In the fall of 2011, Bill Gothard sent out a mass letter addressed to "all past and present ATI students" (you can view the letter
here, and our response to it
here). In the letter, Gothard asked any student whom he had offended to email or call him, as he did not want the failures of ATI and IBLP to hinder one from experiencing God's blessing on their life (as if that were possible). Truthfully, many students thought the attempt was disingenuous and simply an attempt to regather the "lost sheep," or to pass blame and explain how any issues were a result of faulty application, not faulty teaching. As far as we know, very few students responded to Gothard's letter. However, one former student did write to Bill Gothard in April 2012 with the reasons she was offended by his teachings. Shortly thereafter, she received a very brief response from Gothard, thanking her for the letter, stating that he had been in constant meetings, but that he looked forward to an opportunity to thoroughly read and respond to her letter. This was the only response she received from him. Eight months later, she sent a follow-up to Gothard's office, reminding them that she had never received a response, and that she was considering publishing her letter publicly as a warning to others. Still no response. We are sharing her letter with you, as we believe it articulately states why so many former ATI students have been damaged by the teachings of Bill Gothard.
Dear Mr. Gothard,
I’m a former ATI student. I’m writing to you to explain why I no longer support IBLP/ATI, and why I’m involved with sites like Recovering Grace. You invited us to approach you “if” we have been offended. (You used wording, by the way, that you taught us we couldn’t use if we really wanted to seek forgiveness.) I’ve hesitated to write for a number of reasons:
1. You’ve never met me. I was one of the hundreds of young ladies in a white blouse and blue skirt, singing in the Knoxville choir, working at training centers, and trying to build my life around the principles you taught. But the closest we ever got to actually meeting was when I shook your hand at the ITC [Indianapolis Training Center] in 1993.
2. I dislike causing pain. You’ve poured your life into this ministry, and I don’t enjoy opposing someone’s life work.
3. My grievances aren’t against you, personally, and others in leadership. It’s against your teachings and theology. And since you haven’t ever acknowledged errors in your teachings, I’m not left with much to say.
I remember the story you told about the businessman who invited his employees to tell him his blind spots. Each employee started out listing trivial things, to gauge his reaction. They expected him to get angry and fire them. It was only when he showed that he was really listening that they opened up.
This is a similar situation. We former ATI students have been invited to approach you, but most of us learned early on that to confront anyone in leadership brought only condemnation and punishment. To be blunt, few of us expect you to listen. Most of us expect you to label us as “bitter” or “carnal.” Why subject ourselves to condemnation from someone who has no say in our lives in the first place? That’s why you haven’t heard from many who have been hurt by your program.
Despite my misgivings, though, I was impressed by your offer to listen to our stories, so here’s my letter.
My stepfather, mother, younger sister, and I enrolled in ATI in 1991, when I was 14. My parents were good and loving; they never abused or mistreated me. I went to Knoxville for six years, worked in Children’s Institutes, spent time at various training centers, and attended Excel 2. The leadership never treated me unjustly, and I usually had a very good time wherever I was. So the damage I came away with wasn’t because of personal abuse.
I took your teachings to heart. And many of them are good. Clear conscience, honoring authorities, accepting who I am, accepting suffering — many have been useful in my life. But you didn’t present them as “good ideas to take or leave as you need them.” You said they’re God’s words. Then you misused Scripture to back up your claims. That is a mistake, and it’s what hurt my view of God and my duty toward Him.
By the time I was 20, I was not the “victorious Christian” I was supposed to be. I was always afraid. I was afraid of accidentally violating a principle and incurring His “correction.” I was afraid of making any decision that didn’t line up with my parents’ opinions, for fear that God would expose me to Satanic attacks. I was afraid that I wasn’t “spiritual enough,” so when the time came to get married, I’d be blinded to God’s will and marry Satan’s decoy. I was afraid to help those who were hurt, because what if I “got in the way” of God’s correction for that person? I wouldn’t even pray for anyone I considered “rebellious.”
Every person I met, I judged: was this person falling in line with the “basic principles” or not? If not, then I could be reasonably sure that God wasn’t pleased with that person. At the same time, I knew the darkness and failure in my own life — and was reasonably sure that God deeply disliked me.
Your teachings either gave rise to these thoughts or aggravated the ones already there. I didn’t find peace in your “new” approach to life. You didn’t tell us, “What matters is that you love God and love others.” You told us, “Make more commitments. Make vows. Stay under authority. Follow these steps. Avoid rebels. If you violate God’s principles, He will use harsh means to get you back in line.”
I’m 35 years old now. I’m happily married, after a beautiful courtship that was begun and directed by us, not our parents. It involved unchaperoned dates and lots of physical affection. We have four children who routinely question our commands because we’re teaching them that we, as parents, are fallible. What I wear, what I listen to, how I run my household … those are not issues of the spirit. I’ve broken rule after rule, violated principle after principle. Whether my life is smooth or rough, I’ve realized that it doesn’t really have much to do with how well I’m keeping the seven basic principles.
Over the past 15 years, I’ve gradually learned that God doesn’t dislike me. He is always present and active, gentle and loving. When I sin, there is much grace. When I succeed, there is much grace. When I’m apathetic and can’t bring myself to “try” any harder, His grace is still there with me. Grace is so much more than “the power and desire to do God’s will.” It’s God Himself, carrying me whether I walk or stumble. It’s completely undeserved — God’s unmerited favor.
Your definition of grace is inadequate. The seven basic principles are good ideas, but [they are] not God’s universal non-optional principles to live by. You consistently take Scripture out of context and twist its meaning. I now speak out against IBLP/ATI and support sites like Recovering Grace. Not because I’m bitter against you, or pursuing a personal vendetta. It’s because I know the fruit of these teachings, and I am compelled to warn others.
Thank you for hearing me out.
Sincerely,
Sara (Roberts) Jones
ATI student from 1991–1997
July 31, 2024
YES!!! Exactly this.
Thanks for sharing Sara. :)
I wonder if Alred will comment on this article... Curious.
This resonates on so many levels! Thank you for articulating what so many of us are feeling. I hope and pray Mr. Gothard takes this letter to heart and repents of his destructive heresy.
An ATI dad once told me that he believed the widespread nature of Gothard's Seminars in the 70's and 80's helped delay the spiritual and cultural decay in this country by a generation.
I disagree. When you step back and consider that Gothard and his contemporaries promoted a ‘rule based’ theology (It’s noteworthy that they themselves didn’t even follow), that only paid lip service to what Jesus called the Greatest Commandment (Matthew 22:37-39, John 13:34-35). In my view, this misuse of scripture, as well as the well documented failure of Bill Gothard to follow his own principles, (i.e. “Eat his own cooking”) helped plant or at least water the seeds already planted in the culture of a cynicism toward organized religion by an entire generation of American children who have now grown into adulthood, and he is now bearing the fruit that he helped cultivate. So in otherwords, Gothard has probably done more damage to the Church and the name of Christ in this country than any other single person.
This.
When you look at the history of Americanized Christianity of the 60s-80s, Gothard stands out in many areas as one who influenced the masses. Even if those individuals didn't follow every single principle, the rule-based mentality and misconstrued theology they took away affected the very core of American Christianity. There was rarely a Christian leader who had not at least heard of Gothard, and most attended a seminar. His influence was massive, damaging, and left many with a misconception of God, grace, and Christian living.
Gothard led us back to what he considers to be authentic--Judaism. Judaizers, while holding to that system, never accept grace. They despise grace--it's cheap.
I contend, "No, God's grace is priceless! God is so good that He offers to buy us back without price to us--without cost! Grace is freely to be received. We are to give the this good news freely to any who will hear."
To quote Gothard (Counselling Seminar May, 1989), "You do not need to have Christ in order to have the benefits of these seven principles." (It got worse from there from a theological perspective.)
So, my interpretation of this is as follows: "Be warmed, be filled as you enjoy your Christless eternity--at least you were out of debt during your stay on earth!"
This system nearly entirely misses any sort of eternal focus. This system is just another system of temporal values.
True value lies in having a living, breathing relationship with Jesus Christ. It's going to look different on different people, but the core is Christ in us, the hope of glory. That is priceless and free!
“You do not need to have Christ in order to have the benefits of these seven principles.”
A very similar thing was said in Moscow in the early 1990s. It was a surprise to most of us that we were not to speak of the gospel in the schools. We had been under the impression until arriving that we would be able to freely speak, based on what we had been told by headquarters in preparing to come. Once there, we were told that you offer people the fruit first, then they come to closer to the tree. Supposedly Christ was the tree, but the "fruit" was the character qualities, which are possible to live and to offer apart from Christ. On one hand, I very much agree that you can help people without them realizing at first that it is Christ in you who loves them. A counselor can help someone without the client even realizing the counselor is a believer, for example. But when you can remove Jesus and his life, death, and resurrection from the core of your belief system without deflating the system, you have to wonder if you are offering a system that is something else besides authentic Christianity.
Character First!, both the business model and the program for public schools, was such a farce, in my opinion. I knew personally some in leadership for the public school program, and I still have great respect for them. But they were basically required to write God out of all of it... And in my opinion, that just made it an empty shell with bright, shining eyes. CF! was the beginning of the end, for our family. Somehow, it was an isolated area of hypocrisy, that opened our eyes to the emptiness and works-basedness, of the entire organization.
Is Character First! related to the character curriculum that was used in Moscow beginning around 1992-ish? There was the book about Attentiveness with the white-tailed deer on the cover.
Ah, no, Character First! was a later program. I'm thinking around '96-97, was when it first started?
Lol, I think I'm confusing the issue. I remember something similar being said when Character First! was initially introduced. The CF! curriculum basically was character quality materials, booklets, posters, etc, with no mention of Scripture or of God, anywhere in it. A bit like the Children's Institute materials, but rewritten to take God out of it. That's the connection I was making, but I guess I neglected to connect thr dots for you ;) But yes, I believe the attentiveness booklet was either created for the CI's, or was recycled for use in the CI's, then it seems much of the CI materials were rewritten for use in the CF! program. At least, that's what I gathered as an onlooker; I was never directly involved with CF!, but I was at OKC when it was first launched, so got to see some of how it played out, as well as some of the internal struggle of the CF! leadership.
Yes Matthew, from what I know, Character First expanded from that curriculum. It was developed and taught in a Children's Institute fashion throughout public schools -with all reference to God removed. I remember being told that if we were in the schools, kids would see the difference in us and ask questions which would lead to conversations about God and salvation. From what I understood at the time, that explanation somehow made it "ok" to remove God from the curriculum and just teach kids good character qualities.
Makes sense. Thanks Angelica. That's exactly what they said in Moscow as well.
I actually would have much less basis on which to criticize Gothard's theology if it were instead presented as a non-religious anthropology. In other words, if he simply left it at "universal, non-optional principles for success in life" and said that these are things that human beings can leverage to gain success in life, regardless of religion, creed, geographic location, or whatever, then it would be the musings of a self-help guru that one could accept or reject on that basis. The fact that he tries to pass it off as "God's best", "God's wisdom", and what Scripture supposedly *really* says, meanwhile losing the gospel along the way, that's at the heart of why it's worth the time to publicly push back. Seems to me, anyway.
You misunderstand Judaism. It detracts from your comments. Truthfully, Gothardism is more like Mormonsim or Islam in practice.
I agree with Priscilla. I see more similarities to Islam than Judaism with Gothard's work, at least in a modern day sense.
Priscilla, there is a difference between Judaism, and Judaizing. I understand Samuel to be referring to the latter, saying that Gothard is basically a Judaizer. I agree with Samuel on that point, but I also agree that Judaizers often do not understand Judaism, as Gothard does not.
Excellent thoughts, Samuel and thank you kindly for taking time to express them so powerfully.
Would you say that Gothard and his influence are responsible (directly or indirectly) for the present-day teachings of Vision Forum, the Family Integrated Church, Voddie Bacham, etc.?
On the basis of Jesus+ rules for living, encouraged separation and isolation from those unlike themselves, misappropriated authority, courtship teachings, and a preying on the fears of homeschooling families for things like college, government, medicine, etc, yes.
Vision Forum has more militant idealogy when it comes to political aims, and coupled with others such as the Botkins, a more layered and severe incorporation fo patriarchal statutes. Bauchum can be included in this. They are also aligned with a bastardized version of Calvinism and reformed theology, whereas Gothard never openly espoused one side or the other on the subject of predestination that I am aware of.
Dreamer, I believe that Gothard's teachings are very much responsible for Vision Forum at least. (I am not familiar with the other two mentioned things) I could be wrong of course, patriarchal, authoritative religious groups have existed in and out of CHristianity time out of mind.
I would say that Gothard and Douglas Phillips (Vision Forum) and Douglas Wilson (Federal Vision) were influenced by the same root, rather than one being influenced by the other.
Wilson and Phillips are both philosophical descendents of R. J. Rushdoony (Christian Reconstructionism) and Confederate Theologian R. L. Dabney (who greatly influenced Rushdoony). Gothard shares many of the same ideas (particularly the "us v. them" mentality and the hostility to Jazz and Rock Music. (Rushdoony rejected them for racist reasons, btw.)
Gothard doesn't attribute his ideas quite like Wilson and Phillips, who proudly list Dabney and Rushdoony as foundational to their philosophy, but the ideas are too similar to be a coincidence.
I believe at least one of the families who worked closely with Doug Phillips, was an ATI family (and a family that I had known personally, at that)... So, I still think the Gothard influence was there at the beginning of VF, and significantly so... But I could be mistaken, as VF came about after I had left the influence of ATI/IBLP. The preceding is what I've pieced together through comparing notes with other x-ers.
Thanks Sara for sharing this with us. It's right on!
The crazy thing is that in his teachings he judged us all with his own legalistic ideals of Christianity. Judging only breeds more judging. As I try not to be judged because I live up to others expectations, I will in turn judge.
This is the opposite of what Jesus came to bring us. As He accepted us with all His amazing love, we are to accept others and love them.
Love your line “What matters is that you love God and love others.”
I love this letter Sara!!! Great job. Too bad that Gothard has and will continue to side-step us or blame us.
God bless!!! :)
Excellent letter!!!
Very well-written letter. Sorry you got no response. That in itself is pretty revealing. Thanks for putting into words what so many of us have thought and felt!
You did a great job explaining your disillusionment with ATI/IBLP. I certainly don't detect any bitterness in your tone. (Some people say that Recovering Grace is just a place for bitter people to vent, but that is not true.)This is a valuable resource for recognizing spiritual abuse and healing and recovery from it.)
'Bitterness' gets talked about more than Truth and Christ-Centered Christianity when Gothard comes up - that in and of itself is a tragedy, and should be a very clear indication of the dangers of Gothard's teachings.
Go, Sara!! Great letter. Thanks for having the guts to write it. And no, I'm not surprised you didn't get a response. But thank you for putting the emotional energy into writing - you did what so many of us cannot yet do.
Yes. This is very well-articulated and spot on.
Thank you for both writing and sharing this. Best part of the letter for me:
"I’ve gradually learned that God doesn’t dislike me. He is always present and active, gentle and loving. When I sin, there is much grace. When I succeed, there is much grace. When I’m apathetic and can’t bring myself to “try” any harder, His grace is still there with me."
No matter if you had a seemingly good experience or bad. The misappropriation of God's grace has "ship wrecked" many people's faith! Just makes me ill!!! Thanks Sara for being faithful and sharing this letter.
It seems to me not making this personal isn't a sin either. Quite simply, Jesus took personal attacks at the pharisees. To expose the rot within the beautiful looking vessel is quite scriptural.
Shall we just go ahead and stone the man?
...pretty strong language in some of these posts ...
We should certainly not stone him, just assess him by the standards he has publicly espoused and has held others to so strictly, and with such destructive effects. We should not regard him as fit for the position of leadership and influence he has engineered for himself and so jealously guarded against all possible threats to his authority.
Amen! Genuine repentance on Gothard's part would be a great start.
Unlike Gothard, few us deem ourselves worthy of casting such stones, were that even remotely close to our intent. Let us not play the pendulum between observation of someone's lack and the thought that some physically guided missile is now in order.
Well put.
Again, the tendency toward Judaism can be clearly defined, (see Galatians, etc.), and Gothard, weighed by the teachings of the Apostle Paul, comes out pretty often on the side of the Judaizers.
(That is, those who would add OT Law to Christ - for sanctification or salvation)
The Apostle Paul warns Christians to avoid such people - why are we wrong to echo his warnings...?
Grateful, we have not the legal authority to stone him ;) But neither will I continue to follow him, and I will warn others, when I can. To date, his greatest transgression, in my mind, is his mis-teaching on grace. Perhaps you would like to study just this one area, in depth? Gothard teachings and practical outworkings on grace, vs traditional church teaching, for starters?
(Not to mention, that I find no NT injunction for Christians to stone false prophets... Only to not receive them.)
The whole aspect of Gothardism I believe to be a lordship issue which will eventually oppose the lordship of Christ.I've seen it for over 40 years.It's resulted in west central Indiana in broken churches broken homes,divorce, people in authority tramping the lesser ones accusing them of witchcraft, rebellion,etc.Symbolically in Revalation this horible misuse of our lords power is called nicolaitanism from two Greek words meaning to "conquer the people".Gothardism glorifies in the end false fallen and pagan authority,and it doesn't matter how the deception gets into the believer (I know because Ive been there) your concept of the lord will be distorted).Yokes are heavy when Jesus' yoke is light,burdens are heavy, Christ's is not,followed up with a treadmill of dead works,all in the name of the One who gets distorted,a great travesy which I so thank Recovering Grace for tryin g to stop. My prayers are with you till the end,thank God there will be an end to this.
Great comment David! Thank you for your eloquence. The burden that has left me bit by bit as I throw off Gothardism and embrace Christ (finally!) is astonishingly light. Gives whole new meaning to that verse to me. Just a couple of weeks ago I had a spiritual experience where some burden or other lifted off me, and I literally felt it go. It puzzled me to no end, it was such a powerful experience, and I felt so physically light and clean for several days afterwards, that I honestly wondered out loud to my husband, "did I get saved or something? I thought I already was." He said, "Maybe you just finally pushed through something." As soon as he said that, I knew that's exactly what it was. I don't know if I could put into words exactly what it was that fell off of me, but I don't miss it one bit! I think it was something associated with fear though. so happy now. Didn't realize what I was missing.
"My chains are gone; I've been set free!"
Yes, what Beth said! The inadequate response and subsequent lack of response by Bill says it all. The letter he sent out seemed disingenuous to me too.
Thank you for writing this!
Wow! Very nice letter. It appears that you are living a balanced joyful life in Christ. I'm happy for you and your family. I agree with the purpose of your letter. I hope those who are considering embarking on following Mr. Gothard would be forewarned and find a more centered Christian fellowship.
Amen Sarah! So well stated!
Wrote a reply letter myself the other day along very similar lines, but I haven't actually sent it, as I feel pretty confident it would simply be a waste of time. I was not personally wronged by him or his ministry, it's his bad teaching I have a problem with. Since Gothard has refused to admit/correct the errors in his teaching for decades, when approached by fellow Christian leaders no less - I'm sure my words would mean nothing to him. It was nice to put it all in words for myself though.
That letter he wrote didn't sound as though it was really for us student alumi anyhow. Sounded more like it was for the benefit of his current followers who might waver in their loyalty when faced with the thousands that have quit following Gothard and are now simply, and much more happily, following Jesus.
I see Alfred still hasn't shown up... Too bad would've been interested in his thoughts.
I'm sharing this article on Facebook and I hope it gets a wide viewing.
I'm the author of this letter.
For the record, after this letter was posted publicly, I did get a "response" from The Office of Bill Gothard. It was on Institute letterhead, and read like the draft of a newsletter with a few vague references to my letter cut-and-pasted in.
It wasn't a reply at all. It was damage control. Had one of us tried a reply like that during our ATI years, we'd have been blasted out of the water.
Sara,
Thank you for writing the letter and publicly posting it. I wish that the response had been different. It would have been nice to think that Bill Gothard hadn't meant to hurt or trip us up. It is disappointing to have everything that I thought he was confirmed. Shame on him for inviting people to contact him with offenses and then not even care enough to respond courteously. I am so glad he is no longer a part of my life. What a waste of my youth.
Hello Sara,
It looks like Bill's latest blog post focuses on his definition of grace: http://billgothard.com/content/abiding-powerful-grace-god
There is a lot of Scripture there to think about if nothing else.
What does Bill using lots of scripture have to do with anything? He always uses lots of scripture. It is an annoying way to keep people from actually understanding the main point of what he is trying to say. The point is a letter was written (at Bill's request) to tell areas that were offenses. Silly Bill can't even follow his own instructions and give an actual apology. So I ask again, how does lots of scripture have anything to do with this post? You are not helping him by expecting us to wade through his nonsense just because it has lots of scripture in it. I have my own Bible that I can read if I want lots of scripture.
I think Grace's comment says it all: "Silly Bill can't even follow his own instructions and give an actual apology."
Bill Gothard is a classic example of someone who has a narcissistic personality disorder. Narcissists are unable to apologize.
Robert, I'm sure Bill Gothard has mistreated and taken advantage of you through the years. It seems to be a common theme with anyone who is close to him. I hope that this letter in some way speaks to you. I also hope that you have a chance to discover grace for yourself.
Robert,
I am beyond uninterested in reading that blog post. I know what his definition of grace is, and his use of Scripture gives me a headache after years of trying to reconcile what it actually says with what he CLAIMS it says. In fact, it was when I purposed (IBLP joke!) to look up every Scripture reference in the Basic Seminar Workbook that I understood how cavalier he is with the Bible. (I didn't finish looking them up. It took about seven into the list to figure out how he operated.)
I wrote him a personal letter, and expected (oops -- I violated a principle) a personal reply. A blog post isn't going to cut it. Doesn't matter how many Bible verses he sticks in it.
Robert,
The problem with Bill's new article is that now he says "grace CONTAINS the desire and power to do God's will." Here's the kicker: that's not what Bill has said for the past 20-40 years. He has never said that grace merely contains that, but that grace was solely all about "the desire and power to do God's will."
Think for a minute, Robert, how problematic that definition is, Scripturally.
If grace is "the desire and power to do God's will," then who has this desire? We do. So therefore, if grace is the "desire and power that WE have to do God's will," then isn't that making grace all about what we do vs. what God does? That seems to be emphasizing works over grace.
I really hope, Robert, that you will one day realize that Bill isn't what you think he is. His version of Christianity is one based on performance to earn God's favor, full of legalism (measuring Godliness by extra-Biblical standards), and fear.
Some books that you might be interested in reading on the topic of grace would be "Transforming Grace" by Jerry Bridges (Navigators), and "The Grace Awakening" by Chuck Swindoll.
Robert, you would know me as Cassie's older sister. I appreciate you trying to defend Mr G, it shows that you are a man of honor. But as you know what happened to Cassie as a child and teenager, you also understand that the principles that she tried to live by, the principles of forgiveness, being under the umbrella of authority, did not give her freedom from her fear or anger. God's grace finally showed itself to her when she left HQ, got into a good Pentacostal church (that follows the Bible first and no man second), and got a good job where she's paid what she should be for the excellent work that she does. She now has a strong trust in God that she didn't have growing up or at HQ, because she was taught to trust in herself and her works not HIS grace. I too can say that I am only saved by Grace now, not principles, dress codes or certain kinds of music.
As you are raising your children, please carefully consider how you want your children to turn out. Gothard promises happy, obedient children if you follow his principles to the letter. I can tell you right now, it breeds anger, fear, and rebellion to God himself and you as the parent. However, if you read the Bible and simply teach your children to love God with all of their being, your children will grow up to be strong believers, love you and your wife, and they will go out to become whatever God has given them the desire to be, be it a wife, a doctor, a lawyer, a chef, or the President.
PS: remember that Mr G believes he can do no wrong (whether he actually does sin or not) and you will want to closely watch any interaction your children have with him, as there have been many stories of inappropriate behavior about him. You will never regret being over-protective of your children!
Robert - it's really eye opening to go through the "big red book" (basic seminar textbook :-) )and actually read and study the scripture that goes along with the principles. They're so extrapolated it's rather amazing. I'd really challenge you do it and see what you think.
And another bit of scripture to think about -
"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." Mark 9:42
Robert, Two quick points to illustrate why we have questions that are more concerned with HOW Gothard treats Scripture more than the fact that he uses 'a lot of Scripture' in his teachings.
In the post you reference, Gothard focuses on obeying the 'commands of Christ' (his list) as the key to abiding in God's grace:
1)
BG: "Jesus said, “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you…If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love” (John 15:7, 10).
The teaching of Jesus centers around the commands which He received from His Heavenly Father and taught to His disciples. (See John 15:15.)"(Bill Gothard)
Gothard passes over simple, contextual explanation of what exactly Jesus is talking about here. His commands? See verses 12-17, twice Jesus says:"This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." BG skips around these verses while referencing 7,10&15. There is a definite theme to these verses, and a specific command: Love One Another.
2)BG: "I have learned that Christ’s commands are not suggestions or man-made rules but the means by which God reveals Himself to us and works powerfully in our lives.
...Further verses on His commands are:
1 Jn.2:3-4, 3:22, 5:2 & 5:3"
“Whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight” (I John 3:22).
Please Note,
this verse is NOT followed by BG with the very next one, which, imho, gives an explanation and context to all of chapter 3...
"And THIS is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment."(emphasis mine)
This is probably too much detail, but any attempt to actually discuss what BG teaches necessarily involves the basics of text analysis (hermeneutics), because BG largely disregards any attempt at actually teaching the straightforward message of scripture in an effort to back up his own interpretations.
Bill Gothard in this post says:
"When I began the Basic Seminar in 1964, it was simply an explanation of MY experiences in trying to apply the commands of Christ and of God’s amazing rewards to the extent that I was able to do it."
For almost 50 years now, BG has been teaching HIS experience, HIS explanations, illustrated by the rewards of HIS trying and doing as THE way to live the Christian life, as Non-Optional Principles, and as the very Words of God Himself.
That is a huge problem, no matter how much Scripture he uses. Personally, I am overjoyed that so many of us former atiers, as responsible, mature adults in their 30's and 40's are finally speaking out publicly against BG and IBLP.
Thanks, Will for this explanation. We need to continue to dissect his teachings as they come up. Christian education in how to interpret the Bible is so incredibly important.
[...] Link to post: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/01/dear-mr-gothard-one-students-letter/ [...]
Its instructive much of the discussion revolves around you or his definition of grace. If grace is a liscense to listen to CCM and inappropriate movies, that's redefined grace. But if grace means we should abstain from ungodliness, then that is Biblical.
There is nothing wrong with CCM. Or what would you say that's wrong with that style of music? Because it's "rock n roll"? Lol.
Movies is another issue altogether. What kind of movies do you mean? Little Mermaid? Shrek? Or stuff that's rated R?
What do you mean by:"But if grace means we should abstain from ungodliness, then that is Biblical."
Wait, grace, by definition, means we DON'T listen to ccm or watch certain movies? Even Gothard does not get so specific in his definition!
Sir, methinks you have completly missed what grace is, or isn't. It has nothing to do with either music OR movies, but only has to do with a repentant sinner being granted relationship with the King...Certainly something he could never aspire to, in his own merit.
John Doe have you heard of the "straw man fallacy"? Allow me to attempt an explenation.
You are misrepresening the positions put forth in this article and many articles throughout this website.
To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Food for thought.
But if grace means we are required to obey extra-biblical rules and standards to achieve holiness, then that is legalism. When ungodliness becomes defined by external, extra-biblical standards, then that is no longer grace but is instead legalism. The question is not whether we should be godly and eschew ungodliness - I think most everyone here would agree on that. The question is instead about how godliness/ungodliness are properly defined. The problem with ATI is that it constantly defines godliness in external, arbitrary and extra-biblical ways.
isn't fruit external? As believers we are to discern fruit.
Fruit is not external, it is internal. Love, faith, hope, patience, goodness, etc. are all first and foremost internal. Compare to things like hair length, type of music, what one eats, etc. Of course, true fruit will be displayed in external ways - true fruit can't help but do so - but to label the fruit itself as external would be totally contrary to the nature of the works of the Spirit in our life.
"The problem with ATI is that it constantly defines godliness in external, arbitrary and extra-biblical ways."
I agree David.
Legalism
~noun
1.Excessive adherence to law or formula.
2.Dependence on moral law rather than on personal religious faith.
grateful, check out Matthew 7:15-23 and Matt.12:31-37 again.
First and foremost, the 'fruit' in the context of Jesus' words here is the teachings, the words of false prophets and pharisees.
They boasted in their own achievements and their own righteousness, as opposed to accepting Jesus as the only way to gain approval from God, reconciliation with Him, salvation, sonship, and so much more...
all IMHO. of course. cheers! ;)
Thank you for sharing! I was raised in ATI as well -- only in the last 6 months due to a dating relationship have I fully come to realize the damage that happened to me sitting under ATI teaching for so long. The teachings about courtship and impressions I had were so damaging that I now react much like one that was abused but never was. I was never sent to headquarters but idolized those who were, although many of my experiences volunteering in his ministries (children's institutes) were lined with hurt and condemnation. I have gone on to get my college degree and have a successful career teaching Kindergarten.