From time to time, we at Recovering Grace like to republish the work of others who have contributed to the discussion of Bill Gothard and his teachings. This is particularly true when a third party perspective of someone not closely involved with IBLP or ATI is provided, as in the following excerpt. This excerpt details a meeting that took place between Bill Gothard and Midwest Christian Outreach, and organization that has spoken out about the theological dangers of Gothard’s teachings.

On August 20, 2002, Bill Gothard and several of his associates met with Don Veinot and Ron Henzel to discuss eleven points of concern drawn up by MCO. These points detail what MCO believes are significant errors in IBLP’s teaching. The meeting, held at a suburban Chicago hotel, was moderated by Norman Geisler, who is president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and a noted Christian apologist. Modern Reformation was invited to observe and report on the proceedings.

The eleven points of concern constituted the basic agenda for the meeting. They are:

1.Is there a biblical basis for Gothard’s teachings on “umbrellas” of authority? 2.Is there a scriptural foundation for Gothard’s teaching on “the iniquities of the father”? 3.Is there a biblical basis for Gothard’s teaching on the order of the worship service? 4.Is the purpose of the Gospel account of the centurion (see Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10) given to teach Gothard’s view on authority or to teach who Jesus is and the importance of faith in him? 5.Do Cabbage Patch dolls prevent the birth of children? 6.Does Gothard’s teaching on authority imply that Jesus is a sinner? 7.Does the phrase “one interpretation, many applications” allow us to have Scriptural applications that are not based on or that are even contrary to the one true interpretation of a given passage of Scripture? 8.Is it proper to impose Levitical ceremonial restrictions on sexual intercourse within Christian marriage? 9.Is it proper to impose circumcision as a biblical mandate for Christians today? 10.If a Christian leader changes a significant teaching because it was shown to be unbiblical, should he not make a public retraction of that teaching to his followers? 11.Is it biblically proper to say that grace is earned?

The meeting began with each of the Gothard associates reading prepared position statements in response to MCO’s eleven points. The representatives of MCO were then given approximately one hour to make a statement and respond to the IBLP statements. These initial presentations were followed by counter-responses from each organization.

The participants quickly realized that hermeneutics–that is, how one interprets Scripture–was foundational to their disagreement. MCO complained that Gothard’s stated practice is to apply one passage of Scripture to many different circumstances (“many applications, one interpretation”); and some of these applications, MCO believes, do not take into account the original purpose or context of the passage.

This concern was especially related to the ninth question posed to IBLP, “Is it proper to impose circumcision as a biblical mandate for Christians today?” Gothard’s position is that physical circumcision has health benefits both for New Testament believers and for men today. He supports this position by appealing to Scriptures such as Col. 2:11 and Rom. 3:1-2. In a published Basic Care Bulletin entitled, “How to Make a Wise Decision on Circumcision,” IBLP states that physical circumcision is “strongly commanded and reinforced in Scripture” and that by circumcising their sons on the eighth day, contemporary parents are fulfilling their calling “to follow in the footsteps of Christ.” But the passages Gothard uses to defend this position actually assert, in their proper contexts (see Rom. 2:25-3:31 and Col. 2:6-23), that circumcision has no value apart from the saving work of Christ. God did not command Abraham to circumcise his male children and servants for health reasons. And Paul, in Colossians 2:11 states that the only circumcision that is of any benefit to the believers is a “circumcision made without hands.”

Gothard denies that circumcision is required of believers for salvation; but he does say that the “Old Testament law–as interpreted by Jesus’ command to love God and neighbor-compels us to practice circumcision.” By trying to proof text his position from Scripture Gothard actually raises concerns about his own orthodoxy. By employing his own hermeneutic of “principial application,” Gothard confuses law and gospel, calling into question his understanding of the relationship of Christ and the church to the Levitical laws.

Concerns about Gothard’s understanding of grace are aggravated when reading his “Definition of Grace,” published in 2000, by IBLP. There he states that Old Testament saints like Noah, Moses, and Gideon “found grace” from God because they “possessed qualities that merited God’s favor.” Gothard also says that “unmerited favor” is a faulty definition of grace because (among other reasons) it is too general; it is more applicable to mercy than to grace; it is not a true definition in all cases (here he cites Genesis 6:29 and Numbers 12:3, explaining that both Noah and Moses received favor from the Lord based on their own righteousness), and so on. Gothard has revised that paper at least two times in response to questions posed to him by Veinot and MCO. The most recent revision now uses the word “unmerited” to describe grace and no longer refers to various Old Testament saints as earning grace based on their own righteousness. But in this latest revision (which represents, Gothard says, what he has taught for the past thirty-nine years) as well as in a companion paper entitled, “The Dynamic of Grace,” he continues to confuse the issue by calling grace a works-enabling substance, namely a “power that God gives to do his will.”

This same confusion is also at the heart of another accusation against Bill Gothard–that he is legalistic. For example, the eighth point of concern asks, “Is it proper to impose Levitical ceremonial restrictions on sexual intercourse within Christian marriages?” Gothard answered with a vigorous “No.” But disagreement surfaced when copies of a Basic Care Bulletin, published in 1991 by Gothard’s Medical Training Institute of America, were circulated at the August 2002 meeting. In that pamphlet, Gothard’s organization argues that Christians violate Hebrews 13:4–“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous”–when they do not practice periodic abstinence in marriage as outlined by Leviticus 15:19, 25; and 12:2-5. The pamphlet goes on to state that such violations can lead to “physical, mental, emotional and spiritual difficulties experienced by both men and women.” A promise, in the guise of a warning, is given at the end of the pamphlet, that “those who keep His Word”–that is, those who do not violate this Levitical commandment–will not suffer the diseases with which the Lord plagued the Egyptians (see Exod. 15:26). The Christian’s failure to keep the Levitical commands will result in punishment akin to the diseases with which the Lord punished Egypt, according to Gothard.

In spite of both parties’ best intentions, the August 2002 meeting ended without any resolution. MCO was hoping for a retraction from Gothard; but they didn’t get one. On the other hand, Gothard was hoping to quiet his critics’ concerns about what he asserts are fairly minor details of his teaching; but he failed to convince them that he was interpreting Scripture in an orthodox manner. The more important questions that this meeting raised were, Who speaks for the church? Who holds leaders of parachurch organizations accountable for their teachings? The entire conversation was, in some respects, an exercise in futility. Except for appealing to the other party to do the right thing, neither side could claim either implicit or explicit authority over the other. Don Veinot could appeal to Bill Gothard as a brother, but because neither of their organizations is part of the visible institutional church, no form of church discipline could be undertaken or enforced. Neither man, in spite of each man’s love for the Body of Christ, could claim to be operating as part of that Body. And that left both men in essentially the same position: ministering on behalf of the church while yet beyond any oversight by or accountability to the visible church.

This is not to say that there was no merit in the discussion. Any time questions of legalism and the meaning of grace, among other items, are raised Christians should hasten to clarify their views in accordance with Scripture. Bill Gothard, in spite of his obvious passion for Christians to think and act rightly, has confused serious theological issues. His teachings are characterized by an interpretation of Scripture that no other Christian organization shares. His changing or modifying teachings that he still refuses explicitly to recant does not mollify his critics. Some of Don Veinot’s criticisms concentrate on relatively minor matters, but there are significant points of confusion and error in Gothard’s teaching.