In 2013, an interesting convergence of thought on Bill Gothard took place.
A man named Shai Linne released a rap song called “False Teachers,” and he named twelve prosperity preachers, including Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes. (Gothard was not among those named.) Click here to read the lyrics and watch Linne explain why he wrote the song.
Was he right to publicly call out those teachers?
That was the question posed by Moody Radio on its May 25, 2013, episode of Up For Debate. Guest host Mark Elfstrand invited two ministers with opposing views to debate if and when a false Christian teacher should be publicly confronted.
In this corner…
L.L. (Don) Veinot, Jr., has no problem openly confronting questionable teachings, much less false teachers. He is the co-founder (with wife, Joy) and president of Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc and president of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions. He also happens to have co-authored the book A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life.
And in the opposing corner…
Dr. John H. Armstrong prefers to focus on unity and love rather than confrontation. He is president of the ACT3 Network and author of The Unity Factor: One Lord, One Church, One Mission.
The ACT3 website states, “We’re inspired by the spirit of missional-ecumenism: the idea that unity among the whole church is central to spreading Christ’s kingdom to the ends of the earth. Jesus prayed specifically for our oneness (John 17:20–24) and said that, ‘the people of this world will believe that you sent me’ when they see Christians living the kind of mission that grows out of relational unity.”
Dr. Armstrong also serves as an adjunct professor of evangelism at the Wheaton College Graduate School. He and the college have experienced public confrontation due to his teachings and close relationship with clergy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Like Veinot, Armstrong is from the Chicago area and is personally well-acquainted with Bill Gothard and the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP, previously Campus Teams or IBYC).
Why are you guys agreeing with each other?
It just so happens that Armstrong and his wife were contemporaries of Gothard at Wheaton. His wife attended one of Bill’s first workshops. Dr. Sam Schultz, a former member of the IBYC Board, was one of his professors.
With this common past, Armstrong’s ease of relating to the works-based teachings of Roman Catholicism (IBLP’s strict adherence to the Law has a similar flavor), and the fact that he was debating against confronting other Christian teachers publicly, one would assume that Armstrong would be fine with Gothard’s ministry.
Not so! Dr. Armstrong brings Gothard up during the debate and agrees strongly and clearly with Veinot. He equates Gothard to a “cult of personality” and says it would be appropriate for the church to “remove the ordination. We must remove the credentials. We must correct this error.”
For this specific part of the debate, begin listening at about the 38-minute mark for three minutes or so.
Click here to listen online or to download the podcast.
Just wow...again . As I skimmed the first few paragraphs of your article, I was telling myself "I actually agree with BOTH Armstrong and Venoit... and then find out they agree also. This greatly encourages me: you can call out false teachers and still be for a scripture based, Jesus-shaped ecumanism. Unity is upheld, but not at all costs. Great stuff, I'll have another bowl-full, thank you.
Interesting. Makes me wonder where Armstrong draws his lines, but evidently, those from the "can't we all just get along" group draw lines at some point.
Worth a listen. Here is a stab at transcribing the comment starting at 39:06:
Let me, if I may, use Bill Gothard as an illustration. I haven't read Don's work but I know Gothard from all the way back to the time when he first began with less than a hundred people, in one of his workshops with my wife being one of those hundred.
I knew the people on his board, Mark. The late Sam Schultz, my professor of Old Testment at Wheaton was one of his original board members. His original board essentially resigned. And they resigned because of issues of morality and integrity. And they made public statements, but it didn't touch the overall ministry of the man. He kept doing what he was doing even though his own board resigned and made a public statement in Christianity Today and other places.
And this is a massive problem and it only seems to have gotten worse, not better, and so I think that it raises a question for Protestant Evangelicals in particular, we generally don't have mechanisms in place whereby we can rule and judge as the church with authority, and say this is wrong and therefore we must remove the ordination, we must remove the credentials, we must correct this error. So what happens is in its place we have a popular tit-for-tat, we have a person who says, "I believe this and the people who attack me are not loving" ...
I think that it raises a question for Protestant Evangelicals in particular, we generally don't have mechanisms in place whereby we can rule and judge as the church with authority,
THIS: we may not like to hear it, but evangelicals, generally, not only do not have these 'mechanisms', we even BOAST that we do not have them. No dusty 'man made traditions' for US. NO SIR. Just, me, my bible, and JEE-Zus. that's it. this is a huge problem, imo, and I'm not lobbying for the RC way, the EO way, or something highly liturgical, just saying that this is a big mess that goes way beyond the scope of BG/IBLP, and needs attention.
Greg, I once got into a discussion with a man who stated that we needed to start encoding our Scriptural interpretations in order to produce unity in the Church, arguing that the current state of denominations and sub-denominations was not how the Church was historically. When I pointed out that Paul and John were already dealing with factions like the Judaizers and Gnostics in their day, he got all huffy with me.
As ideal as a unified church would be, we are in a spiritual battle and Satan and his minions fight dirty. We are to expect spies, insurgents, and fifth columnists - Paul did when he warned the Ephesian elders in Acts 21. Those who are wolves will make themselves evident in time. "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they bad been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (I John 2:19)
Some would argue that some of the traditional creeds could function in the way your friend suggested. Then again, there is the filioque dustup, and the argument that appealing to the creeds is just a way to start more arguments.
I lean towards some kind of creedal christianity, but one of the problems this would NOT solve is that much (all ??) of what Bill taught would still be 'creedal', would not contradict the Nicene creed, but would still be in grave error. So I guess the creeds only go so far (probably a good thing), and some other check or measure has to do the rest.
One guy/girl/prophet alone with their 'rhema' , is of course, a puddle of gas waiting for a match....
There were too many big name Christian leaders who suppressed opposition back then when it was not popular to speak out.Most commentors posting know the story so I won't reiterate.End which they thought valued the whole superficial appearance of concervative values Christianity justified the means.Near next to none renounced their position,although a few did.Evidently there still may be some status at risk.
Get your smooth on and a rap beat going
Cuz this comment, its gonna be showin'
That young man-he speaks da truth
So he usez rap music- dat point is moot
He namez da namez that God would name
That prosperity message –it just brings shame
I wish all Xns could be so discerning
Itz from da Holy Spirit we should be learnin’
Bomba boom, Here comes doom
Bomba boom, Here comes doom
Take a lesson from da tower of Babel
Our God- He’z more powerful, He’z more able
When we try to follow under da man
Godz gonna do what only God can
He’z gonna stop what He don’t like
So all you false teecherz, go take a hike!
Bomba boom, Here comes doom
Bomba boom, Here comes doom
Good points all in the entire discussion. When we don't like correction, we are all tempted to challenge the "attitude" or "motives". But we all must work on our own attitudes, without losing a passion for Truth. And yet, if our passion for truth tosses us about from teacher to teacher, ideology to ideology, we may be missing the call to remain in Him, enjoying His teaching, His promises, His visitations. We to often ignore this clear instruction from I John 2:
"26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him."
that's a great verse, and worhy of long meditation: my takeaway from that is "don't let anyone teach you AS IF you do not have the same holy spirit inside you , as if you need someone(s) to be the holy spirit FOR you. Obviously, we still need teachers and teaching, but not that kind. We need teaching 'help', not a permanent middleman.
"don't let anyone teach you AS IF you do not have the same holy spirit inside you"
I wise friend who had been through much suffering in following and growing in the Lord once told me
"what if when you go to church on Sunday and hear the message that it is something you already heard from the Lord earlier in the week."
That spoke volumes to me in that it was my responsibility to seek God, His message and that God was going to line His messages up with His people.
"don't let anyone teach you AS IF you do not have the same holy spirit inside you"
Words to remember, esbee, thanks!
Actually, I see that quote originated with greg r. Thanks greg r!
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian (formerly Evangelical), I suspect this verse is not just a reference to the believer's subjective inner conviction of the Holy Spirit. It would be interesting to look up patristic commentary on it. You might remember that in the NT there was laying on of hands by an Apostle (or one of their appointees) of all believers being received into the NT Church for reception of the Holy Spirit ("anointing") following water baptism. (A single exception to this general pattern was the first Gentiles on whom the Holy Spirit descended immediately when Peter preached the gospel to them and they received it, showing the Apostles the Gentiles were being received by God through faith in Christ just like the Jews were.) So "the anointing" likely refers to the Holy Spirit's objective manifestation--His witness and demonstration (1 Corinthians 2:4-5)--through the Apostolic teaching and laying on of hands all believers had to receive as a condition being received into the Church, and which was the framework of teaching through which they could accurately identify truth vs. error, as well as the context in which the gift of the Holy Spirit was bestowed upon them as individual members.
This reading would also be consistent with the apologetic approach vs. heresies of the earliest Fathers of the Church (following right on the heels of the NT era). In offering their refutation of error, they referenced not simply their own conviction of the Scriptures' meaning or just the Scriptures alone, but rather sought to establish their teaching's (or Scripture interpretation's) connection to the churches headed by those bishops connected through a succession of ordination to an Apostle (and thus to the true Apostolic and "catholic" framework through which the Scriptures could be properly interpreted and understood). Examples of this approach would be St. Ignatius of Antioch in the late 1st, early 2nd century and St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the 2nd century. It is noteworthy that St. Ignatius knew the Apostle John and St. Irenaeus was discipled by St. Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of the Apostle John as well. Both saints were martyred for their witness to Christ. More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus
The typical argument that people use against calling out false teachers is that Jesus didn't name the scribes and Pharisees individually - though, as Venoit points out in the debate, he did very publicly attack the scribes and the Pharisees in front of those who knew who they were. However, those who argue against naming people by name ignore the obvious fact that the apostles did call out false teachers by name, to warn the churches to whom they were writing:
"Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words." (I Timothy 4:14)
"I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church." (3 John 9-10)
Very much agree. Another tactic used by people to silence criticism of teaching is to demand critics follow Matthew 18, which has to do with private offenses and sins, not public teaching. Of course, Bill's tactic has been to immediately ascribe sin to his critics. And those steeped in IBLP follow suit with the now famous (and laughable if it were not so disgusting) bitterness accusation.
Good point, Lynn. A good teacher is open to correction. False teachers are not. They set up structures to make themselves untouchable. We dare not "touch God's anointed", we mustn't bring criticism lest Christ's reputation be sullied, we must be submissive to authority. I just read blogger Jeri Massy's self-published book, Schizophrenic Christianity: How Christian Fundamentalism Attracts and Protects Sociopaths..., and she points out how sociopaths, unhindered by conscience, set up safety nets, codes of silence, and unspoken agreements (I might add, blackmail) to insure their continuance in "ministry". By the way, she is not complimentary toward David Gibbs, Jr.
LOL at someone rapping about spiritual discernment ...
Make no mistake, the melody line was still prominent....no runaway bass beat (cough...gag..of-the-devil....) just strong melody and true lyrics: rap that Charles Stanley has on his iTunes...
No dread locks either. Just soft Christ-like curls.
Shai Linne is an excellent musician in his genre - and I speak as one raised and trained in the classical music tradition - in addition to being a sincere Christian. I do not regularly listen to his work, as I prefer a more lyrical style; still, I do appreciate the effort he makes to ground his lyrics in solid doctrine. A good example of his style is 'Atonement Q & A' from the album Lyrical Theology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RUciHVpCbw
I didn't find that the link worked. Tried numerous times, Quiet One.
The comment interface does not seem to allow for hyperlinks. Try copying and pasting the link - it worked when I tried it.
Fascinating - It appears the bigger question of "Is a personality driven religious organization always unscriptureal" is finally bubbling to the surface.
My answer is yes, both on scripture and experience in the real world. When organizations become too dependant on one or two individuals at the top, the organizations soon fail. A number of ways that this can happen, but primarily because the leadership has gotten everyone's focus on how to please them, vice how to accomplish organizational goals.
It's interesting to compare the atmosphere at HQ from my days in the mid-90's to what Tony has told us about the late 70's. If that attitude of hero-worship persisted over two decades, it's because it was being perpetuated by the folks that remained through that time period. When folks burned out because ultimately hero-worship is unsustainable, they were replaced with new, just as willing worshippers to maintain the culture.
Bill HAD to elimnate anybody who expressed disagreement in any real or perceived way with him, because once the veneer of infallibility is cracked, folks can see the lack of substance (or worse) being hidden underneath.
The other interesting piece of this is the idea of credentials. Bill basicly acted on the idea that his "revolutionary principle-based teaching" gave him intrinsic credentials to teach to the church, and especially so after his independent Baptist local church LaGrange Bible Church "ordained" him.
LBC has been inconsistent in the oversight of Bill's ordaination. They place their name on the letter to Tony, yet on larger issue of Steve's impropriaty and scuffles between the Board, Area Committe Staff and Bill, they wash their hands of it and say it is an organizational matter.
- What is the role of LBC in this current debate?
- How much of their building expansions over the years have been funded in some part with IBLP or Gothard funds, or the real question - is Bill Gothard "buying" his ordination?
- If so, does that present a conflict of interest?
- As an independant church, what value is the ordaination of Bill to the church at large?
- If they remove Bill's ordination (and loose the prestige of being the home church for "the" Bill Gothard) what will Bill do?
- Of those who have supported him on the basis of "He's an ordained minister" throughout the years do if his ordaination is removed?
The other interesting piece of this is the idea of credentials. Bill basicly acted on the idea that his "revolutionary principle-based teaching" gave him intrinsic credentials to teach to the church, and especially so after his independent Baptist local church LaGrange Bible Church "ordained" him...
I'm convinced that BG had the 'special anointing' thing going before that ordination, but the 'revolutionary' teaching was his ticket in. And the fact that X number of participants marched into large auditoriums sealed the deal. I mean, how could THAT MANY bible believing evangelicals be so wrong ?? No way Ray...
The very alleged 'revolutionary=therefore NOVEL' status of the teaching should have been a huge red flag. Not that different than the Mormon claim of long lost hidden golden gospel plates, that only the chosen can translate. I know this sounds harsh, but think about it. If Bill is right, then God's alleged 'perfect design' lay largely dormant for 2000 yrs until Bill went wandering in the upstate NY woods...check that...suburbs of Chicago. What's the real difference ??
Also similar: how slow MOST of the churches were to recognize that they were dealing with something wrongly deviant... extra credit for using one of MJ's fav. words :)
Too many Bible-believing churches teach compliance in place of discernment, so you end up with believers who may feel that something seems a little off (via prompting of the Holy Spirit?) but who tamp down that feeling and follow a powerful, charismatic leader. God's people need to be equipped to be mature. "Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." Ephesians 4:14
Excellent scripture, and in this case it can play out: "I don't care how many folks you sell [....] to...it still stinks, it's still not to be found in the bible , and here's why. That is what maturity looks like, Tony and Dr. Schultz modeled that for us.
Guess what, it wasn't popular, and made some very uncomfortable. Didn't look very 'loving'.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation--2 Peter 1:20
This should always ring loud in the minds of people in the sound path of ear ticklers. There is NO "revolutionary" teaching. There might be revolutionary application of teaching. But that simply points people to Truth, in the Word, and challenges them to apply it. This is best demonstrated by example, and proven by scripture. Both of which seem to be greatly lacking in the Gothard camp.
So the teaching is NOT revolutionary (as it can't be according 2 Peter). Neither is the application, or it would produce good results in the leaders and followers. Both of these seem to be in short supply.
I think the biggest problem is that BG thinks that his Principles are both revolutionary and God Inspired. They can not be both. If they are revolutionary, then BG created them, not God. If they are of God, they are in the Bible, and not new.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.
It does not say you will know them by their blasphemy, poor doctrine, twisting of scripture, actions, sins, etc. It says you WILL know them by fruit.
This website is a fruit of BG's work. Every person, complaint, allegation, etc. is evidence of poor produce. These numerous complaints should be carefully considered by critics and supporters alike.
He is either a wolf or a shepherd. A great wolf when threatened will hiss, piss, howl, bite, gnaw and use all forms of aggression to pursue his end. The Great Shepherd, when threatened, laid down his life for his sheep.
I just like to think of the Scripture, 'if any man or angel comes to you preaching any other Gospel than I have preached, he has the spirit of anti-christ, and is accursed.' (If I remember the Scripture correctly.)
Bill called his teachings a 'new approach', and 'teachings that had been lost'. Elsewhere Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass away until the very end... so.... awkward silence....
My pastor has said for years, "In theology, novelty is NOT a virtue." And on the flip side, for however novel BG thinks his approach is/was, there is, to quote the wisest man who ever lived, nothing new under the sun. Much of BG's teaching come straight from Watchman Née of The Normal Christian Life fame.
Re: Cult of personality being a red flag for error. Amen to that.
Again, a little perspective from church history: In the early Church, the bishops (as those ordained in a succession going back to an Apostle of Christ) all had equal authority and had to work together to craft any official dogma or creed for universal use in the Church (modeled after Acts 15). Questions of dogma or order not pertaining to the whole church, but to a particular region were similarly decided by a regional council of all bishops presiding in that region. No bishop could minister or make a decision in a local or regional church presided over by another bishop, except by its own bishop's invitation. The Church recognized no universal head, except for Christ, and the councils of bishops prayed and debated together when challenges arose, trusting in the Holy Spirit's guidance to lead them to a consensus around the right course for the Church. The decisions of bishops, once this consensus was reached, were binding on the whole Church. However, this manner of establishing authority and order in the Church was not quite as rigid or top-down as it at first might seem, because indeed every believer was also considered responsible to hold to sound doctrine and practice and to test everything, holding fast only to that which was good. There were occasions in church history where the bishops in council were obviously not being led by the Holy Spirit, but pressured by political and worldly concerns. An example from the perspective of Eastern Orthodox of an "Ecumenical" council marked by such controversy was the Council of Florence in 1438-1439 where the Eastern bishops were being pressured to come under the Pope in Rome and accept certain Latin doctrines (i.e., Purgatory, the addition of the "filioque" to the Nicene Creed, and the doctrine of Papal supremacy--none of which have been accepted to this day in the Eastern Church). A single bishop, St. Mark of Ephesus, refused to cave to the papal demands. The other Eastern bishops voted for union with the Pope in Rome and were met by angry mobs of monastics and civilians from their congregations when they returned home demanding they recant their concessions to Rome, or else be driven out of their churches. In the East, a dogma is not considered "Ecumenical" (i.e., catholic/universal) only because it is decided upon by a council of all the bishops of the church, but because, over time, it has been tested and received by all local Orthodox Churches everywhere.
The avoidance of a spiritually unhealthy "cult of personality" is a reason that historically, those deemed to be exemplary in their faith and to be fully formed "Saints" in the church are not formally recognized until after their death. Invariably, those proved to be true Saints (in this special sense) are always those who go to great lengths to avoid the limelight and acclamation (most often retreating far into desert hermitages or isolated monasteries) pointing others solely to Christ and in all sincerity and humility considering themselves to the very end of their lives (like the Apostle Paul) to be the chief of sinners.
Karen - Superb points of fact. The Eastern Orthodox church is the one denomination I would switch too, if I didn't still have the reverberations of stubborn self-reliant southern Baptist still in me...
Even a casual reading of church history points towards the EOC as perhaps the "real" succession of Peter (administratively).
On the larger point of Bill's ordination, I would say that at the best, it is limited in scope to LaGrange Bible Church, and at it's worst, completely null and void given LBC's lack of exercising oversight (regardless of why).
The cynic in me can imagine a scenario where they attempted to (giving them the benefit of the doubt) and were either paid off by Bill or another "Christian" organization, or were pressured by some significant outside influence.
That is the only scenario where LBC (assuming they have a scripturally sound pastoral staff) wouldn't revoke it after Bill started twisting scripture and paying off complaintents.
Thanks, Dave.
It's not an easy transition to make, and there are many places and reasons it might be difficult for a former Evangelical to be and remain Orthodox, given the state of many of the institutions and parishes of the Orthodox Church today. My situation is among the best in those terms, but even if it weren't I don't think becoming Orthodox is a decision I could regret making. All the research I had to do in the history of Christian doctrine and Church history as well as study of what EO believe (as opposed to what Protestants think they believe) to remove the obstacles and prejudices from my Evangelical background was worth its weight in gold for how eye-opening it was. I joke that my childhood exposure to a very "Orthodox" spiritual perspective via C.S. Lewis' in his Narnia series (and later Space Trilogy) made it impossible for me to remain content with anything less than full Orthodoxy (though I didn't know it at the time, of course).
Very interesting perspective.
Not to totally mess up this thread, but has anyone heard a timeline for when the "Internal Investigation" is supposed to be completed at IBLP/ATI?
You mean like give a timeline to the general public as a sign of general accountability, to the church at large ??? hahahahahaha
snark aside: I do hope they are careful and not rash with this; but I also think the silence is deafening
If they are not giving status reports to the family conferences (was Big Sandy last week?) they are not even being accountable to their own customers...I mean devoted, approved, followers.
Not unique to IBLP, or even ministry in general: I've run into this a lot in the business world, where you don't want ANYTHING negative to hit the press , so as to influence this quarter's stock price. Same deal, I think. Garden variety honesty is too much, we must give a 'good report', or no report.
With the damage that stonewalling and "can't talk due to pending litigation" has done to so many mininistries in the past 2 or 3 years, a thoughtful person trying to save an organization ought to think about that approach. That they moved Sacramento to a church tells you they are losing the PR war with their present course. Oh well, as others have intimated, without their head, they are like a chicken with its head cut off. That no on was trained to take the mantle is the gravest indictment of the personality cult.
That no on was trained to take the mantle is the gravest indictment of the personality cult.
BINGO: It is sad to see ANY part of the body of christ in confusion, but if this isn't a cautionary tale (do NOT sit still for tin generals), then I don't know what is. Even more sad, though , is how some would suggest that if ONLY we could get BG back holding the reins, then GOD"s mighty ship could be righted. (mixed metaphor.....sorry)
I guess I was hoping for too much when I thought that just maybe the new leadership would come out and say "Hey, that guy was CRAZY, and we all bought it, SORRY! Now you can go on with your lives." It appears to me (note that this is a personal opinion not a proven fact) that the are going to play a waiting game and put all their chips on the fact that they think this attention will blow over and they will be able to resume once the fire has died down, without any admission to the terrible things that have happened over the last 30+ years or holding anyone responsible.
I for one will not forget or stop talking about the past 30 yrs
There is a rumor that BG never planned to have a successor; the end of BG was to be the end of IBLP and ATI. If anyone wants to save this ship, I think they ought to ask Tony the former aide to BG. He has devoted so much energy to this group and could perhaps straighten things out.
There is no ship to save, but there are errors and wrongs to acknowledge and correct, and $80 million in assets to distribute to those who have been injured by not being paid overtime, slanders, personal emotional injuries, etc, any left over should be given to churches whose members spent large sums on seminars, etc. There is much to clean up in liquidation.
I am not sure why there has to be a "debate" on whether to call out publically someone as a "false teacher". After sitting through the IBYC seminars 30 years ago and looking through Gothard's teaching and all the very negative effects they had on people's lives, it is kinda obvious that Bill Gothard teaches error. If someone call another Christian teacher a false teacher, does that person have really any authority to do so? Reminds me of some of the things Pat Robertson has said on his TV show through the years. He has no problem accusing the Fort Lauderdale five, the authors of the sheparding movement "false teachers" yet Pat Robertson will have Benny Hinn on in an interview, someone that claims the trinity is really 9 persons not three in some vision. But unless Protestant ministers can set some kind of ground rules by what standards there is to judge a false teacher from a real one debates like what is one Moody are null and void. But unity in Protestantism is rather lacking due to disagreement on how the read and interpret the Bible.