listened to the music written today for concert bands and wind ensembles. I play with a local community band (percussion) and modern composers LOVE to use multiple time signatures in a piece--like 5/8, 7/8, etc. We are rehearsing a Christmas piece right now that uses popular Christmas tunes--but all in a minor key!! As I have said before, Gothard and his followers really know nothing about music, and if he presented his views to our director or any of the instrumentalists I play with, he would be laughed out of the room--if he was lucky! And don't get me started about the percussion that modern composers love to use--Gothard's head would explode if he went on YouTube and heard some of the compositions that are out there!
Let me second this. I play saxophone, have played for 13 years in and out of municipal bands, and have played in many college bands (marching bands) and orchestras.
A LOT of music for marching bands is written in these "strange" time signatures, such as 5/8, 7/8, and 13/8. I have played MANY pieces where the conductor had to demonstrate to us how to count the beat. So many of us were newbies and needed the instruction, but once we got it, we got it. It isn't difficult, and is in fact a staple of so much large band music.
Gothard really did know next to nothing about music, specifically beat and time. It is a wonder that he was never challenged by anyone with any real knowledge of music. It is a great missed opportunity.
But then again, these types of preachers do not make many musical arguments. They argue based on supposed Biblical principles. It's kind of a way out for them. They can be wrong, but the principle is still right. It really is very dangerous ground to lay a Biblical framework on.
Gothard's teaching is superstitious nonsense. Believing, without any Biblical basis, that the 2nd and 4th beat is evil is no different than people in the middle ages who believed walking under a ladder was blasphemous because it 'brakes through the trinity.' A ladder creates a triangle with a wall and the ground, thus walking through it was a slap in the face of God. Gothard's logic is as ridiculous as the middle ages ladder logic, not to mention any number of other medieval superstitions.
"Ladder Logic" I like that. Thanks.
Well put!
Thanks for all the answers to my question. It was very helpful. This site has helped me to understand and love the Gothard people that I deal with. My daughter is now a vocal music major in college and thinking about conducting. She was just born with the music in her and never understood when she got taken down by some of the Gothard kids. But this explains the goofy stuff she encountered. I will share this with her and hopefully it will build a bridge back to love.
Lisa, I am sorry to hear about your daughter's experience. One thing you may want to emphasize for her though, is that she probably would have to make the choice to love because it's the right thing to do, and not in hopes of it being reciprocated. In my experience, ATI kids were usually conditioned to be "right" rather than loving.
oh yes, when I listen to Chris Tomlin and Mark Schultz I always have this intense desire to light up a cig and be promiscuous (heavy sarcasm intended) ... my soul has been the glad recipient of all types of music and it's messages, I've never had a closer, more *real* relationship with Christ than when I dropped the cloak of music "standards" ... thank you for writing this! <3
Very good article. I remembered when ironically, I was encouraged by those in my family to challenge everything by what the Bible says, and I remember wondering, where did Mr. Gothard come up with a Scriptural basis for his teachings on music? Answer: there is none.
This is one area where the Institute always seemed to have more "testimonies" from young people who had supposedly found great freedom or relief or whatever because they had finally "submitted" in the area of music.
I began to realize that the Institute was a very political place and very celebrity-driven. It was hard to get recognition or praise for anything; you never felt good enough. One way to obtain praise was to step up in a group and give some sort of testimony. What teenager does not struggle with some turmoil or angst in life? I think many kids truly believed what they were saying, that their problems had been caused by music. But I suspect that there are *many* "testimonies" that were soon null and void as the person began to realize that in real life, this brief burst of good feelings that came from "submitting" did not last and did not cure anything. But you never hear that side of it - once they have your testimony on record, they keep repeating it and holding it up as a success, long after the person who gave it has concluded the whole thing was hooey.
They are far from unique in this; many places do the same thing. But I felt it was worth a comment because those testimonies can be confusing and can add to the false guilt of those who leave the program.
For some reason this makes me think of weight-loss fads and advertisements that are all about "testimonials." What you don't know from any of those is whether the people involved actually a) kept the weight off in the future, or b) did it in a truly healthy way to begin with.
Anyway, you make a good point which I think is something for *all* Christians to be cautious of. I worked at a Christian camp, which was wonderful overall and not at all affiliated with IBLP, but I would often see the teens, when it came to testimony time, trying to one-up each other, or see who could come up with the saddest prayer need, etc. I don't know if it was necessarily conscious competition, but teens are notorious for being insecure and wanting attention, so it's something that should be handled with discernment when adults choose to "broadcast" and encourage these stories.
I just want to add that many Southern Baptist churches or predominately black churches do clap on the back beat. However, I am more certain of their heart than I am of many classical composers, as you pointed out.
Also, there are many times I (and others) would play songs on the piano with the evil "back beat" and yet most of the ATI pushers never noticed. So the question to them needs to be asked, "Is the back beat evil or the back beat played only with a drum or other stronger percussion instrument?" Because where is the logic in that???
Gothard would have to pick apart each and every song in order to truly define what he is talking about. Even then, I am sure we could call his bluff on many of them. :D
When the Duggars were in little Rock the went to an Episcopal church which was perhaps quite different for them. I often wonder what they thought of the choir swaying. I know Jim Bob said he wouldn't want any music that makes them want to that makes them want to dance.
Growing up in the 1980's, I listened to Def Leopard Guns and Roses and they never made me succumb to drugs.
Yeah, because dancing before the Lord will lead to sex... smh
Correction, Heather. If you use Mr. Gothard's hermeneutic (way of interpreting Scripture), dancing before the Lord is more likely to lead to abstinence from sex. (See 2 Samuel 6.) Anyone remember hearing this passage expounded?
A "normal" hermeneutic wouldn't draw such dogmatic conclusions from a narrative!
pardon me, I meant, dancing in general WILL lead to sex. at least, that's what I was taught. :/
Or sex will lead to dancing!
I grew up in ATI and while my family was never extreme like many others (my dad was always asking me if I wanted to go to college or which boy i liked LOL) music was a big thing. It was extremely frustrating to only listen to calssical. I love classical, always have, but for that to be the ONLY music choice...yeah. It made me mad. Then one time my mom gave me a tape by an ATI family and the girls gave testimonies on how they were freed from romantic thoughts/desires by giving up classical music written in the "romantic" period. That was the last straw. The "1812 Overture" was one of my favorites and now they were taking *that* away too? It was too much. I started listening to *my* music when I ran errands by myself, and though I was plauged with guilt I continued to do it. I did not make it a secret however, and as long as I did not bring it into the house I was ok.
Now I go to a more charismatic non-denom church and we have CCM. I clap (2&4 all the way!!!) sway and whatever. It's awesome. I listen to whatever I want and I'm happy. And I still love the "1812 Overture."
Freed from romantic thoughts/desires? I want to weep. How unnatural. You know, in my personal opinion, and partial experience, ATI bears a striking resemblance to certain branches of Islam, in the way it treats women. That is my personal opinion..
(For those who may wonder, I am definitely not as far along in my recovery as some of the others on this board, but God is gracious, and keeps leading me on. :)
Blech. I have yet to find any CCM that I can get into, but that's just personal preference. There are lots of secular artists that make me feel closer to God than the majority of the CCM stuff. Again, though, personal preference.
Yet another aspect of Gothardism that bothered me for years was guilt over music I liked to listen to. I love classical, but I need variety in my life, thank you very much. Besides, Beethoven wrote some angry stuff. Spirit of rebellion much? Excellent article.
Pingback : A Response to Bill Gothard | Recovering Grace
i recently discovered that my dad has never liked rock music. like, ever. which makes sense, seeing as how his record collection from back in the day consisted mainly of classical music and broadway productions. (and one allen sherman record called "my son the nut" - an hysterical collection of weird al-type songs, only old.)
gothard and ati just gave him the excuse to outlaw all the fun music in the house. he now blames me for the music my younger brother listens to. how did listening to kenney chesney and mat kearney "encourage" my brother like hollywood undead?
um.....yeah. because that makes so much sense.
it's also my fault my little sister swears once in a while. which may not be entirely untrue. :)
To me it seems that this entire conversation is just an excuse to dance by the fire, the same way the Jews did before they were forced to walk the desert for 40 years.
The bible doesn't advocate doing whatever one pleases in order to satisfy desires. Just because an individual may be bored with classical music, or might personally enjoy rock, it doesn't lower the standard of the requirements set by God. No one can dispute the effect that the music industry has had on society as a whole over the past few decades. Just look at the 'Little Monsters' lining up to see the blood smeared, raw meet garbed Lady Gaga. This is the horrific result of music's downward spiral.
I am not a Christian, but I know deeply that to get closer to God is to read the book and follow it, both heart and mind. This is a concept free of human concepts and desires. The goal of being Christian is to ascend to Heaven by following the righteous path in the human world. How can a path to Heaven be determined by one's whims based on the society of the times? When you fight conservative values, what you're actually fighting is your own conscience.
As Christians, where is your reference to the bible in this conversation? All I can see is personal opinion. It makes me sad to read it.
This is an intriguing comment. You say you are not a Christian. It would be interesting to hear more about where you are coming from.
I think the Bible would have to mention rock music in order for us to reference it for a conversation on it. But you want a reference, sure I can give you one: "Stand fast in the liberty wherewith God has made you free, and do not become entangled again with the yoke of bondage." To believe that this music is "playing with fire", we would have to believe that it was inherently dangerous to begin with.
*wherewith Christ has made you free.
Sorry, that was my paraphrase, from memory.
Pingback : “Bargain” Recontextualized « Beggar's Bread
Pingback : We Were The Normal Ones | Recovering Grace
I grew up in a strict Christian home and was hoomschooled my dad was very into controlling my mom ( and everyone else, if he could) he was abusive at times keeping my mom from finishing her last year of collage and preventing her from working outside the home. We never personally practiced bill gothard even tho many of out conservative friends did. The music thing was always a hot issue at my house my dad would be really hard on my brother for listening to country more on the grounds of the artists having issues and the words as opposed to the beat( he's a gifted drummer) many legalistic churches gave us no chance for my dad to express his talent. The gothard people especially didn't like his drums even tho he is really, really good. My dad actually felt offended with the way these people treated their women even tho he didn't exactly have a great track record in that area. I listen to any kind of music I like and I just like positive songs. To be a Christian is about a relationship with Jesus Christ finding hope and forgiveness of sin( real sin not a bunch of man made standards) and sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ to a world of people who don't need one more standard of man but real joy from having Jesus Christ as their Saviour and best friend.
MatthewS, I think it is interesting that applesapples, a non-Christian, understands that some music can have a negative effect on people. When Scotty McCreery sang a rock song on American Idol, Steven Tyler made a comment about how good it was that he could do something bad. When my husband and I left ATI is was not because our music changed. I know that is what Bill usually teaches.( By the way, I have friends that have been in the ministry for 30 years who use rock in their worship services.) We left because ATI did not deliver on their promises concerning the apprenticeship programs. Later we learned of the false doctrine.
Back to the music topic, Because of our culture in the 70's, it was easy to agree with Bill concerning music. Society taught us the difference. In the public school in high school, we gave sacred and secular combined concerts in choir. We dressed up for the sacred portion. During the intermission a rock or country band would play. Then we would sing the secular portion in our jeans and t-shirts. No churches had rock music. That is what was played at the dance on Friday nights. On Sundays we sang beautiful sacred music to a huge pipe organ. I think it is easy for your generation to view CCM music as part of freedom in Christ because many of the churches that practice Galatians also have CCM music today. I think this is probably why so many parents could buy into this philosophy; it was taught in society.
Rock 'n roll is one of the factors that made my heart hard to the Gospel for years and almost (except by the grace of God) pulled me to hell and I will stand against it until the day I die. It is meant to be rebellious, just read any writings from rock 'n roll "stars" about it. They like the beat because it stirs up passions and what we Christians call "the flesh". To try to mix "christian" with what is meant to be rebellious is ludicrous. Christian music should be sacred music and "separated unto the Gospel," just like we as believers should be - in style as well as lyrics. Bill Gothard or no Bill Gothard, his viewpoint is irrelevant (except that this topic is on this website).
Music, by itself, has no morals. It is the human heart that takes those notes, tones, rhythms and beats and arranges them into something that can draw out all sorts of emotions in the listener, either positively or negatively.
BUT the Bible says if something is sin to you, then certainly don't do it. It does not mean that same thing is sinful for someone else.
It is pointless to go back and forth on this. But I think it is sad to see Christians being entertained by music that is no doubt pagan in its roots and the very term for it is slang for fornication. IMHO it (R&R) is the very reason that the American church is in the state of moral decline as well as so accepting of moral relativism. It has nothing to do with whether or not I think its sin. I know where it was leading me and praise the Lord somehow the Light broke through!
Yes, it certainly is worth going back and forth about it, "grateful." If we do not address this issue, one may accidentally end up calling some Christian brothers and sisters liars. Why do I say that? Because you're saying, "No one can do this without sinning." And someone else says, "Well actually, I can." You must either re-evaluate your view, or call the Christian brother/sister a liar.
It sounds like God did a great work in your life delivering you from the sin that, for you, was reinfored by a rock-music lifestyle. But as your above commentator already noted, Scripture is clear that some things are sinful for certain people. How do you know a particular kind of music is sinful for all people? Scripture is silent on that particular issue. What's clearer is that fornication, paganism, all that sort of thing, is what is sinful. And it's also clear (as in Mark 7) that it isn't what we take into us that's sinful, but the sinful thoughts and actions we perform.
"I think it is sad to see Christians being entertained by music that is no doubt pagan in its roots and the very term for it is slang for fornication."
This is a very squishy argument for a Thing being intrinsically evil. "Pagan in its roots" is used to stigmatize all kinds of things, including certain music, certain media enjoyments, the "Harry Potter" series, and much more. Here I always bring up the argument of Daniel, a mighty man of God who thrived in a pagan environment, studying material that was "pagan in its roots" in Babylon. Yet Daniel 1 is clear that Daniel did this without sin, and with the power of God.
Yes, if we're sensitive to *our own sinful nature* regarding a particular Thing, we should avoid it. Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10 are clear on this point. But it's also clear that this means *we* are the weak believer; it's the strong believers who can do this without sinning (while being sensitive to those weaker brothers who are not only generically "offended" by seeing the stronger brother do this, but would be tempted to sin by seeing that done). So in this case: certain music might cause you to stumble. But the thrust of Scripture is that eventually you would grow out of that and be "stronger." At the same time, another spiritual sibling who enjoys music like this, and has no temptations to sin, should be sensitive to you. But it would be wrong for him/her to duck the discussion and allow someone to say or imply "this is sinful for all Christians, and anyone who says otherwise is surely deceiving himself and others."
grateful, I understand how you feel about this. I really believe I do. I think it's very similar to where I was on the issue some years ago. I don't feel any need to try to talk you out of your opinion on this issue. It is your opinion, firmly held, based on your experience and you are entitled to it.
I remember that the Institute censored part of a CD in Moscow at Christmas. The whole CD was allowable except for a slightly upbeat portion at the end, so they would fast-forward past it. It was in the vein of the Majesty and Glory CDs or similar, I forget exactly. It was silly to me even then. Since when are Christians afraid of Christmas music?
Recently, I was very encouraged by this song: http://youtu.be/tkGywPQEBX8?t=40m47s
That Petra song - these are the guys who Gothard calls reprobates and says they are doing something equivalent to "Christian pornography." Frankly, Gothard "reviles" them, to use his own word. But here they are, years down the road, still preaching the gospel. The question in that song: Where is the sting of the grave? That strikes right at the core of the Christian hope: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The song was so meaningful to the guy singing there in that video that he had it played at his mom's funeral. That's the real deal.
Here is how I would interpret your experience - think about someone who gets drunk and then does something embarrassing, and then blames the alcohol. The problem is that getting drunk does not put anything into your heart that wasn't already there. It doesn't transform you into an entirely different human being. It lowers your inhibitions and impairs your judgement, so the things that would have stayed bottled up now come pouring out. I would see the music for you having been the same sort of thing. You are blaming the music for what was actually in your heart. I mean let's face it: your heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, so much so that you can't even comprehend your own wickedness! (and so is mine, of course!)
You used the music as a tool, and it blended nicely with your hardening heart at the time. You were not some sort of innocent and passive victim upon whom the music preyed. And you surely weren't alone. Rock music was the soundtrack of many rebellious lives. It is intense. It is high energy. Many performers do indeed speak of the sexual energy that is present for them in the music, but again, this is them bringing their own hearts and idolatries into it, not intrinsic properties of the music itself.
Others, myself included, can point to experiences that are exactly the opposite of yours. When "Jesus Freak" was popular, I knew several guys that were influenced to be more active and vocal about their faith. "Runner" by Twila Paris, a number of songs by Michael Card (who is a deep theologian, btw), "All that I am" by Annie Herring, a number of songs by Petra, Newsboys, DC Talk, PFR, and so on - all of these have had a positive influence on my walk with God. Kirk Franklin's CD "Songs for the Storm" has spoken to me at times of deep discouragement. When I listen to those songs, I am obeying the comment to use songs, hymns, and spiritual songs to make melody in my heart to the Lord. Robin Mark's worship music - a great deal of it is available on youtube.
I'm not trying to convince you or to call you out or anything - I am just offering my own personal perspective and experience on this. And to me, my own experience is at least as valid as yours! :-)
I am far more concerned that you (and all of us) worship God on Sunday and during the week regardless of what style of music you use to worship. I have no need to try to convince you to change whatever style it is you use (which is very likely entirely European of a certain flavor in origin, therefore different from what Indian, African and other non-Western believers use to worship). The church I am presently at uses a piano and a hymn book. I would really like to see us expand. But I am able to be consistent with my own desire here: I can worship God with a hymn book and I can worship him with a praise band. Look up videos of the Gettys and Townend to see a great example of what I'd prefer. I have been at a church where it was just so much of a concert I don't see how anyone could be worshiping there, but overall, it's like circumcision was for Paul: circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Rock music is nothing and un-rock music is nothing. What matters is a heart of love for God, pouring out through the mouth and through the life.
That's a very good comment by E. Stephen Burnett as well.
@ Matt - wow, thanks for that blast from the past - I think we may of the same era :). I actually was greatly blessed by Petra (and Twaila, et al) back in the day – just like I was blessed by Bill Gothard’s ministry at times. But as you have pointed out many times on this website, just because God can use any avenue to present His truth, it does not negate the untruth that can be associated with that avenue. Again, I really don't want to necessarily stir up debate, I just think we live in a very, very deceiving time in America and our enemy is slick and wraps his lies in garments of "truth" (as this website has pointed out on several occasions about BG.) Therefore we must approach all things with the utmost discernment.
To answer you directly, actually I was (to some degree) some innocent individual on which rock n roll preyed. That is my point: it is an agent of the enemy and he uses it to harden people's heart and lead them down the path of a variety of soul-stealing vices. (I’m talking more of secular rock here) As far as CCM, it is really just one big flesh-fest, feeding all sorts of idols (the almighty dollar, rampant immorality, drug use, etc.) For instance, that clip from Petra; why do they all have long hair? The Bible is pretty clear that long hair on a man is shameful. Is that the end of the world or make them all secret satanists, of course not, BUT it does demonstrate to a small degree that they value a certain persona over what the Bible says. People can be sincere and sincerely wrong.
@ E Stephen: From what I have studied, Romans was written to a congregation that was primarily made up of gentile believers, however there was a sizable minority of Jewish believers as well (many of which were recent converts to monotheism and then to Christianity). Therefore it could be that Romans 14 is simply talking about what it is primarily describing, food, particularly as it pertains to ritual as well as clean vs unclean. However, I recognize that one can allegorically place ______ in the place of meat and herbs. That being the case, the same can be said of your aforementioned reference to Daniel. For instance when the three Hebrew boys were told to bow down at the golden image (when the concert started, mind you). There is no definitive reference as to what the golden image was. Allegorically, we are “pushed,” as 20th century believers in America to “bow down” to the golden image of pop culture. I have spent too much of the Lord’s time and His resources bowing down at the golden image of pop culture, and rock n roll is part and parcel to that idol.
As far as R&R being pagan in its roots. How else can you explain it? Have you ever studied the history of R&R? Its roots can be traced to paganism in ritual (the beat, etc.) This same music was translated into the “blues” in the 40’s (see Robert Johnson) and then all hell broke loose in the 50’s and 60’s and America has never been the same. Many colleges offer the history of rock n roll as an elective, check it out.
If you are a born again believer, then you are my brother and my point is not to debate, debate, debate and I do not want to imply that all non-hymnal music is evil . period. Because, obviously, that is not true. But, Proverbs talks a lot about “paths” and “the way” and I think it is very important, that in this day and age, that we recognize we are in a desperate spiritual battle. What “way” are the artists you listen to taking you? Are they doctrinally sound? What is their testimony? I cannot answer that. Take this matter before the throne of Grace and sincerely ask the Lord to show you. He will guide you, no doubt about it.
Hey back, Grateful. I'm different from Matt. I've enjoyed some "CCM" artists, but all of them more recently, such as Nicole Nordeman, Michael W. Smith, Chris Rice, Newsboys. All of them can be "fluffy" but when they want to be, they craft music that's as deep as any hymn. However, I prefer soundtrack genres, which, interestingly enough, Smith also loves.
We certainly agree that idolatry is a problem, and that any good thing can be abused for bad. But I would suggest that it's possible to affirm those things while also affirming that we often call a thing "sinful" that isn't.
In other words: Christians can walk and chew gum at the same time.
"Again, I really don't want to necessarily stir up debate"
I would, if it weren't already stirred up. Healthy debate is a good thing (though of course it can also be idolized and used for sinful purposes).
"Therefore we must approach all things with the utmost discernment."
You bet. I don't know anyone here who would disagree. To that I only add: we must discern what many Christians perceive is "Biblical discernment." And under that falls the squishy notion that "once pagan, always pagan."
"As far as CCM, it is really just one big flesh-fest, feeding all sorts of idols (the almighty dollar, rampant immorality, drug use, etc.)"
An unfair assertion. Many artists cited here don't share that lifestyle.
"I recognize that one can allegorically place ______ in the place of meat and herbs."
It's not an allegory as much as "translating" the issue of Then to issues of Now. E.g.: Biblical hermeneutics, asking "what did it mean then to the original audiences" and then "what does it mean now?" But Romans 14 is indeed more about those Gentile/Jew stigma issues, as you mentioned. A better corollary is in 1 Corinthians 8-10 (that's why I quote them together -- they are different angles on similar, not same, issues).
"That being the case, the same can be said of your aforementioned reference to Daniel. For instance when the three Hebrew boys were told to bow down at the golden image (when the concert started, mind you). There is no definitive reference as to what the golden image was."
Not sure where this comes from. References such as this make clear that Daniel and/or his friends did not participate in idolatry. I consider that obvious and established. But my point was that Daniel did manage to be exposed to the same materials that Christians would consider intrinsically evil today, and yet not sin and even study these things with God's help.
"Allegorically, we are ‘pushed,’ as 20th century believers in America to ‘bow down’ to the golden image of pop culture. I have spent too much of the Lord’s time and His resources bowing down at the golden image of pop culture, and rock n roll is part and parcel to that idol."
Yes. It reminds you of that past, and that motive, and you should avoid it. You should also remind people that this is a danger of that particular field. (Similarly, I remind people of the dangers of "fathers must guide their daughters rhetoric, which has led to much sin, and am often perceived as rejecting the good of similar teaching.) But what you cannot do Biblically is say "this Thing is wrong for everyone, just as it's wrong for me." If I ever got into classic Beatles music or something like that (solid Pastor Alistair Begg, I understand, is a Beatles fan), I would not have the stigma you attach to that music. To me it's just music. No stigma. I could enjoy this music and not be tempted to sin. Ergo: "meat sacrificed to idols," translated (not allegorized) to today's issues.
"As far as R&R being pagan in its roots. How else can you explain it?"
You must be talking to another E. Stephen Burnett. I haven't even bothered to argue "nuh-uh, rock and roll doesn't have pagan roots." Of course it has "pagan roots." That's beside the point. Pretty much everything these days has "pagan roots." Even you and me! My point is instead very different: where do we get the idea that "once pagan, always pagan"? That's not what I find in Scripture about people, and even some Things. But I do hear a lot of pagans claiming that. And I ask: why listen to them?
"But, Proverbs talks a lot about ‘paths’ and ‘the way’ and I think it is very important, that in this day and age, that we recognize we are in a desperate spiritual battle."
There is. And I fear one of the best strategies of Satan is twofold:
1) Make Christians fear Things in the world, rather than boldly go and confront them and even enjoy the good stuff, taking every thought captive for Christ and finding "touchpoints" in culture that reflect God's truth even amidst the paganism (e.g., Paul with Athenians in Acts 17).
2) Give pagans (or non-Christians; I use the term more broadly) an excuse for their sin. "Oh, it's not my sinful heart that's doing it. It's all this pagan culture around me that's doing it to me. Can't help it."
"What ‘way’ are the artists you listen to taking you? Are they doctrinally sound? What is their testimony? I cannot answer that."
For the folks I enjoy, I can answer that in order: first, yes, mostly (and the other stuff I can screen out for God's glory -- all our art is flawed in some way); second, they love Christ and want to glorify Him in art. (This applies to fiction as well as music. I'm more of a fiction man.)
For secular music, though, the questions fail. I'm not looking for doctrinal soundness or Christian testimonies from the creators of many great works of music and storytelling, such as the films and music of "The Lord of the Rings" series. What I'm looking for, though, is wonderful art that to me reveals the splendor of God in creation, the battle between good and evil, and the hope of His resurrected creation. Despite whatever these makers' motivations, these films and music reflect this to me. And for all I know, they are personally just as pagan and greed-motivated as others -- though their art reflects higher truth. Christians can redeem it.
"Take this matter before the throne of Grace and sincerely ask the Lord to show you. He will guide you, no doubt about it."
I have, and Lord willing, continually do. And I expect Him to speak back, and He does every time, because I am not searching my feelings (like a Jedi) or seeking impulses or signs (as Gideon wrongly did) but searching for God's own written Word about what to reject and what to enjoy/discern.
@ Matthew "think about someone who gets drunk and then does something embarrassing, and then blames the alcohol"
I love this analogy. This is the first I heard it. It makes so much sense to me. I have been back and forth on this issue for a long time. Your analogy is a key for me.
I was an ati (notice the small letters....showing my disrespect and hope to start a new trend) dad for about 5 or 6 hears. We were the second year group. It was ugly.
I am so happy I found this site a year ago or so. I know that is a long time to "lurk" I know you folks here at RG have helped a lot of people. I can be added to the list.
This is corny, but this site feels like home to me. I would rather meet you guys than go to my high school reunion.
That's really cool, guy! I'm glad this site has been meaningful. It has been for me, too.
As far as I know, the alcohol thing was invented on the spot (well, adapted - I'm pulling from lessons learned from counseling classes to do with excuses people give for abusing kids but anyway)
My family was a second-year family as well. A friend of my dad's was a pilot family.
I'm new here, but I have been so blessed over the last year or so by RG and the articles/discussion. So thank you!
An area of deep interest for me has been the dismissal of rock music by some believers, especially based on Bill Gothard's teaching. I was temporarily swayed by his publication about rock music (I can’t remember the title of the book, but it was something like “escaping the bondage of rock music”). I thankfully took a step back and realized his arguments stood on nothing, and that to argue that the contemporary music of the 1800’s is more godly than the contemporary music of today is absurd. To to say a type of music is inherently evil seems like picking the most evil color. It’s by God’s hand that we have all this music!
I would be so interested to hear some of your stories, about your journeys from musical "bondage" to "freedom". I have a friend who has been raised with Bill Gothard’s outlook on music, and I feel so unequipped to help her grow and conquer her fear of “worldly music”. Were there people who helped you see through the haze? What did it take?
It’s one thing to respect the musical convictions of a brother or sister so as not to make them stumble, but besides prayer, how can we as believers help them to gain surer footing?
Hi Pressing On,
Welcome, and glad to see you posting.
I can offer very little to the music issue. When I was drinking the Kool-aid, the music issue (BG teaching) was a big deal. Everything was. I was a good little cult follower. How I "saw the light on the music issue" had not much to do directly with music, but on so many other evil teachings of BG. Once I saw there was no baby and the bath water was just poison, it was easy to discard the music bondage.
I am sure others will jump in and help more.
Pressing on, when my child was 16 our church wanted the youth to come together and have a CD bashing party called "Shed Your Grave Clothes." I would not let my child participate. We had long talks on the subject. This is what we decided and why.
1. Music is art. It reflects the thoughts and World View of it's creator.
2. The creator's thoughts and World View may very well be wrong.
3. The creator's thoughts might be correct although their World View is wrong.
4. The creator's thoughts and World View may be right.
5. The creator's thoughts may be wrong although the World View is right.
6. Is the art high quality?
7. Is the art in poor taste?
8. Does the art bring you to joy, or sorrow?
9. Does your emotions impacted by the art match that of the creator's.
10. Does your emotions impacted by the art match that of the Creator.
All was permissible, but not all is beneficial. My child needed the right questions to determine where to allow his heart to go. To this day we analyze music together. Some of the happiest songs brings us to sorrow, and we pray. And some of the most sorrow filled songs bring us joy, and we pray. Most importantly to us is that we hear the message coming from the heart of another whether we agree with them or not. It is their World View. When an opportunity arises we will share ours.
Pressing On,
My family was never all that keen on the more radical tenets of Gothardism (thank goodness!), but avoiding rock music was one of the ones that was emphasized more. Even so, what they mandated was far more lenient than what IBLP actually teaches. It was more or less a way for them to justify their disdain for ultra-loud music, not necessarily what most would call "rock" on a broad scale. In fact, they enjoyed oldies and rock music with little to no squealing electric guitars.
But as an impressionable young person who grew up under the notion that rock = bad, I tried to do as much as possible to make sure that I never heard a lick of it (yeah...pun totally intended!). I remember one Christmas when we bought a CD collection of old Christmas song performances from decades past, and seeing names of tunes like "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree" and "Jingle Bell Rock" actually scared me so much that I went over to our carousel of a CD player and made sure to hit the skip button when the preceding songs ended! After this happened a few times, my parents were wondering why on earth I was doing that, and I responded, "See that word 'rock'? We can't listen to that!" And they chuckled and replied, "Oh, no - those are okay! Don't worry about it."
Outside home, though, nowhere was safe, even church. We had the normal boppity praise music we sang in our children's program, but occasionally, the women who led our music tried to make things fun with a "rock" song - which wasn't anything terribly ridiculous, but I was so fearful of rock music that I plugged my ears and excused myself whenever I could. There was one summer when the theme song for our Ten Commandments-focused VBS-type program was a song called "Ten in Stone," which in hindsight, I can now see was a parody of the theme to the movie "Men in Black." :-) And if you've seen the movie, then you know that it contains a - gasp! - rap interlude! Rock was bad enough, but rap?! To my young, IBLP-oriented mind, participating was unthinkable.
I think this became less of an issue as my family drifted further away from IBLP when I grew older and especially when they met non-IBLP families after we moved to a different state who were spiritually mature and didn't have a problem with rock music. But the whole idea of generally being as risk-averse as possible and avoiding something out of fear "just to be safe" still isn't uncommon.
Thanks for your replies!
GuyS so I'm curious what was the first red flag for you when you were "drinking the kool-aid"? If this is a question youve answered elsewhere, my apologies.
And Nancy2 Ive never really heard of a "CD bashing party". But as for your analysis of the music you listen to, looks like youve got some good points there. I'm getting better at that i think.
Pressing On ask, "what was the first red flag for you"
It is hard for me to say what my first red flag was. Others seem to have this experience as well. It sometimes takes a lot of small cracks before the light comes on enough to say, Ahh, there is a red flag. There were many small things that did not seem right, but I was a very loyal person who was incorrectly taught to overlook insignificant flags.
I hope it is OK to refer you the article, "Gothard's Biblical Inoculation." It does a way better job than I could to explain how the madness of loyalty in spite of small flags works out. Reading it might also help you to be "equipped to help (your friend) grow and conquer her fear of “worldly music.” It was first published July 5, 2011 then republished March 14, 2014 here at RG. This is a link.
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/03/gothards-biblical-inoculation-2/
There are 66 (11 + 55) comments that you might find hard to wade through if you were not in ATI (BG's homeschool program.) This is a line from the introduction, "Bill Gothard is a master at inoculating his followers from anyone who would poke holes in his teaching."
I am rooting for your success in helping your friend.
Having attended 9 - yes, nine - Basic seminars, I know that this issue was huge to me. Before Bill Gothard, Led Zepplin and Jetro Tull were my bands of choice. After Bill in 1977, I didn't know what to do except feel very guilty about everything. Now, I actually think much of what was taught in the Basic seminar was good stuff and I certainly came out of my first seminar on fire for Christ and "high on Jesus". Not because of Bill, but because God is very gracious.
I'll never forget the tug of war on music. One day, convicted about my "worldly" Christian rock, I look my Resurrection Band album and broke it up in the trash. I immediately felt not relief but REALLY stupid because that was a great album! So I drove to the nearest Christian bookstore and bought another! Haven't looked back since. Some of what Gothard taught was great (gaining a clear conscience, how to ask forgiveness) and some of it was hyper legalistic junk that hurt me for years.
But you can't gain a clear conscience through Gothard's method because you can NEVER identify and confess ALL your sins. Thus, you will walk around under conviction or delusion all the time. I must trust the blood of Jesus for the sins I am not even aware of and never will be aware of. I will NOT depend on MY "conscience clearing" for reconciliation with the Father, ONLY JESUS. I will confess my sins as they are brought to my mind, out of thankfulness, not out of compulsion. It is not my conscience that sets me free, it is the Atonement that sets me free. And if anyone is free in Christ, he is free indeed.
" I immediately felt not relief but REALLY stupid because that was a great album! So I drove to the nearest Christian bookstore and bought another! Haven't looked back since. "
Good for you Gary!
" Some of what Gothard taught was great (gaining a clear conscience, how to ask forgiveness) and some of it was hyper legalistic junk that hurt me for years."
If you give a person a spoonful of strychnine, they aren't likely to take it, due to the appalling taste. But, mix some strychnine in with a spoonful of sugar and it goes down real easy.
I really don't see a baby in the bathwater. Those ideas that were very good, like forgiveness, are not Gothard's ideas. They are in Scripture and taught by Christian leaders everywhere. The harmful ones are the ones that Gothard invented on his own, and generally unique to him.
I've never heard any other teacher define grace as "The Desire and Power to do God's will"
I've never heard any Christian leader tell people that adoption is against the will of God.
Never heard any other leader teach that victims of sexual abuse are to blame for what happened to them.
And so on...
I am curious if anyone knows of one example of a good teaching that is unique to Gothard- something which he came up with all on his own.
With so much false teaching, that has done so much harm to so many, the prudent thing to do is to toss the toxic bathwater out. There is no baby there. His whole way of approaching the spiritual life is so faulty, as with the music example- it's this tightwire of legalistic walking- one misstep, ie listening to Christian rock, and you open the door to Satan and something really bad might happen to you. It is a complete return to the law of the Pharisees, with Gothard making up all his own rules that you must abide by, or face devastating consequences.
I agree with you. My only concern is that we not use our liberty to make other people stumble who because of the lifestyle that was associated with their music can not listen to that music anymore. I knew a girl at college who got saved and came out of jazz music. She could not listen to it or play it on the piano anymore because it immediately brought up visions of her past lifestyle and would have caused her to stumble back into that lifestyle. Nothing wrong with the music in and of itself but I had to be careful around her to not bring it up and use my liberty to cause her to stumble.
That so called "stumbling block" card has been overly used to manipulate people. What the Scriptures are telling us is that we do not (e.g., drink beer or whatever in front of an alcoholic, or eat meat in front of a vegetarian). Otherwise when you are with others who are not hung up on those issues of audiophora, no problem. Otherwise, someone could say to you, for example, being a republican is a stumbling block to me." BG and the Gothardites are masters of manipulation that way.
it is misplace scruples gone amuck. It doesn't place responsibility where it belongs, with our own thoughts and actions. Instead, it make others responsible for my so called weaknesses and sin. The sermon on the mount that Bill loved to promote never placed the problem of lusts on how women dressed, it was always what was in one's own heart. You are responsible for you before God, not anyone else.
While I do agree with you in theory, my mom used to tell me that "men were always on the lookout" meaning they would know that "come hither" look by how a woman dressed (low cut, tight fitting etc.) She wanted me to make sure that how I dressed did not send an unintentional message. btw, she never heard of BG. That said, in today's society was once considered slutty is now fashionable.
Esbee, there is a difference between prudence in the presence of the godless and "modesty" as a "protection" for Christian men. Your mother wanted you to protect yourself. Gothard demanded that you protect HIM (and the rest of us graceless, helpless lechers). Gallant he was not. Nor did he have your mother's wise heart for you.
I might carry a gun in a bad neighborhood to protect my wallet. I would have never thought to carry a gun at an ATI event to protect my wallet. Although maybe I should have!
This is an interesting point, because to this day, there is certain Christian music (that would have been Gothard approved) that I cannot listen to because it takes me back to some very dark times in my life, depression, anger, pain, etc.. that I was going through at a very damaging, legalistic church. So in this case, someone could be causing me to stumble by playing what is certainly acceptable, God honoring music. Yes? (I'm not making that up to make a point, that really is the case for me.)
You need to be clear. Does your website say you can listen to rock music? Yes or no? I'm assuming your answer is a smooth yes! This website is not of God.
Kim
Kim, why is it wrong to listen to rock music? Lyrics aside, now, just asking why the music itself is wrong.
This web site says nothing about whether someone can or should listen to "rock" music. It is totally a subjective choice. This web site discusses Bill's teaching on music which is a trumped up twisted teaching about music in general and is based not on anything in scripture but on false view of the nature of man, false views on music and a twisted idea that all music is worship. All music is not worship at all. The Bible does not say anything at all on what kinds of music someone can listen to or play. In Bible times, middle eastern music certainly had a lot of beat and rhythm to it to begin with and rock music, jazz, folk, classical, country and all the rest was not even around at the times the Bible was written.
Am I the only one that realizes that most of the black gospel music--everyone from Marian Anderson's Negro Spirituals, Mahalia Jackson's gospel to Andrae Crouch and Kirk Franklin--is outlawed by Gothard's standards? I'm not claiming perfection for any artist, but without a beat, that music does not exist. Gothard is saying that thousands of black churches in America (and Africa!) are out of fellowship with God. That's a serious charge...but since in my experience, most Gothardites have little or no contact with minorities anyway, I guess that is not a big deal for them. Also that most African Americans women can't meet Gothard's beauty standards (long and flowing hair, etc.)...on the other hand, maybe that's a GOOD thing!
B.G. frequently condemned as "evil" things connected to or rooted in black culture. Any lingering racism in his family? Possibly, but we are all less than perfect on that count. But it may explain some of his errors.
I was convicted of the cultural factor when I saw video of Africans worshipping Jesus. They use drums and danced! It is a cultural thing. Out of every kindred tribe and tongue He has ordained praise and worship, not exclusively in the dull style of a man in a blue suit with slicked back black hair, either! Praise God and bang a drum if that expresses your heart in sincere truth. And reject the teaching of one so misguided as to think that music styles (of others) are "of the devil".
Kinda curious because Bill's mother was Hispanic I believe. Latin music does have a lot of zest to it as well. I guess she didn't use her heritage at home.
There's no need to make it about race, most white churches don't meet the IBLP standard for musical holiness either.
I do not believe that anyone here want to make this a race issue. Bill repeated stated in his seminars that the origin of rock music was from African voodoo type of music. He usually gave the story of an African witch doctor that was visiting and heard "rock music" and stated that this was the kind of music that the former witch doctor used in his practice of witchcraft and voodoo. He had serial variations of this story that he used in the seminars. I think some of the testimonies even on this web site from those that had personal contact with Bill, indicated that they saw a distain for African Americans. Honestly, when I went to the seminars at Cobo in Detroit, 99% of those in attendance were not from the city but white suburbanites. You have to wonder about this.
Bill is not the first to point out African influence on rock music. All rock from the '50s - '70s is simply white people imitating the blues. The witch doctor story is another one of his apocryphal tales to convince people of the urgent spiritual battle raging around them.
I am not sure what you mean when you say that one must wonder about the predominately white audiences at seminars.
Again Joe, the book by Don Veirnot did point this out with the African American couple and their second class status in IBLP organization featured in the book. I think Bill's witch doctor story was suppose to highlight that rock music's roots were from cultic voodoo evil and that there was no way to "redeem" this sort of music (in Bill's mind). Bill then turned around and used his triapate view of human nature, applied it to music in melody, harmony and rhythm and that rock music beat over stimulated rhythm which in turn caused people to be too sexually stimulated. All of this is pure bunk and any serious student of music would know this.
Of course it is pure bunk. The idea that music needs to be redeemed is laughable, it should be felt and enjoyed.
I'm just wondering what you are implying with your seminar observation - while claiming that no one wants to make it about race - while being the third person to bring it up in this thread - twice.
I disagree. There are many influences but one of the strongest is Celtic forms passed through hillbilly and country traditions. The Blues pick up on these sources as well as ethnic sources.
This was meant in reply to Joe of June 9, 2015.
"The blues had a baby and they called it rock and roll."- Muddy Waters
The Celtic influence is strong in bluegrass, white southern gospel,and mountain music. Rock is from the delta blues. Read up on what Keith Richards and Eric Clapton have to say about it if you still disagree with me.
I am sure you know what you are talking about. But it is difficult to believe that bluegrass, white southern gospel and mountain music contributed nothing to rock. Elvis tells me it surprises him too!
It is funny that you mention Elvis as he is sometimes known as the white boy who stole the blues.
"Elvis is the greatest white blues singer in the world" - Joe Cocker
"They sang a lot of the same things we did, using the same identical progressions we did and they called it "rock n' roll." Elvis was doing Big Boy Crudup's tunes and they [were] calling that rock n' roll. And I thought it was a way of saying he's not black." -B.B. King as told in PBS' "American Roots Music"
I believe it was Martin Luther who said (and picked up later by Larry Norman), Why should the devil have all the good music? "
"Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in River City,
With a capital "T"
That rhymes with "P"
And that stands for Pool!"
From the music man musical. I've always thought Bill Gothard's musical 'standards' bore the same sort of scare tactics without any connection to reality.
Very interesting analogy. The Music Man was about a shyster that went from town to town selling musical instruments to unsuspecting and well meaning people in order to "keep" their children out of trouble.
I think also there needs to be a word of caution in that there music out there that does glorify sex, drugs and violence, but the evil is in the words not necessarily in the actual musical form. Bill seemed to focus on musical form (beat mostly) as being the cause of evil. Singing about these things because it glorifies them is wrong but turning around to claim certain forms of music (rock, jazz, country etc). are evil in it of itself only creates paranoia in those that follow Bill's teaching.
This is in reply to Joe 6/10. I think what is implied in bringing up race and in most part African American is that there is a subtle racism with Bill Gothard and it usually come out in his views on music or music origin as well as the types of people that usually attended his seminars which was for the most part caucasian. It is also brought up in the book about Gothard by Don Veirnot. I can say that when I attended the basic seminars late 1970-early 1980s, I went to a packed Cobo arena in Detroit which is downtown in a big city that is mostly African American. However, 99% of those in attendance were white suburbanites. It is kinda curious that someone like Bill that started out with Chicago gangs didn't have a bigger appeal with those in major cities like Detroit. Those that actually live in major cities that do have big pressures on the family didn't attend, it was white suburbanites that flocked to Cobo. I also think Bill's teaching that one didn't have any "rights" wouldn't have a big appeal in minority communities that often face discrimination. Bill's family model is more based on White 1950's idealism than scripture and what Bill saw as threats to this idealism. Bill has a anti-civil rights aspect to his teaching and those that would stand up against discrimination and the rest are really rebelling against God and God given society authorities. However, Bill doesn't consider all the Bible verses that tell the faithful to stand in the gap, speak up and out about wrongs and evil especially those that are poor, sick, broken and have no voice.
Hi Rob, thanks for the reply.
I have not read the book, and only began attending seminars and ATIA in the mid '80s, so I may have missed plenty.
The seminars in areas like Detroit and Atlanta etc.. were in the cities because that is where the arenas are - and you said yourself that his message wouldn't have a big appeal to minority communities.
What's racist about that? There aren't many black people in Russian Orthodox churches (at least around here) and I don't call them racist.
Your above post focuses on the ideas and I appreciate that. I agree with all of your points about the teaching and think they are well made. This next bit is not directed at you, just something that's been bothering me lately.
Calling Bill evil and racist and ascribing motives of abuse and torture to him distracts from and weakens the message of truth, while making it easier for his defenders to dismiss this entire site as bitterness.
That is not to say that his wrong and despicable and hurtful actions should not be exposed, as they certainly should continue to be.
I am just writing this because several times I have found myself in the odd position of seeming to defend Bill. His actions are indefensible and he is a lying shyster, but I find it more effective (and interesting) to fight the ideas with the truth than to demonize the teacher.
thanks Joe for your reply. I never considered the "racism" until reading the book and it was brought up in the book with some of the observations I pointed out. I know that there is a difference between people like myself whose contact with Bill is just through the seminars and those that personally worked with him. I think some of the emotions that are expressed seem to be from those that actually interacted with him. I also think for others that were involved in ATI as parents have had a struggle forgiving themselves for becoming involved. I understand what you are expressing in your concerns, I think I was one of the lone rangers when the topic of witch craft came up and Bill was described as a witch. I didn't think that this is a direction people should focus on. In the long run, no one can see the heart of someone but God. Immoral, evil, manipulative actions should always be pointed out and never defended. I have always wondered that what brought Bill finally down was his own behavior, not his teaching. But what should have ended it early was his teaching if there were more questions about it in the beginning years and not so much unquestioning support.
I understand your point about racism, in that because there seemed to be a subtle tendency in a number of things that lean to racism didn't necessarily mean the Bill himself was an all out racist.
I suppose that the Number 1 rated TV show American IDOL starring music means nothing????? Hmmm, maybe Bill was right after all!
But has not BG set himself up as an IDOL? Personally I prefer old re-runs of "The Gong Show" IMHO.