Series Overview: When reports of immorality became widespread among Bill Gothard’s IBYC staff in the 1970s, the stories were initially “unbelievable.” Not because they couldn’t be true, but because people had placed such hope in Gothard. Thus, amid the hurt and complexity, there was a real need for the teaching of Jesus Christ in Matthew 18.
Unfortunately, instead of reducing the hurt and complexity, Gothard actively worked to take advantage of the confusion. He had regularly required staff to sign loyalty oaths and to turn over their meeting notes to him as a method of controlling information. Now, over a period of numerous years, he carefully taught new concepts to his staff and employees—with the goal of blocking truthful reports—and extended his teachings nationwide through seminars and alumni booklets.
We have exposed the fallacy of the following teachings:
- “Giving only a good report,” as taught in the 1976 publication Rediscovering a Forgotten Truth, which twisted the teaching of Matthew 18:15–19 to silence staff and volunteers in order to cover up the growing IBYC sex scandal.
- “Defilement of listening to an evil report,” as published in 1981 as part of the concerted effort to silence and discredit former IBYC staff.
In this article, we explore:
- “Not taking up an offense,” as taught in the 1984 Basic Seminar video recording, a continuation of previous teachings and an effective means of keeping the IBYC and IBLP faithful unquestioning and uninvolved in sin or injustice they might have witnessed.
“Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.” Ephesians 5:11
“The sins of some men are quite evident going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after.” 1 Timothy 5:24–25
See no evil; speak no evil; hear no evil. IBLP has a Matthew 18 publication that fits well with each monkey. Today’s article pairs well with “see no evil.”
Not taking up an offense
As the destructive patterns of Bill Gothard’s alleged indiscretions continue to be told, our comment threads have been hit steadily with various forms of the same question: “Why haven’t these stories been told sooner? If people witnessed these behaviors, why didn’t they speak out?”
One oft-quoted—but fallacious—teaching within the Advanced Training Institute (ATI) community is that of “not taking up an offense.” The phrase was introduced in Session 7 of the Basic Seminar[1] as one of the five causes of persistent bitterness. In short, this teaching suggests that it is wrong to take up someone else’s issue as our own; the reasoning is that God gives grace for us to handle our own personal injustice but does not promise to give grace to us if we are a ‘bystander’ to the injustice.
In the seminar, Gothard says, “If somebody would offend me, then God would give me the grace along with the offense to respond to it.” Here he references several truths that allude to biblical promises. Yes, God does indeed give grace to those who are victims of injustice or offense, providing his presence, his wisdom, and his care. But in the next sentence Gothard astoundingly says, “If somebody, though, on the sideline sees me hurt and they take up an offense and become bitter at the one who offended me… years later they’re still bitter, because they didn’t get any grace. God gave grace to the one who was offended, but God doesn’t give any grace to the sideliners—those who take up offenses for others.”
Consider that bold statement for a moment and ponder the absolute lack of scriptural warrant for it. Gothard says with all the confidence of assumed fact that if you take up the cause of someone who is offended or wronged, and take it as your own cause, God will not give you grace for that endeavor.
His only scriptural reference for the entire concept of “not taking up offenses” is Psalm 15:3. Gothard says in the Basic Seminar, “The Scripture tells us in Psalm 15:3 that if you don’t do these things, you’ll never fall. And there’s only a few things. So they’re very, very important. One of those is if you don’t take up an offense against somebody else.”
Look at Psalm 15:3 closely. In the King James Version, it reads, “He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.” The NIV reads, “whose tongue utters no slander, who does no wrong to a neighbor, and casts no slur on others.” The ESV and NAS use the phrase “nor takes up a reproach against his friend.” In context, however you translate it, is this verse really talking about a bystander taking up someone else’s cause?
Not according to any commentary we can put our hands on. Understanding parallelism in Hebrew poetry, these couplets repeat one another with the second slightly enhancing the first. After addressing righteousness (v. 2 a–b) and truthful speech (v. 2c–3a), the Psalmist adds a couplet about how we treat our friends.[2] The first phrase of the couplet sets up the second, and the second interprets the first. Thus “taking up an offense” (v. 3b) is to be understood in the line-of-thinking of “doing no wrong to a neighbor” (v. 3c). Its purpose is to challenge us to act rightly towards our friends and neighbors. The verse is not about refraining from inserting ourselves into someone else’s issue. And it certainly provides no support for the concept that grace will not be provided for a bystander who takes up a cause.[3]
It’s extremely difficult to scripturally support the assertions Gothard makes about “taking up offenses,” especially with one misapplied verse. More positively, it’s actually easy to build a case for the exact opposite of Gothard’s teaching. When we see a perceived injustice against someone, are we in any sense encouraged or even commanded to take up that cause on their behalf? Consider these verses:
“Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.” (Isaiah 1:17; see also Isaiah 58:5–12)
“Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
(Proverbs 31:9; see also Psalm 72:4)
In fact, God “calls out” his people at various times for their inaction when faced with visible injustice; Ezekiel 34:3–4, for instance, makes clear that it is heinously irresponsible for us to ignore the needs of the oppressed or wronged around us. And Philippians 2:3–4 challenges a local first-century church—and us—to rank the needs we see around us above our own.
Few would argue the exhortations of these verses. And yet a misleading interpretation of one phrase in one verse of one psalm has effectively encouraged many to remain silent in the face of significant warning signs. Gothard’s teaching on this concept has placed a spiritualized “gag order”” on many who saw improprieties within his own organization but believed it was not their place to champion the cause.
Worse yet, all of this was taught within a context of “avoiding bitterness.” The teaching goes so far as to label as “bitter” any who might see something improper and decide to speak up. In the seminar Gothard states, “Some of the most bitter people that I have met are those who were not offended, but who have taken up offenses for other people. They’re the ones who are taking up causes, and they don’t have any grace to deal with it.” On the contrary, we would point out that many Bible characters who were the least “bitter” were the ones who took up causes for others, following Christ himself as their example.
In short, in an environment where many today are saying “the warning signs were there” or “I’ve seen enough in my own experiences with the Institute to believe that the allegations are true,” adherents were taught not to speak up on behalf of others or risk being dismissed as bitter for choosing to take a stand. A teaching which has no basis in Scripture has become a powerful tool to spiritually abuse God’s flock while providing protection and cover for sin.
[1] You’ll find the discussion in Session 7 at the 11:20 mark in the Basic Seminar video recording.
[2] The word here translated ‘neighbor’ is rea` and is used of ‘somebody with whom one frequently associates.’ (Tremper Longman, Psalms. EBC, p. 183)
[3] In some settings, Proverbs 3:30 has also been invoked as a proof text. It states that we should not “strive with a man without cause, if he has done you no harm.” But “the verse does not also say that we should ignore strife when there is a notable cause, nor does it say that we should not be concerned with one another. It does not instruct us to ignore harm that is done to others, or that we should ignore what goes on around us. Our love for one another calls for justice to be established…” From this article by Under Much Grace.
One thing that God taught me about false teachings as the sexual abuses of Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, the Amish, and the conservative Mennonites have come out is that all false teachings have some element of scriptural truth in them. They are not totally false teachings. It is because of the part that was true that I was deceived and many very intelligent people have been deceived. I am appalled that men like Bill Gothard were able to deceive me. Jesus warned us over and over not to be deceived.
What makes a teaching a false teaching is when a person adds or subtracts from the commands or teaching that God has given to us in the New Testament. Sin is disobedience to what Jesus commands. Sin is not disobedience to interpretations, applications, principles, rules, standards, guidelines, or opinions of church leadership.
Another error of Gothard was his flat view of the Bible. He would use Old Testament teachings and make them as binding on believers as if it was from the New Testament. As Christians we are not under the Old Testament Law, not even one command unless it is restated in the New Testament.
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (the conservatives) for putting their own teachings above the commands of God. Jesus said:
Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
The reason that Jesus said that their hearts were far from God is that they had elevated the teachings of their “church” leaders above the commands of God (v.9). Even though the commands of their church leaders were based on the commands of God, their focus was on keeping the manmade commands of the religious community they were a part of.
When conservatives today add to the commands of God, it is spiritually very dangerous because it causes people to follow men rather than God’s commands. Amish and conservative Mennonite groups have added commands to Christ's commands because they are afraid that if they didn’t make the requirements “more strict”, people will disregard the commands of Christ and do what is right in their own eyes. Conservatives add to Christ’s commands because they want to be sure that they are doing the right thing. They would rather err on the side of over-application than disobedience. However, both are disobedience. Jesus commanded us in the Great Commission to teach others to observe to do all that He commanded us. Jesus did not command us to teach others to follow our rules or the rules of our church. When a church or organization makes rules more specific than Jesus’ rules, then the church’s rules supersede Christ’s commands and make Christ’s commands of none effect (Matt. 15:6). In doing so, a church teaches people to follow man rather than Christ. It is a subtle, but serious error.
It is important that we evaluate carefully if a teaching is totally from God's Word, or if the teacher is adding his own definitions and interpretations. If the teacher has added or subtracted from God's Word, it is a false teaching even if part of it is true.
I'm sure that the Galatian church were convinced they had true teachings. They were keeping all of the right laws and principles. But Paul told them they were under, "another gospel." He told them that Christ was of no effect for them. He said they were bewitched by false teaching. The solution for them, according to Paul, was that, "Christ be formed in you." (Gal. 4:19) Bill Gothard teaches another gospel using Bible verses. He can apologize until he is blue in the face about moral failures and hurts, but until he confesses he has been teaching another gospel, all his confessions will do is permit him to continue.
So very true--we can only serve one master. For the redeemed, our master is Jesus Christ and not the voice of another.
David,
exactly.
His teachings were merely spiritual abuse. Controlling people to build an earthly pedestal and kingdom.
My own mother struggles to listen when I tell her what a jerk Gothard is...
But I keep saying it anyway. :D
She knows I'm right, but it's hard to give up on a person who supposedly helped her. I say God's grace intervening helped her in my parent's home, not Gothard.
I see now though where Gothard influenced her and we kids speak up, and I see now that my brother's were years ahead of me on dealing with the Gothard untruths, that I bit into.
They never did...me...having to do some rethinking this past year. And I am very happy to comply with that rethinking...it frees me from the stupidness of Gothard and also from any guilt I had when I met a new bunch of Gothard followers who made unbelievable accusations towards me, which put me back into the pot of "Gothards" offenders.
I couldn't believe that I was labeled what I was...I have forgiven their ignorance, but I also will not run from speaking up now. I didn't at first, stupidly BECAUSE of Gothard's teaching on "offenses". But now I do and will speak up against any verbal abuse being tolerated..towards me or towards others.
THAT is the core of Gothard's teachings..verbal abuse, excused by "cover it up" thinking. Sometimes I am so angry from how I let people make me think I was..the bad guy. I was not, and will not let that affect me again, by God's grace.
I did what was good and right, and it was twisted into evil and then the accusers...tried to get me to shut up about it, and they even claimed they "never talked to anyone", but I know different.
I pray for them...and have tried to provide them the information from RG websites to show them...that I wasn't the "bad influence" that the parents said I was.
It's in the present of their lives, because...they are all quite confused and trying to sort through...I don't know how they will do it, unless someone steps up to help them.
I am praying the Lord provides them such help.
We all need to really be praying for those coming out...that they turn to the REAL Jesus, because the other result is...turning completely from Christ, which I know RG wants people to meet the Real Jesus.!
David: If I circumcise someone I am discipling in order to not offend Jews, is that OK? Paul did. If I teach Christians to work really hard to add godliness to their faith, would you condemn that? Peter did. If I teach people that Mosaic commands about cattle is written to Christians, how about that? Paul again. Is that another Gospel? I think you are out of balance.
That's not how Gothard teaches circumcision or his other principles based on Levitical law. He doesn't teach circumcision as an exception for contextualizing the gospel. He teaches it as a way to get God's best; to be the better Christian.
That is decidedly the Galatian teaching the Paul says anathema to. Nowhere in Gothard's teachings that I know of does he deal with Paul's STRONG statement that the one seeking to be righteous through circumcision should just go ahead and cut the whole thing off. Gothard teaches it's a matter of higher standards/righteousness. To accuse David of being out of balance and refusing to admit Gothard is on these matters is to not take Galatians seriously.
Gal. 5:1 For freedom Christ has tset us free; ustand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Paul is addressing people who were justified by believing the gospel and are now seeking to be sanctified (better Christians) by law keeping rather than ongoing faith in the gospel. (Gal.3.1-5) He's astonished. The exception to Paul's teaching that you reference has a particular circumstance in mind; reaching Jews with the gospel. NOT being better Christians.
Well . . . as I have said over . . . and over . . . and over, I am one of the few that has the booklet on Circumcision IBLP put out. I never heard him teach on it in any seminar or smaller gathering. Whatever he meant.
If what you say is true, he would make that a criteria for membership in ATI, right? He would certainly put it on a list of "10 Things to Make God Pleased" or whatever. Frankly, it is a mis-characterization to present comments on circumcision as anything but a medical side issue. That you had to be part of the "MTIA" program to even read.
I certainly never took from it that it made my children part of the "covenant". I saw it as a design issue, the way God designed boys with the intent to physically remove the foreskin. Just like He designed us to take a major break every 7 days. Just like I think He had a good reason to command the Jews to keep a new mother and her baby apart for a month or so due to "uncleanness". If I ask the question, "How long is best to keep a new baby away from others?" I bet the best answer is in the law of Moses.
And Paul says EXACTLY that. When it came to the command to not muzzle the ox treading out the grain, he said the law of Moses was "for us":
1 Tim. 5:"17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."
And then:
1 Cor. 9:"8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope."
Look at that! Christian doctrine from the law of Moses . . . the law is "for us". I see nothing that Bill does as any different. The law teaches us how God thinks.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts here. Very well spoken.
Very well stated.
>>As Christians we are not under the Old Testament Law, not even one command unless it is restated in the New Testament.
A good post, except the above is utterly false. E.g., Rom 13:9: The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and WHATEVER other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (emphasis added)
There are many others that explicitly repudiate your statement. The "commandments" are not arbitrary rules imposed simply as hurdles, but defining words of life that sustain us and give us zoe life. They were never meant to be used in a stand alone fashion for God gave His presence at their issuance, but the Israelites rejected His Spirit and consequently turned the life words into Judaism: a dead religion of rules.
Myron, your comment is worth reading several times - entrapment to false teaching because it is partially true, treating the Old Testament Mosaic covenant as thought it were binding on NT believers (which flies in the face of the Jerusalem council), and adding to the Word of God.
We need to keep reading our Bibles cover to cover so we have the whole counsel of Scripture in mind when evaluating teaching. Great comment!
Myron.....Not gonna argue with your discussion...other to say...How about you insert the word "Liberal" any place you pile on conservatives. Better yet, use the word "people". Savvy?
I think it needs to be noted that the Pharisees were not believers and had rejected Christ. Therefore it is not a term to just plug in and associate with "conservative" or "fundamental" Perhaps the labels should just be dropped.
God can open up our understanding to how to apply any passage of the Bible. I think BG was right that principles from the OT can also be applied in the Christian life, but only if understood correctly. And yes, the NT does help with that.
I mean, we don't stone people today if they are gluttons, or rebellious children, or adulterers. Thank God we are under the reign of the grace of Christ! Maybe the principle of the stoning for a NT believer is to know when we have a "stony heart" (like in the parable of the sower), and need the Spirit to give us a "heart of flesh." Neither do we have to kill a dove, lamb, or bull when we sin--Jesus died for our sins on the cross, and rose so we can have true victory over sin!
I don't think a OT command has to be exactly restated by the NT, because some OT concepts are inferred and interpreted, but not restated. Obviously, some things were meant to be temporary, but believing the OT and NT are in harmony is an advantage to understanding both.
I totally agree with the problem of making the rules for life more strict. Both the OT and the NT say that man-made rules, adding to God's word, is a serious problem!
If you have read of the "can't talk" rule from The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, it becomes plain that all the above mentioned tactics are varied ways of enforcing that rule.
The operational definition of gossip is a good one, too, to shut people up from giving a warning, and that definition shames you for talking to people about detrimental problems of someone or a group of people, when the people being talked to are not part of the problem, or part of the solution. Now that could be true that spreading things around is wrong, but not if there are serious matters going on and proper channels have been exhausted.
Just think, for a moment, of all that would have been prevented if more people had risen up and spoken out in the late '70s, early '80s, after so much sickening, abusive behavior had already taken place. There was enough information back then to shut the whole thing down, and the many other stories that are now coming out would have been prevented.
I wonder if BG clipped the parable of the Good Samaritan out of his Bible? No, the Good Samaritan never went after the criminals, but he was the only one who did what he could to help the victim. Of course, in BGs theology, the victim **must** have brought it on himself.
Perhaps he had rebelled against his parents, or was out from under his authority's umbrella of protection (that's in the BG bible somewhere, right?), or didn't cry out to God when attacked, or, or, or...?
The only difference with victims of emotional abuse or sexual harassment is there are no visible marks. But then, as now, the self-proclaimed righteous still "pass by on the other side," or worse, blame the victim.
Something that is missing from most of his stories is the concept of God choosing and using those who are not the brightest, fastest, richest, most powerful, or best at something. Instead, God chooses those who are weak and would have gone unnoticed by others. These folks know they cannot boast before God. They are entirely counting on the merit of Christ, not their own merit.
In the Gospel according to Gothard, God passes over the ordinary and chooses only those who are "excellent." As if it were a sort of spiritual olympics.
The Good Samaritan. The generous landowner (https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/08/the-unfair-bonus/). The lost sheep, the prodigal son. Expressions of unmerited grace - for the most part, tragically lacking.
I've thought often about the parable of the prodigal son. This is the "anti-principle" parable, because the Father breaks all of them, and then shamelessly dances on the pieces. the point of the parable is not how the son obeyed ANY particular principle, though I guess if you are bill-like, you'd have to torture the text to find it.
The point to the story is how scandalously generous and redemptive the father is. the principle driven older son never caught on, and stayed sour faced at a distance. Meanwhile, those who could endure the "scandal" had a HUGE party. Party on RG'ers, and mattewS
Greg, I love your visual picture of the Father dancing shamelessly on the broken pieces! There is a book entitled "The Older Brother Returns" by Neal Lozano regarding those of us who perhaps never rebelled, and may be tempted to judge others/feel shortchanged, while struggling to know how much the Father really loves us too.
^^I LOVE this comment! It's all about the Father's love! And not about our performance!
How funny that you state "the gospel according to Gothard"....... growing up my brother and I use to call the wisdom booklets BG's Twisted Version whenever a verse was referenced from the KJV.
Whenever a group elevates a leader to such a high position the people and group set themselves up for something like this. Groups become "personality cults" where whatever the top person says isn't questioned or if one does that questioner is silenced in some way.
Bill Gothard is one example and Doug Phillips another. Bob Weiner who lead Maranatha Ministries and C.J. Mahaney who lead Sovereign Grace Ministries are other examples.
Jeremiah 17:5-6 says this:
This is what the Lord says:
“Cursed is the one who trusts in man,
who draws strength from mere flesh
and whose heart turns away from the Lord.
That person will be like a bush in the wastelands;
they will not see prosperity when it comes.
They will dwell in the parched places of the desert,
in a salt land where no one lives.
As a result of having been a young patron of ATI, it difficult for me to not have the inclination to "take up offenses" in my life now. ATI ingrained a strong since of social injustice in me. I can't help but take up offenses now for myself and the people about whom I care in my life. I won't stop looking out for myself and my family, having seen the damage of blindness and complacency. When I see social injustices, I am easily perturbed and inclined to involve myself...!
I think there is a time needed for anger just to process all that went on that concerned us. Its normal. Scripture tells us not to sin in our anger. (I have seen people rebelliously run into sin just to get even so to speak). I have had anger just in processing it all. The energy motivates me to move out of that place. As we heal balance in our thinking returns and grace for the "enemy" will return so we can actively pray for their lives to be changed by Truth.
A process indeed.
This is an excellent article highlighting the part of the theoretical foundations that Gothard was able to use to control and limit the information his followers received or shared. This teaching was used as a tool Gothard used to control his followers.
This teaching also is the foundation for some of Gothard's "encouragement" teaching - the idea that we should only say things that will "uplift," "encourage," or "edify" others in the words that we say, which of course includes not speaking negative things about events or authorities.
But Gothard's propaganda machine didn't just stop with this teaching, he actively implemented and enforced it. I remember back in the late 90s/early '00s when email became a common method of communication a group of ATI moms independently started an email listserv so that moms could communicate with each other and share their experiences, give prayer requests, teaching tips, etc. The listserv became quite large, and eventually Gothard announced that Headquarters (or someone hand-picked by HQ) had to moderate the communication, and that only "encouraging" and "edifying" information could be shared.
Due to this teaching, I think many parents probably ignored or didn't bother to ask why HQ felt the need to control what ATI mothers said to each other.
Given the widespread abuses at ATI facilities that were going on, and given what we are now learning about them, it's a lot easier to see how this teaching was critical to allowing Gothard to continue operating unchecked.
I remember when they required that you check in with HQ before having a get together of more than a couple ATI families.
It seems that Bill Gothard didn't want any gathering that he couldn't be in control of.
WOW!
I remember that as well. We got together with several families (had to drive a few hours each way), and it was even sanctioned by the area coordinator. We met twice, I think, and it swiftly came to an end with the area coordinator being reprimanded. As kids, it was so encouraging to do this, since we were the "weirdos" and it was great to meet with other families like us. I remember not understanding at all why it wasn't allowed.
Really? Somehow we never experienced that. We hosted large gatherings of up to 10 ATI families from our area every year for several years. No one ever tried to stop us. Those gatherings are among my favorite childhood memories.
oh yes ... this was definitely a thing we had to get permission for/to do ... I recall thinking it was kinda ridiculous that I couldn't organize a get-together with my fellow ATIA girl-friends without permission from "HQ"
If he really believed what he taught, then I would think he would live in fear all the time, of the very things he taught would happen to people if they would do the same.
This tells me that he didn't believe what he was teaching. I can't know his heart, but it would seem as though he didn't believe that the principles worked as he taught they did.
If that is the case, then he used them only as a means to an end - to spend upon himself.
"The Institute in Basic Life Principles is dedicated to giving clear training on how to find success by following God’s principles found in Scripture." From the front page of the IBLP website.
Is THIS Christianity? To find success by following God's principles? First of all, what Bill teaches are for the most part not God's principles. But that being said, read that statement of purpose again. Could we possibly find a better definition of legalism? Christianity is Christ in you -- new LIFE in Christ. It is not a system whereby you can make your life successful. The tragedy here is that few of us know the difference.
AMEN!
Rather than continually try to CONTROL people, information, private conversations, and how people relate to each other -- I have a better suggestion for Bill Gothard: Don't do wrong. Don't lie. Don't abuse. In short, have nothing to hide. Have no need to control. There is absolutely NOTHING that comes out of this ministry except it be law, control, fear, and the usurping of the believer's personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Totally correct.
Hmmmm, that comment reminds me of a session about the benefits of a clear conscience .... Perhaps he should go to the Basic.
"God has not given us a spirit of fear...." Everything about this ministry is a spirit of fear. Control. The destruction of personal faith.
David, you are so right. In Minnesota some leaders in the homeschool movement operate in a control and fear imposing mode. There has also been a lot of shamebased theology, and I see where it all came from. IBLP. My prayer is that our family would continue to grow in grace and reach out to the lost. We did before we became involved with ATI and then we became so fearful and appearance orientated. Just give me Jesus.
Amen to your comment, Pam. Shamebased. Jesus is not shamebased. I wish I would have seen that 25 years ago. A loving Shepherd who knows how to shepherd the heart. I am so glad to have whatever time I have left on this earth to go forward in the love of Jesus and be a true blessing in our family. We raised our children in ATI for 11 years and it has caused great harm.
This statement by Myron Horst above, points out the central principle in all of this:
"Sin is not disobedience to interpretations, applications, principles, rules, standards, guidelines, or opinions of church leadership."
In other words, there is a difference between what the Scriptures say and what my preacher says the Scriptures say. If only more Christians believed this. If only more preachers conveyed this.
The problem is that we all know that God gave teachers and elders to the church, and that it is their job, ("calling", if you will), to convey the meaning of Scripture (preach and teach) to the people. It is not easy for those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, who desire to obey Scripture, to interpret the Scriptures themselves. So we all depend on others - those we look up to spiritually to tell us what the meanings are. When I was studying for the ministry, an older pastor told me, "Don, remember that most people want only to know what your conclusion is so they know what to do. They don't care how you got there, they only want to know what you end up with."
Not one in a hundred sitting in a church pew knows what Hebrew parallelism is, nor do they care. Not one in a thousand preachers have ever emphasized to their congregation that they are not responsible to obey his sermon...they are only responsible to obey the Scripture. Seminarians are taught to 'Preach with authority'. Every time a preacher raises his voice in a sermon, or says anything dogmatically, he is putting his hearers under guilt to HIS interpretations. (Unless he is quoting the Scriptures when he does so.) How many preachers do you know teach primarily how to interpret rather than what he thinks the interpretation is? How many preachers tell their hearers that they may or even should disagree with him?
When a man stands behind a podium and reads a passage of Scripture, whether it be one verse, or an entire chapter, then talks for forty minutes, we must remember that we are getting forty minutes of someone's opinion, and two minutes (at most, sometimes) of God's word. Our only obligation is to the Scriptures. Only the Scriptures are authoritative. While a preacher has a form of authority, it is a very circumscribed sphere of authority, limited imo to their godly life and not including their interpretations of Scripture). Most (in my experience and observation) take on far more than is healthy for themselves or their congregations.
While not excusing those who blindly follow this or that teacher, we should be sympathetic to them, for who among us has not learned many good things from spiritual men and woman we rightly look up to.
It has been a problem from the very beginning, and will continue to be until preachers stop conveying that their interpretation is the correct one, and that their listeners are only bound by what the Scripture says, not by what the preacher says the Scripture says.
BG's problem is a hideous magnification of a church-wide problem, (especially in a culture in which we are taught to look to an educated expert elite class for guidance.) It is a problem in most churches, even if only in a minor way. It is a problem in both the pulpit and in the pew...in your church and in mine. The preachers propagate it and the hearers bow to it. The only solution is for us to read and study the Bible more...much more than we do, and to be freed to question / judge the pastors' sermons, the same way that we judge the the morning newspaper. Only the Bible itself cannot be judged.
I remember the wonderful grace-filled pastor I had when I was a new Christian. His love for the Lord and his flock were so very evident. He knew the Word, loved it, and faithfully preached it. Occasionally he would want to share his opinion with us on something for which he could not find a definitive conclusion in scripture. He would leave his bible on the pulpit and take a few steps to one side to emphasize that it was his opinion only and that, even if it may be a very reasonable conclusion based on scripture, only the word of God itself is TRUTH.
It was from that pastor that I first heard a warning about Bill Gothard and so never became entangled with his ministries. It was this dear pastor's warning that encouraged me to find resources such as RG to share with a dear friend of mine. Together she and I read, learned, and came to recognize the bondage that she and her family had suffered under due to the influence of Gothard's teachings. The Lord wants His children to walk in the freedom with which Christ has set us free. I thank Him so much for all the loving people (my old pastor, RG, the victims/witnesses coming forward, Midwest Christian Outreach, etc.) he has used as instruments to accomplish his purposes. What a blessing and privilege to be used by Him to set captives free! Great is His faithfulness.
Amen!
Wow. Just... wow. The concept of not taking up an offense has been so ingrained in so many of us. The hear it completely debunked in light of what Scripture says and what Christ DID... it's quite jarring. In a very good, throw-open-the-curtains kind of way. Thank you for this.
These articles are so helpful in tying together the scandal with the false teachings. I remember this teaching so well--it was taught emphatically even in the Basic Seminar, with vivid anecdotes. And yet it is so contrary to Scripture.
Thank you, once again. Immediately upon hearing of the gross wrong done to students (male/female--but especially female!) and adult staff (!) throughout the DECADES(!) I knew we MUST NOW deal with the offenses.
And also to hear of the labeled "leadership by fear" and "power-hungry narcissism"--and I am personally familiar with that-- we will make choices to bring justice. We will choose to "...do JUSTLY..."
If IBLP can ever be redeemed, it should focus its mission back onto faith--saving faith in and through the finished work of Jesus Christ alone and forget the success focus.
The concept of 'success' is pretty spotty in light of Hebrews chapter 11. Some did great miracles while othered were tortured and killed losing everything of whom the world was not worthy. It is a serious concept to consider.
Very good point, Samuel.
"and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. 2 Peter 2:3
Bill's greed for temporal success (power, privilege, control) led him to think that this would be the most attractive "carrot" to dangle in front of people, combined with the "stick" of fear of failure.
Amen! Thank you for posting this article.
If Jesus had not taken up an offense for me for my sin to the throne of Heaven with his own blood there would have been no cross, no resurrection, no redemption, and we would be without hope. I am glad he took up that offense for me.
When the cause is just and right, to take up an offense for the helpless and defenseless is not only right, it is our sacred duty, and is a mark that we are following in the steps of the Savior.
^^ What Scott Johnson said!
My husband and I have never been influenced by Bill Gothard, but I have, nevertheless, shed many tears pouring over your posts and comments. We have pastored three congregations with several prominent families strongly influenced by IBLP’s legalistic substitutes for the atonement of Christ. I am slowly seeing why we suffered in the particular way we did and why we were finally forced to leave the ministry we loved, that of pointing people towards grace. As well as for my precious husband’s and our children’s suffering, I grieve for the following:-
* The young man my husband rescued from imminent suicide who tried but was not successful in pleasing his Gothardite father.
* The beautiful young woman who was set up for prostitution because her (sexually abusive?) Gothardite, church elder, father had made all her decisions for her and she had no idea how to discriminate or set boundaries. It was natural for her to hand over the reins of her life to her pimp the way she had always done with her father. The “relationship” with the pimp began with his grooming her and causing her to feel obligation in a similar manner to the situations I have read about here.
* The young, talented Christian musician with shining eyes and a genuine love for Christ who was gradually beaten down by the Gothardites to such an extent that his music is now entirely secular and his venues are pubs.
* The lovely, marriageable single women in their forties and fifties whose Gothardite fathers never seemed to get around to finding someone suitable for them, and who are today lonely and bitter.
* The 50 yr. old woman, once a pleasant, sweet teenager, but now a harsh, vocal atheist, whose Gothardite parents many years ago refused to believe the truth she tried to convey to them about her experience at ATI. She is highly intelligent and has had to work very hard to acquire the education she should have been permitted to pursue earlier in life. She is finally qualified for her career.
I could go on and on. The scenarios keep coming back to me as I work through the sins that have been committed against our family. But these examples might give a bit of an idea as to the scope and nature of the harm that has been done by the Gothard family. Multiply my stories by thousands.
Patricia,
Your comment brought fears to my eyes! Someone on one of these posts said that the greatest sin committed in all of this was the mess that was made of salvation...that we were not taught about the incomprehensible love of our beautiful Savior, that all that is necessary for life is faith in His actions, his death and resurrection, his destruction of my sin and the power of it. That is the greatest sin...that these people you spoke of came to a church and left without meeting and having their lives changed by Jesus, the real Jesus. We were lied to in a lot of ways, but the misrepresentation of Jesus Christ was the worst lie of all. I pray that the people who were so hurt and think they know Him will give the true God of the Universe a chance!
Yes, Christy, with the exception of the musician, they did leave the church never having trusted Christ for their salvation. The benefits of their relationships with true believers such as my husband and me so far seem to have been overshadowed by the hurts from their own families. This is another example of the ripple effect of Gothard's "defrauding." As far as his defrauding of young women is concerned, I would bet the husbands of those who do end up marrying are ALSO defrauded because of the sexual problems "groomed" girls often carry into marriage. The effects of BG's sin go on and on, outward and even further outward ...
Something of note for me on this, is how Gothard incessantly taught his followers to "not take up an offense." Recovering Grace and its supporters are constantly bombarded with that idea. Yet, why are so many Gothard supporters "taking up an offense for Mr. G?"
It does interest me how that to defend Bill, they have to violate his teachings to do it.
Excellent point!
Ouch! Bull's eye! :)
Oh no.This teaching just popped up in my news feed in new packaging. Someone whom I know who was in ATI(A) for many many years has now been "out" for over a decade and is now very involved in a charismatic movement just posted a quote to her fbook wall:
"Jesus died to strip negativity away from you. If you are a totally new creation, that means negativity has no more hold over you because all negativity belongs to the old man that is dead. If you are going to crucify anything in your life, crucify that negative way of speaking and thinking. Crucify that gossip. Crucify that cynicism, that sarcasm and that pessimism. You have no right to be pessimistic. You have every reason to be optimistic because God is with you!"
My only thought is OH NO. Doesn't this sound like the teachings above except repackaged for a different audience? I guess I'm sharing this to say we need to watch for imbalanced teachings coming at us from all sides.
It might, if you read the word "gossip" as "speaking any negative truth about anyone in any circumstance." But I'm actually very familiar with the teacher that quote came from, and his teachings are the absolute antithesis of Gothardism. Everything he teaches is about Christ in you--the reality of that, the centrality of that, the incredible grace of that. The context of the quote above is understanding your own identity in Christ--dead to sin and alive to God. Just to say, don't be too worried if your friend is posting stuff from him! She's hearing real gospel.
Possibly. But, just as Gothard is able to twist the words of the Holy Scripture, it is possible for any false teacher to twist the words of a good teacher to his own purposes.
Not saying that's the case here :)
I think your caution on this is correct.
Jesus did not die to "strip negativity from us." Jesus did not die so we could begin our works of self-improvement (or self-righteousness) again. He died to fully satisfy the requirements of a Holy God. The blood of Jesus Christ is the wedding garment He has provided for us to wear to His feast. That is the only way we can be found acceptable in the Father's sight. Our flesh is indeed sinful, and will be done away with.
1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
II Cor 5:1-3
from
mitchell chapman
when I heard Bill speak in 1973 he was all about helping people.
When I heard Bill speak in 1993 he was all about getting property
and getting wealth. He was really bragging and carrying on and on
about all the property he had acquired. I could tell it really made him
feel good to let everybody know what a big deal he was and it seemed
his focus was now buildings instead of people. It shows because people picked up on the focus and now he gets a few people who listen to him now instead of ten thousand at a time.
Interesting observation. It's true that just because you start well and your heart was in the right place doesn't mean you'll finish well. It makes me think about myself and my church. "Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall....Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry." "I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified." 1 Cor 10:14,15; 9:27
from
MITCHELL CHAPMAN
thanks I will ponder that and also try and trim down a bit.
Bill Gothard taught error from the start. It was never the gospel of grace. It just took time for the spirit of error to rear it's ugly head.
Agreed.
A little off over a long distance is FAR off. IBLP doesn't seem to have ever qualified as true to Scripture in many ways since it is so far off in the core of the gospel.
I have over the years come to tire of those who refuse to point to the clear, unashamed gospel of Christ as our only answer!
I believe a reason many have overlooked IBLP error is that we have not been emphasizing the explicit gospel in the church for far too many years. We were ripe for the picking.
There is only one way available to God--this One Way is not OT law abiding, more and deeper committments and vows, or any other sacrifice OTHER THAN the precious shed blood of Jesus Christ!
His body and blood are full and freely-given payment for our sin, and His provision of white garments holy and clean is the only provision made by God for holiness.
Redefining grace so that it is not free is a ruse and a serious error and seen as such by many pastors and teachers who walked away over the years.
We tried for years to justify IBLP teachings by an end justifies the means approach. That approach does not prove us guiltless. It only serves to confirm that we had other reasons to not declare error to be error and reaffirm the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is serious error. We supported a false religion--one apart from the free and full saving grace of Jesus Christ provided for us on the cross.
The Holy Spirit has been provisioned by Jesus Christ Himself unto us as part of the body to lead us into all truth. No man need teach us--God Himself is faithful and good!
God the Son providing for our deepest need giving Himself for us--the Lamb of God slain from the very beginning, God the Holy Spirit actively leading, guiding, teaching, and sanctifying us, and God the Father preparing a home for us for all eternity. This Holy Unity working in us and through us to will and do His good pleasure--to bring us redeemed into the very throne room of God forever!
This is the gospel and it stands alive. The contrast between the gospel and teachings of more and heavier burdens of increasing vows, condemnation, and shame is very stark!
The gospel of Jesus Christ is akin to a suddenly-appearing flash of lightning in the midst of dark, threatening clouds of a storm!
The glory of the gospel is the very sacrifice of Jesus Christ provided freely for us--not in the stress and weight of our sinful and hopeless state without Christ's precious work on the cross.
my family was also a ATI family. the untruthful doctrine's that Bill taught have, practically speaking, brain washed our family. when i was ten i was sexually abused by another ATI son. I pray that people will see the dangers.
Christi,
I cannot pass by your comment without saying that I'm so very sorry and I hope you are able to be free and safe now. There are some FB groups available with other survivors if you haven't found them already, and there are others like you (and me) who have lost family and experienced unsafety and abuse. The cost has been very great, and it's wrong. Slowly freedom and grace have found me; I hope for you, too. Again, I'm so sorry.
One possibility that no one spoke up early about Gothard and his errors could be this old study:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA
It is harder to question or maybe even think there is a need to question when so many others aren't questioning it. Still with as wrong in doctrine Gothard was it is still shocking that there was such silence and such large crowds attending his presentations.
The 2 reasons that I didn't speak up at the time that I was a member of ATI was because 1) I was a child/minor being forced to follow the teachings, and 2) I had been sincerely convinced that Gothard's teachings were correct, albeit far-fetched and unfeasible to follow.
This is exactly what I was taught when I was younger.
[…] Taking Up Offenses […]
[…] Taking Up Offenses […]
In the 1970s, there was pathetically-little evangelical teaching that sought to guide believers in applying scripture to real life. Most were taken up with squabbling between theologies, telling lies about their missionary success, or inveighing against Antichrist's European Common Market. When Bill Gothard came to town, 1000s began to read their Bible as a timely, dependable, supernatural word from God, finding astonishingly pertinent teaching and applicable principles. Of course, many of us initially mistook subjection for submission, dominance for authority, privilege for responsibility, and license for grace.
"Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God." Psalm 20:7
As I read the minutes from the board meetings in 1979, 1980, and 1981, as well as Charlotte and "Meg's" story, I have been deeply troubled, angered, horrified, and extremely saddened.
My story with IBLP began when I was 15yrs. old. My parents and I attended a Basic Seminar. My heart longed for truth, and I found much truth there. So did my parents. My spiritual walk with Jesus Christ became real to me, and I began studying Scripture more and seeking after God and His ways.
By the time I turned 17yrs., our family had just begun ATI, and we grew much in the Lord and together as a family over the next few years.
To me, the heart of the Basic Seminar and ATI conferences was Jesus Christ. I came away with an understanding that I needed Jesus to be the centre of my life, that I was to live my life in a way that was pleasing to the Lord (eg. getting rid of sin in my life, and living holy before the Lord), and that we as Christians were to evangelize the world.
As I looked around me, though, I saw many ATI families with double standards, living a seemingly hypocritical life. I saw much legalism and sin, which I have never understood. As I reflect on this, I see a difference between head knowledge and heart application. Many, many people have easily clung to rules and to Mr. Gothard instead of clinging only to Jesus Christ. Because people's hearts were not changed to the true gospel of Jesus Christ, their outward "obedience" to principles of the Word was just a facade for the rebellion and sin in their lives (hence the molestation of girls by their "ATI" fathers, etc.).
The Lord definitely worked in me and my family. God blessed us with a brother after 5 years of praying for more children. We were also able to attend a church that needed much, and we had many opportunities to serve there, as well as to reach out to the community through VBS's, etc. Some of my siblings were baptized during that time. Also, God clearly directed me in a couple different ways to prepare me for the hardship to come--my Dad dying of a heart attack in front of me and my family.
God was very near to us in a tangible way in the immediate weeks following my Dad's passing. I could feel His presence right with me. It was amazing! He also spoke to me in my heart! Wow!
As a family, we grew closer yet. And then God blessed me with a man who loved the Lord, and we courted for a short time, got engaged, and then married almost a year after my Dad went to be with the Lord.
Although my family members have gone different ways over the past 17 years, God is still central to all of us--praise the Lord!
As I think of the teaching of the Basic Seminar, ATI conferences, Focus on the Family, No Greater Joy, Above Rubies, etc., I see such a need to cling the God's truth in each ministry, magazine, and person, and to throw away the error in each. Just as Scripture states in Romans 3:10, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.". We are all sinners, and either we are forgiven and saved by God's grace and are on our way to heaven, or we are not and are on our way to hell. All people are sinners, and we cannot fully trust in anyone, except for the Lord our God.
Concerning the "taking up offenses" matter, my understanding (from Scripture and from the Basic Seminar) is just this: if my dear friend is called into the principal's office and punished for a misdemeanor, and I get upset about it and "take up an offense" against the principal, I am asking for anger and bitterness in my life. A just punishment for a sin is nothing to get upset for. But if I do not stand up to defend the poor, the widow, the babies who are aborted, the stranger, and the fatherless, then woe unto me. I think I fully understand that Mr. Gothard (and many others) have used the "taking up offenses" matter, and have twisted it into something else, but why should we?
God has used many people in my life, and I praise Him for them. God did use Mr. Gothard in my life. I praise God for that. On the other hand, I also am seriously praying for Mr. Gothard's (and his family's) full repentence before God and man...and soon! I am also praying for the MANY people that have been hurt/abused and/or turned from the Lord because of Mr. Gothard. How awful! May they find complete healing through the True Healer, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.
"Jesus saith unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy herat, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt. 22:37-40
In Christ alone,
Melody
P.S."Some trust in chariots and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God." Ps. 20:7
[…] instance, Dean Wilson repeatedly admonished us not to take up another person’s offense—a teaching so bizarre and idiosyncratic I recognized it immediately when it appeared recently on […]
I remember the "taking up the offense" teaching from the Basic Seminar. I bought it until one day I was discussing it with a friend and he said, "That means everybody has to fight their own battles. What if someone is too weak to fight their own battle?" And I realized how wrong that teaching was. After reading so much on this website, I realize it was a convenient way to shut people up and keep them from supporting those who were being mistreated.
Hi,
I went to numerous Basic and Advanced Seminars, read the materials and was profoundly impacted by them. This site seems to be the domain of all that was hurt by this ministry, but there was much good that came out as a result of it, and I caution those who are 'escaping legalism' to understand there is another pit, licentiousness, which is just as dangerous and disasterous as the pit they emerged from.
I recognized that much of what Bill taught was part of a context, taken out of context it is disaster. He said many times,"Truth out of balance is heresy". Expousing a moral standard is not heresy, it only becomes that when it offends grace. Jesus ate with the prostitutes and tax collectors, He didn't become one. His righteousness overcame their innate tendencies and they later joined Him at His table, rather than them at their table. Standards of etiquette, patterns of speech and dress, tastes and affections, all are talked about in Scripture, yet all are in submission to the Great Commandment-love your neighbor as yourselves.
I realize those 'closest' to this ministry are those most hurt; who have dedicated lives, families, futures, opportunities for a chance to serve God. You are not the only ones who have grieved when a significant leader has "fallen from grace", support has been removed and it's "every man for himself". Your service was always to God, whether or not your leader deserved it. I also learned the Hard Way-spiritual submission does not mean moral dereliction, nor does it absolve one from personal responsibility. However, there are "Life Lessons" which are learned-I know it's hard to see when you are attempting to 'wash yourselves' from the influence of Bill. Hopefully, if you have truly forgiven him, you will see past his error and see the truths he attempted to convey to a nation. If there was no 'anointing' on his ministry you wouldn't have been a part of it.
He is not a "false prophet"; he has a significant sin issue which will defeat future effectiveness if not dealt with. False prophets are those who teach "errors of Balaam" and Nicolaitins, who teach that one can enjoy the fruits of sin while expounding grace. This is the current 'acceptance' of the LGBT agenda, promiscuity, and all the evils which if left unchecked, will destroy our nation and make Christianity an underground religion. If you will notice, those that speak against these things get unbelievable scruitiny, prying into every tiny facet of their lives. Yet those that do this receive no such scruitiny, they are rewarded as being "two-fisted sinners' like the rest of us.
Don't wait for "sincere godly sorrow" to come from those who have offended you before you forgive. Just forgive, be concious when you go from grace to legalism, and let God be God, which is what He wanted to do in the 1st place.
Hi ForceMajuere
I agree that much of what Dr. Gothard taught resulted in disaster. If he is not a false prophet, does that make him a true prophet?
According to scripture a prophet has to be correct 100% of the time when he puts forth a prophetic utterance, otherwise he gets stoned. If you notice in the OT there were very few prophetic utterances recorded by each prophet. Either only those few utterances were chosen for the Bible or that is all they uttered.
In contrast most modern religions, i.e. Jeh. Witness, Mormon and 7th day Adventists revere every prophecy out of the mouth of their founder/leaders and there are many recorded. The founder/leader of the 7DA, Ellen White, spoke and wrote hundreds of prophecies, wrote books about them though many are proven scientifically and scripturally false and/or contradict themselves. She actually was stoned prior to ever speaking anything religious--- She was just a child when she was hit in the face by a rock as went into a coma and had life long damage such many have been the cause of her "prophecies".
So if BG claims that what he writes and espouses is the only way to live as a christian for God as in how to dress, eat, act and those bright eyes isn’t that the same or nearly the same as saying “thus saith the Lord”?
Esbee, "...isn’t that the same or nearly the same as saying “thus saith the Lord”?
Yes Esbee, I would say it is the same. BG just "churches it up" but it is the same as far as I am concerned.
False prophets and false teachers are both condemned in the Scriptures. Both bear false witness about God.
ForceMajuere,
You said: "False prophets are those who teach 'errors of Balaam' and Nicolaitins, who teach that one can enjoy the fruits of sin while expounding grace."
This is true, but it is also true that false prophets can preach Jesus Christ as the way of salvation, but then proceed to build a ministry based on taking scripture out of context, twisting it and going FAR beyond the Word of God (extremely dangerous and not something to be taken lightly at all!). False prophets can appear to be very righteous (2 Corinthians 11:13-15: "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."). 2 Corinthians 11 speaks of false prophets preaching a different Jesus, a different gospel and that the church there put up with it easily enough. It does not matter what Bill Gothard says about his views of salvation (Jesus as the only way) because his teachings and ministry clearly show that he does not believe what he says. He puts a heavy burden on his followers, he perverts the gospel of grace. From my reading of Scripture, the harshest words from Jesus and from Paul were leveled at those who added onto the words of God, thereby denying the sufficiency and finished work of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The more I have looked at what Bill Gothard teaches and the more I hear of his character (from refusing to be corrected to the numerous allegations of sexual harassment to covering up sexual sin early in the ministry), the more I am convinced that he is a false teacher. On every account, he fails. His teachings and way he handles the scripture - fail; his character - fail; he exploits for his gain.
In your caution to be on guard against licentiousness, please also understand that those here are just as concerned with the pure gospel being polluted by the teachings of Bill Gothard. Either side of false teaching is wrong and one is not better than the other. Just because one focuses on what looks like "righteous" living, it is just as polluted and filthy as licentiousness.
Awesome, Jennifer. Thanks!
Jennifer, I love this comment, very clear, logical, kind, and gets to the point. Good job!!
F.M. Your choice of name is quite presumptuous. Did you enter here with an agenda to straighten us out?
Your defense of B.G. is quite selective and irresponsible. Have you not considered the testimonies of how the man's "ministry" has persistently and continually had bad effects? Why do you say that his "issue" will "defeat future effectiveness..." when it already defeated past effectiveness? His own (partial and sorely inadequate) confessions have pointed out that he cared about success more than the people he drew to himself.
How do you limit the definition of false prophet? Moses made it very clear. It is anyone who says falsely that something is God's truth. This is NOT a matter of "context". Please read the book "A Matter of Basic Principles" and explain to us how the man's resistance to any correction is not complete and total. Please tell us what context justifies the preaching of circumcision and other adhering to the ceremonial law as justifying, protecting or commended by the Gospel?
What possible context can invalidate this eternal truth:
"We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
This "His righteousness overcame their innate tendencies and they later joined Him at His table, rather than them at their table" doesn't sound like anything I have ever discerned from Scripture. Did his character "overcome" theirs or did his death on the Cross deliver them, through death burial and resurrection?
Jesus had very much to say against "moral standards" when they were added as burdens to overwhelm the weak.
You also greatly misjudge when you say we are upset by a significant leader "fallen from grace". We are not upset by his fall. We are upset by his false leadership. He did not fall from grace, from the time he returned to IBLP after a few weeks out of leadership in 1980 or so, he exhibited no grace but only power and manipulation, set off by the exclaimation mark of his own professor/mentor resigning from the IBLP Board at the end of that year because "leader" was false and incorrigible. We are upset that we were deceived from the beginning. We were sold a bill of goods. The "New Approach to Life" was neither new nor lifegiving. It was the approach of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar who were sorely rebuked by God Almighty for their Gothardite views. We are upset that we did not search the Scriptures daily to see whether those things were true, when we were misled by tortured misuse of Scripture. We are upset that Abigail was treated as a rebellious woman, rather than a woman willing to sacrifice her life and dignity for her family. We are upset that our children were lied to, misled and in some cases physically and emotionally abused. We are upset that we were led on by false promises, manipulated by sales techniques, soaked for our money exchanged for falsifiable error fraudulently called "wisdom". There is no context to justify these evils.
Be a man, use your own name, read this entire site and tell us what "good" came of this false religion.
I accept your entreaties to true grace, but I urge you to open your eyes to the truth that B.G. worked tirelessly against Grace, every day in every way. I can forgive, but there can be no reconciliation without full acknowledgement of truth. B.G.'s "sin issues" are not the only truth unacknowledged. You, too, must acknowledge the truth: IBLP/ATI are loaded down with false teachings. You who would defend any teaching from that mess ought to correct all that is in error before you admonish anyone to accept any of it. But not ONE teaching has been repudiated or withdrawn. NOT ONE. That is not context, that is a fortress of falsehood.
Awesome yourself, Don! And rob war, in the two notes following this post!
Sending a few virtual shout-outs from this southern Southern Baptist girl's "amen corner."
FM,
Genuine question. Why on earth are there so many "quotation marks" in your 'post?' It makes it hard to figure out your tone.
So many things in your post don't make sense. "Your service was always to God, whether or not your leader deserved it." What are you saying? That we should follow terrible leaders? That doesn't make sense. I don't think God wants us to serve Him by serving terrible leaders.
"If there was no 'anointing' on his ministry you wouldn't have been a part of it." Do we say the same, then, of Jim Jones or Fred Phelps?
Another genuine question. What on this site makes you think the people here are hurling themselves into a pit of licentiousness? Thanks for your "concern," but I have never met a more calm and thoughtful bunch of people.
FM,
Heresy is not "truth out of balance" but a departure from Christian orthodoxy in dogma and doctrine. Likewise, there is no consensus on what really is so called "balance". It is a bogus red herring of a definition to justify to the uninformed that is teaching isn't' heretical but was taken "out of balance"
FM,
people who reject Bill's teaching which is a cradle to grave all encompassing dictation on how to live one's life are not falling into worldly or immoral living. That is a false judgement call on your part and another red herring. Most people on this site are Christians trying to put their faith and their lives back together and they would hardly be living worldly lives by anyone's definition. The biggest danger is that some have lost their faith in God and all you have to do is go over to other blogs and see the large number of atheists that have come out of this sort of fundamentalism and write about it. But that is not this site at all. My suggestion to you if you are so concern is look at the atheist channel on Patheos and see all the ex-fundamentalist that are there (Progressive Christian as well). It isn't a pretty picture. Most on this site are evangelical Christians putting their faith back together.
Rob and Don, Thank you both for your replies to FM. When I grow up, I hope to write with the skill you two have. Bless you both.
Thanks so much for this article. I appreciate the Bible evidences that we are actually commanded to champion the causes of the oppressed, the fatherless, and the widow. Surely the sexually abused fall into the category of oppressed!
Bitter experiences can be from many causes and not all of them are sinful. Grief is a bitter experience, but not forbidden (Naomi). Pain can be bitter, but God allows it (Job). Oppression is also a bitter experience, and God often delivers His people out of it without reproaching them for feeling bitter (Israel as slaves in Egypt). Bitter tears of repentance are a good thing (Peter). Rebuking sin and being ridiculed or opposed feels bitter, but it can be a God-given task (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel).
Some passages, such as Isaiah 5:20, do parallel evil with bitterness. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
But of course, iniquity can also be bitter (Simon the sorcerer), and there are some verses that advise not being bitter toward other people.
Isaiah 38 describes a bitter experience, but is at least partially a Messianic passage. Jesus inferred a bitter cup when He said (in Matthew 26:42),"O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." Can we really say it was wrong of Jesus to drink the bitter cup when He was bearing the weight of our sins? If bitterness is always wrong, how could the Messiah experience any part of a bitter spirit?
Since we do have the command to take up the cause of the oppressed/orphan/widow, and three major prophets were "of a bitter spirit" when they did so (without the Lord rebuking them for that "bitterness"), maybe it is a good thing to be "accused" as "bitter" by the oppressor when we defend the oppressed.
My conclusion is: it is a gross error of over-simplification for BG to categorically state that being of a bitter spirit is always a sin before God.