A former Advanced Training Institute (ATI) student and About the author
More posts by Moderator
-
-
Seen "Shiny Happy People?"
May 31, 2023 // 262 Comments -
Their Day in Court: Part Three
February 22, 2019 // 167 Comments -
Their Day in Court: Part Two
February 22, 2019 // 0 Comments -
Their Day in Court: Part One
February 22, 2019 // 1 Comment -
Statement from Recovering Grace regarding the lawsuit a ...
March 28, 2018 // 188 Comments -
Rethinking the Nativity
December 25, 2016 // 145 Comments -
Bill Gothard’s Powerless Gospel
March 2, 2016 // 259 Comments -
Plaintiffs Amend Lawsuit Against IBLP, Also Sue Bill Go ...
January 10, 2016 // 1311 Comments -
An ATI Education, Final Chapter: Guilty Silence
January 4, 2016 // 168 Comments -
Introducing our IBYC/IBLP Facebook Recovery Group
December 31, 2015 // 24 Comments
-
Plaintiffs Amend Lawsuit Against IBLP, Also Sue Bill Go ...
January 10, 2016 // 1311 Comments -
Charlotte's Story
February 5, 2014 // 609 Comments -
Bill’s Cabin: Uncovering Sin
May 21, 2014 // 477 Comments -
Sacred Grooming, Part Six: A Secretary's Account of Lif ...
January 31, 2014 // 406 Comments -
Trapped in the Shadow of 'God's Anointed': Breaking fre ...
May 5, 2014 // 379 Comments -
Our Response to Bill Gothard’s Statement
April 22, 2014 // 359 Comments -
A Call to Repentance
June 6, 2013 // 353 Comments -
Bill Gothard Issues Public Statement
April 17, 2014 // 341 Comments -
The Agent of Satan
June 4, 2014 // 337 Comments -
Confident Statements Do Not a Solid Argument Make
November 6, 2014 // 330 Comments
-
July 31, 2024
-
JM, What you're missing is that just because some ...
July 31, 2024 -
Good points Rob. There is also true irony in th ...
July 31, 2024 -
Jm, you must be a jack of all trades. For someone ...
July 25, 2024 -
Nope. Rob, you haven't properly evaluated Holly's ...
July 23, 2024 -
Holly is a fraud herself. Her own son has come out ...
July 22, 2024 -
First off, it's "dam," not the other word. The spe ...
July 22, 2024 -
Rob, This was MUCH BETTER! Thank you for findi ...
July 22, 2024 -
I do have some training in science, but mainly in ...
July 22, 2024 -
I hope it is soon. What is even more curious is th ...
June 30, 2024 -
Does anyone have an update on the expected release ...
June 14, 2024 -
JM, you wrote: "Bill and those who regularly wr ...
May 24, 2024 -
https://www.training-resources.org/music-in-the-ba ...
May 16, 2024 -
Garlock and Woetzel's books aren't out of print. N ...
May 15, 2024 -
All of this is case in point, Kevin. Bill and t ...
May 10, 2024 -
JM said: "Well that can't be the case at all. D ...
May 7, 2024 -
JM, all you have offered here is two IFB preacher ...
May 7, 2024 -
Well that can't be the case at all. Dr. Cornish's ...
May 6, 2024
-
Read the last blog and it was excellent. Looking forward to reading the entire series. This is the kind of point by point critique that we need to assemble in an inventory for all those who keep demanding (with their fingers in their ears): "tell me one thing Gothard taught that was in error. NANANANANANANA...".
Will this post be incorporated into one of the categories in the main menu? It seems to me that we need a new category: "False Teaching Reviewed"
Yes, would love to see more good articles addressing the false teachings. Some of them are addressed in this section: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/category/twistedscriptures/
When I fail at being able to identify this "former Advanced Training Institute (ATI) student and Life Focus veteran" in 10 minutes of trying really hard, I am guessing he/she doesn't want to be identified. Am I right?
https://throwingoutbathwater.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/my-story/
It's not that hard, Alfred.
Yes, sometimes people are careful about their presentation on the public internet Alfred. It's not always a sign of dishonesty or dissimulation. In some ways, a benefit of this is that their message is judged on its own merits, and not on the identity of the person espousing it.
Haha! Thanks for the link . . . which I did not find on my own. I am still left without a name . . . which is fine, I suppose. But those of us in IBLP/ATI take very personally the pathways of people we know, have walked with. A lot of struggles expressed are things that can be directly related to. As near as I can tell, there are no "golden children" who escape trouble and turmoil at one time or another. Doesn't have to end in disaster . . . but it will be walked to one degree or another.
From what I read of his story there is a great deal I really respect. Dads carry quite a burden. Any thought that principles and procedures and programs will guarantee success is a falsehood. In the end no family will never fit "ATI" exactly, and attempts make it so will meet with guaranteed disaster.
Alfred you said, "Thanks for the link . . . which I did not find on my own. I am still left without a name . . . which is fine, I suppose."
The name is in the 3rd sentence of the 1st paragraph.
We all miss things, Alfred. Nothing to be ashamed of. However, you do not seem to read carefully. Maybe you had ADHD/ADD like I do. It is hard for me to believe that. It seems to me like, when it is convenient for you, you come across as an very sharp man. Very intelligent.
It seems to me like somehow the burden is on us at RG to meet your level of requirements. It is so fun to get off topic.
"...obeying God's law will result in good things happening."
I got the answer to this off another site and will paraphrase it...
some Bible verses do offer promises but most don't. The point is to obey God because we are commanded to do so...things will not always go perfect and obeying God is not a guarantee that life will be perfect. Jesus obeyed God unto death.
Esbee, "Jesus obeyed God unto death." Very good point. There is no need to play one verse against another. It seems to me our job is more to integrate the best we can, all of bible, not just easy parts. Of course, that takes a lot of trust and faith.
Do you respect that the young man saw through BG's lie about needing the father's blessing to be blessed of God? Just wondering.
It's not "Bill Gothards" lie it's the Bible.
The bible teaches the importance of blessings. You rejecting the truth doesn't change it.
Why did Esau get so upset when he realized Jacob stole his blessing? Why did Joseph try to change Jacobs hands around so the right one would get the right blessing.
You are sowing disaster by teaching not to honor mother and father. Period. See the period? Not if I like what my father says or does. He doesn't have to earn honor our honor. That's God's law not mine or Bills. And it was reinforced in the new testament children OBEY your parents which is the first commandment with a promise...obeying God's law will result in good things happening. A big problem for most is not being able to trace a problem to the cause we never put two and two together. IMO Bill is one of the most effective at the cause and effect of life.
A father's blessing per Gothard's teaching, and honoring your parents are not remotely the same thing. We don't live under Judaic law of first son inheriting, which is the referred to 'father's blessing', a very specific inheritance blessing that could not be given to anyone but the first born son. It is not a command to requiring the parent's permission for every decision in life. Bill's commands leave no room for the Holy Spirit to move in ones life. When does the child/youth/adult become responsible to God and God alone for accountability? That is to say, suppose God leads a young person one way, and the parents don't approve for this, that, or the other reason? Is the young person to disobey God, or their parents? Considering that parents, wonderful as they may or may not be, are still biased, sinful human beings, and especially in Gothard's world, they have ultimate power, and I have NEVER seen a case where anyone had ultimate power over any other person/group, and that power didn't corrupt the one who had it. So where's the dividing line? There are real people dealing with very real problems, that Bill's teachings leave no room or answers for, and it is most certainly 'provoking children to wrath.'
"Bad ATI Dad," I would recommend some introductory materials about how to read and apply the Bible. Focus especially on the differences between "descriptive" texts and "prescriptive" texts. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth is an excellent start.
P.S.: As it is, you've made the Bible into a man-centered book that is all about what man can get out of life, rather than a book about Jesus Christ the Hero Who rescues man from rebellion. There is no difference between what you have described above and the "prosperity gospel" nonsense that Joel Osteen and others popularize.
...obeying God's law will result in good things happening.
I wonder what Job would have to say about all of this. His friends who visited him in his agony carried a very similar, results-oriented mindset.
A big problem for most is not being able to trace a problem to the cause we never put two and two together. IMO Bill is one of the most effective at the cause and effect of life.
I totally agree with that last sentence, though perhaps for the reasons you may not expect. Bill was indeed very skilled at establishing broad, sweeping, universal linear relationships between actions and consequences. The problem with this is that it reinforces a very karma-based view of Christ. If you do right, you'll be blessed. If you do wrong, you'll be curs - er, God will remove His blessings from you. It's no different from the system God instated for the Israelites to demonstrate that it was impossible to keep the Law. There is absolutely zero room for grace in this system.
And they couldn't possibly have really good reasons for anonymity like, 'hey, if I go public with my story, my younger siblings still at home will feel the heat, and they'll go through some seriously bad stuff, I can't go public in order to protect them.' That was the case for me at least, not to mention the ugliness that would ensue for all of my friends, family, associates etc if my real family situation ever came public. It's also not worth having people you care about, whom you know care about you in return, who would laugh in your face and not believe you if you did tell..
to this, I think many still have family involved with the ministry, many here attend Churches that are supportive of Bill Gothard and to use alias is totally understanding.
I don't see what this has to do with any of the points being espoused in the articles, but alright.
J.B. I agree. No points, but alllriiiightyyyy thhhhheeeenn -:)
For what it's worth, Alfred, my name is Samuel Bavido. I currently live and work in Taiwan. I have this vague idea that you have a daughter who is also ministering in Taiwan...can't remember where I heard that, so I'm not sure if it's right nor not. I'm not sure why my name doesn't appear on this page, but I don't really see it as that big of a deal.
I chose to use my real name because my family and I have taken steps over the years to distance ourselves from IBLP and its influence. My father and mother know about and support my blog, and the Recovering Grace mission. My church family is only vaguely aware of Gothard and his teachings. I'm a public school employee, far removed from Gothard's hand. Gothard can't hurt me.
Sadly, many people are forced to keep their identity hidden because they face very real repercussions for speaking out. Many people have been cut off from siblings and family for speaking against Gothard. Some have been shunned at church and in social settings. Gothard himself has a history of working to destroy those who challenge him. It should be no surprise to see that some people are not willing to attach their name to things here.
Boy, in the blast of things I missed your post, Samuel. Thanks for the comments. Yes, I have two daughters in Taiwan . . . well, one who is home for 6 months after being there two years (Yu Li), and one who just went over (Taitung). First daughter will return in the new year, I hear. Both have been so blessed. I can see why the pull to stay is there.
Working to destroy others is not something restricted to Gothard, I assure you. I have been biting my tongue, but let us say that some who have complained the loudest about Gothardite tactics have ironically attempted to use the exact same procedures he used on them . . . on me. And I am not talking about my recent spat with Guy.
So, trust me, openness and vulnerability has its risks. One I feel I have no choice but to take if I want to be the person I want to be. It may affect my family, carries the risk of hurting them . . . which is why I take any suggestions about dragging them into unhappiness folks have with me somewhat personally.
Again, thanks for the personal comment.
Alfred,
You said:
"Working to destroy others is not something restricted to Gothard, I assure you. I have been biting my tongue, but let us say that some who have complained the loudest about Gothardite tactics have ironically attempted to use the exact same procedures he used on them . . . "
I believe this is the first time that you have acknowledged that Gothard worked to destroy others. Thank you for acknowledging this.
Yes, Kevin - he did actually say that.
~~~
Bill Gothard has worked to destroy others. Per Alfred.
~~~
Wow. I can't help but wondering if he might have been humming "Footsteps of Jesus" while he was doing it. Or if he did it with only good intentions.
But what we really need to be concerned about is that somebody here is trying to destroy Alfred. I admit I can't be sure about others' motives, but I was totally unaware that there's anyone on RG that has the capacity or access to our friend to even try the "exact same procedures" the master used.
Speaking only for myself, I know I’ve been hard on him, but it’s only because I empathize with the way he’s been hoodwinked all these years, and am so grateful for the times someone patiently tried to shine a light through my fog. I’ve tried to HELP him, and I thought most others have, too. I was recently appalled and disgusted at something incredibly stupid and personally hurtful that he said, but I really can’t expect him to understand in this lifetime, and I’ll just have to get over it and live with his lack of acknowledgement or response – it’s really not a big deal. Call me naïve, but all I’ve noticed on RG are printed words, overwhelmingly civil, in various conversations and debates. I’ve noticed a lot of frustration and disgust, but I've totally missed the control and intimidation factor, much less the intent to *destroy* our friend.
Who is this trying to destroy Alfred? (Guy - you're in the clear.) Is there someone here covertly spreading lies about our friend to his family, church, and business associates? We’re told the “exact same procedures” are being used as those that his friend used to destroy others, so it must be somebody that has influence over his income, employment status, and living arrangements … still can’t imagine somebody here has that kind of influence.
Control, intimidation, lies, guilt (if I’m correct in identifying the “exact same procedures” his friend used to destroy people) – these are way over the line, so whoever is doing these to Alfred, please cease and desist.
Elizabeth D, I am still chuckling. You are funny. Thanks for the "in the clear" assurance. I have not seen a formal "Correction" yet, so a new person seeing my "stalking indictment" might think ill of me :-)
I have to say, because of you, I learned a new bad word a day or so ago. Twit. The kind of person that makes a retarded chimp look smart. I knew it was something bad, but I had to look it up. You are such a bad influence :-)
Bahahahahahahaha! It humors me no end to know I've contributed to your education, Guy!
AMEN!!!
Yes, lets throw out the water because there is no baby in it to begin with. Rereading all of Bill's points about what is wrong with rock music, it struck me that all of the Bible verses Bill used to try and prove his point have nothing to do with so called rock music at all. Just Bible verses used and twisted to try and prove his thesis or dislike of a certain kind of music as evil (in Bill's opinion). That all this is Bill's opinion. I'm sure that same could be applied to jazz music and a number of other forms that Bill didn't like. Yes, I hope that there are more articles on RG that explore the unBiblical side of Bill. Twisted scriptures from a twisted mind and heart.
Hello all. I am a former ATI parent. Actually my ex husband is the one who used the program. I never liked it. Never believed all the stuff Gothard twisted. We got involved because my brother in law who is a pastor got the whole church involved. Pushed it on people. Was one of the first homeschooling families in ATI.
I had my first four children in 4 years. The last two were 4 years later, 2 in a row. My ex didn't believe in birthcontrol. And good wives submit. I love my children but it didn't make marriage better, but worse. I remember my son Benjamin Guido shutting off my car radio because I had music with a beat plsying. Gothard teaching taught him well. Thank God he has given that belief up. My son Daniel Guido went to the Bible sschool pastoring program in Texas. Didn't help in the long run. He got involved with a cult. They believed in discipline a 10 month old. My grandson was left in the care of the pastor and wife for a week. They also ran the day care little Dan was in. My son and daughter in law moved in with Pastor and wife. One year old check up for little dan showed TBI, traumatic brain injury.
Little Dan was taken away by DCF. My daughter in law left , moved out to be able to regain custody of my grandson eventually. She did in June. My son keeps trying to get a judge to let him give up parental rights to his son
he has cut off his family. There are no guaranteed blessings. Gothard's teachings have maimed me. I got divorced after 20 years because I could not be in a legalistic life anymore. My son's were out in Gothard programs. I didn't want them to be. I went out and got them , brought them back home and they went out there again. What Mom thinks doesnt matter. Treated just like the way my daughter in law was treated. Let's put all the blame on anyone but husband. So much similarity in cults. Shame. THAT THE BIGGEST. Humiliation follows along. Same tactics Gothard used on those girls he harassed.I hope other parents like me speak up and tell the truth. BI'll Gothard's teachings and following destroyed my marriage
forget the blessings and all the twistedNess in obeying your parents. Gothard's program has been deceitful from the beginning.
oh man, that is heart-wrenching, Susan. So hurtful.
It is difficult to still not feel hurts after all these years. pray I can overcome.
I am truly sorry. May God continue to bring you and your family healing and wholeness. Thanks for sharing which wasn't easy at all.
Susan. I sorry for your pain and loss. May God show himself strong to you. Bless you.
Susan,
I will definitely pray for you.
Susan,
I am praying for you and your children. You were the first person God brought to mind this morning when I woke up. He is always faithful and always present. I will continue to pray. Blessings to you. Aila
Another reason worldly Christians hate Bill Gothard because he dares to slay their sacred cows. The irony is even lost people know rock music is bad.
*** munches popcorn and contemplates irony of 'irony' and 'sacred cows' ***
No-one here hates Bill Gothard, just so you know. A good portion of us here pray for him, daily. Since you are, by your own account, presumably not a worldly Christian, be sure you are not found guilty of falsely accusing your brothers and sisters in Christ. Hate is a very strong accusation.
First off, it seems like an unbased assumption that worldly Christians hate Gothard. I don't hate the guy. I disagree with him, strongly, but that's not the same as hatred.
Second, you dodged the issue. You didn't answer any arguments, you didn't counter anything, you just put out a controversial comment with no facts behind it. You haven't shown any evidence for your claim. So, why would I agree with you?
Third, the argument that unsaved people "know rock music is bad" changes nothing. The burden of proof is still on you. If you can prove the man wrong, do it. I'm all ears.
Really, "dares to slay their sacred cows"? I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Worldly Christians? Don't you think that might be a bit of an assumption? And from what I've seen, Gothard didn't slay any of ideas spoken about in the articles. He clumsily attempted to redirect the reader's focus with verses out of context and poor logic, but "slay their sacred cows"?
So, come on. If you have some evidence, hand it up. If you have an argument to prove the author wrong, let's see it. Until then, the burden of proof is on you.
"ironic"; You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear & shall not understand, & another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more & of the outsiders' incomprehension.
Party one: worldly Christians who defend worldly living
Party two: lost people who know sin is sin who are aware the worldy christians are hypocrites.
Hypocricy:
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs (saying I am a Christian) to which one's own behavior does not conform
I had a lost friend and colleague that I had been sharing with, all about Christ and sin and salvation, and in the course of our discussions we talked about biblical standards "clean living" and all that. (We are NOT saved by works we are supposed to work because we are saved.)
Then a friend of mine, a colleague in the same industry joined us at my lost friends office. He was a christian and worked at a well known world wide ministry. We got to talking and the christian joked about how he and his coworkers had crashed the network playing doom. The christian didn't catch the look of recognition from the lost man or the look he shot me. He then proceeded to interrogate the christian about his life the whole time the christian was oblivious to what was going on. That's irony! What kind of music do you listen to what kind of movies do you watch what do you think about dating on and on. The whole time giving me sideways looks of oh yeah, this guy works at a ministry and he is living and loving the world - just like me.
The christian never caught on to what was happening and how in the eyes of this lost man had lost all credibility as a christian. Too bad because he was a nice guy, good husband and father, took a huge cut in pay to serve in the ministry, etc.
You see the lost man understood doom was not something a christian should play, rock music is ungoldy, etc. and didn't try to justify or excuse his own sin he just wanted to keep on sinning and wasn't ready to surrender his life to Christ.
You still didn't give any evidence to prove the author of the article wrong. Once again, if you have a logical reason to say that Christian rock music is wrong, show it, please. I'd love to see it. Until then, you're trying to prove your statement by restating your statement. It means nothing!
Does the argument that lost people recognize rock music as sin mean anything? Has that actually become our standard of right and wrong, what the unsaved say?
Come on, man! If you can think of an argument proving the author wrong, show it! You should read the article above on "Stories and How to use them". So far, all you've done is tell isolated stories that may or may not support you're idea.
So, what's you're issue with Christian rock music? And don't say, "because it's sin". Don't make the same mistake Gothard did. If you think it's wrong, please, I'm all ears as to why it's wrong. But don't expect me to just take your word and the word of your lost friend to tell me that it's wrong.
You know what's missing in your narrative? The gospel. Your unsaved friend interrogated the other guy based on secondary matters. These are the things Paul is speaking about when he says "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself."
To that arbitrary list that your Christian brother was being interrogated about, we could add all sorts of things: does your wife wear a headcovering and dresses? Do you have a beard? Do you eat pork? Did you circumcise your boys? Do you have a quiet time with God for at least 2 hours per day...
You joined in with your unsaved friend, judging your saved friend. I believe Paul would say, "You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat."
My read of the situation is not wow, what a washout that Christian guy was, but rather, wow, what a missed opportunity to communicate the gospel. Christianity is not just another religion of dos and donts. It is about the new life of the resurrection and walking in the Spirit. Sin is not playing doom and being right is not going to church - rather, sin is going to church or playing doom in the realm of the flesh (anger, lust, etc.) and being right is playing doom or going to church in the realm of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, etc.).
BATID,
If you believe that being saved is about not playing Doom, you've missed the Gospel completely.
I hope that your kids have totally rejected Gothardism(it sounds like they have) and are growing in understanding Christ's life changing free gift.
Irony; "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result."
I'll set aside your numerous logical fallacies for the moment in your original post that prompted my response regarding ironic.
I would say that a good example of ironic would be a man who preaches for 50 years about how Christian Rock music is evil and will lead a person into sexual perversion, taking great pains to avoid listening to any form of rock music, all the while secretly engaging nonstop in sexual perversion.
"We are NOT saved by works we are supposed to work because we are saved."
BATID,
There's an element of truth to what you're saying here, but it's woefully inadequate without grace. Working with the intent of keeping the Law (or as you say, "clean living") is no different than the old way of living from which Christ delivered us. We'll always run into a brick wall with this method because our own human imperfection fails us. On the other hand, "working" as a response to the radical grace of Christ and with a grace-based support structure in place is much more meaningful - and I put "work" in quotes because it will feel less like it as we mature in the faith. We're not stuck in "try harder" mode any longer because we don't have to feel the pressure to get everything right. Rather, we can rest assured that God got everything right through Christ's sacrifice, and what we do is done out of love and gratitude for Him.
Sounds more like your lost friend bought into your legalism that Christians "live clean". If so, had your other friend had a perfectly conformed life, eventually your own imperfection would have defeated you. For instance, were you honoring your employment contract with perfect integrity by doing all this Jesus stuff on the job?
Do you have anything of substance to say? Accusing other Christians that you do not know as "worldly" is pretty judgmental. How do you know if anyone one here is worldly? Just because they disagree with Bill so you just go ahead and call them "worldly"? What's your point? What lost people know rock music is bad? How do you know this to be true? All you show is that die hard Bill supporters can't dialogue in his favor, they come on here, call people a bunch of names and then storm off. That not a sign of maturity but a sign that you have lost the discussion and act like spoiled children due to it.
BATID,
What does the term "worldly Christian" mean to you?
Nearly all of the people in my life who have thrown that term around are just as much of a work in progress and on a journey toward becoming more Christlike as the saved wretch who is me is, but there's almost always a focus on cranking out good behavior and fast-forwarding through the process of sanctification so the fruit is as immediately evident as humanly possible (note the emphasis). But fruit isn't just about outward behaviors, but inward ones as well. If you want to talk about irony, here's a good one: it's very easy for people to notice a deficiency or issue in someone else's behavior, like bad language for instance, when they may not have that struggle, or when they think they've mastered it. It's much more difficult to look inwardly at the problems that may not be so evident as the actions that are simple to point out.
Just from reading the pages of Scripture, I don't get the impression that Jesus was expecting instant sanctification from the twelve misfits who followed him. That's not an excuse for sin at all, but rather an admission that people are complex creatures and require processes to help them grow. And despite the modern church's sugarcoating of the apostles, I do use the word "misfits" for a good reason. These people were probably the most unlikely folks on whom Christ could've possibly built the church. Many people of that day, particularly the religious elite, would have said what you're saying now. A tax collector who made his living funneling money to the Roman Empire and taking advantage of others? A Jewish "zealot" (read: warrior)? A doubter? The hotheads James and John who wanted to destroy an entire village because they wouldn't let them spend the night? Worldly Christians!
Apparently, Jesus thought differently.
Good links. I agree- throw out the bathwater. There is no baby there. If there ever was, it died long ago from the toxicity.
At first, I tried to throw out the bathwater, but water is really heavy and my bath is permanently attached to my bathroom, so I went for the drain method. That worked all right.
Jeff Gill, it is 7:25 in the morning here and I have just had my first laugh. I am still chuckling. Thank you:-)
Just a couple of quotes that have helped me find freedom:
"The Problem:
1) It is insinuated that you are “the problem” for noticing that there is a problem
2) Admitting “the problem” feels like disloyalty.
3) The numbness of denial feels easier than the excruciating pain of the inconsistencies being experienced."
To help clarify: “In recovery from this type of person, anger can be a sign that the veils of false guilt and self-blame are lifting and the person is seeing what has really been true all along. Healthy anger can come to the surface because anger is an appropriate response to injustice.”
“Anger means clarity. When we are confused and in that fog of deception, we have too many doubts to be angry and to hunger and thirst for justice and righteousness. But when clarity comes, so does that righteous anger.”
"Also, “The primary wrong is what they do to the person; the secondary wrong is what this person does to the person’s supporters."
Back to topic of music. The real problem with what Bill taught about rock music is what his views are about music in general. Bill defined music as worship. While music is used in worship, not all music is worship. Likewise, Bill split music up into 3 parts, melody, harmony and beat, and Bill's over focus on beat which he corresponded to the body that was the basis of his dislike of rock music as being "too sensual" and physical. All of this is not accurate and taught by any serious music expert. Bill's teaching about music lined up with his teaching on body, soul and spirit which split a human up into 3 competing parts and subparts and not as a whole working together.
Bill also plays with history facts. Yes, Charles Wesley used popular songs from the bar for a number of his hymns. Bill justified that these bar tunes were really once good songs that were corrupted or perverted and the Wesleys were "reclaiming" them back. There is no proof for this assertion at all. Again, it is playing with the facts to fit his teaching that all rock music is evil and cannot be redeemed even if it has Christian lyrics.
Finally, Bill would like to point to the lives of rock muscians as proof that the music is evil. Bill fails to point out that many of the leading classical giants didn't exactly live high moral and pure Christian lives. The Nutcracker Suite was written by a homosexual. Franz Liszt was a well known playboy until the end of his life. Johann Straus's music was considered sensual and scandalous for it's day. JS Bach, a devote Christian caused a stir when he started to use women in the choir. Before that, castrated males were used for high voices. Bill's anti-rock music bandwagon has wheels missing and it stems from his faulty use of the Bible along with his faulty use of history and understanding of music. I personally think Bill's issues with so called sensual music has more to do with his own internal struggles with his own desires and needs than anything else.
"I personally think Bill's issues with so called sensual music has more to do with his own internal struggles with his own desires and needs than anything else."
BINGO
This extends to just about everything apparently "sensual" that he managed to turn into a moral maxim, including certain types of dress.
Bill grew up in the 1930-1940s. That was big band music at its prime. I'm not sure but did Bill go after big band music because that music is likewise pretty "sensual"? Just listening to it makes one want to dance. Then there is Jazz and country. Yes, some rock music lyrics glorify sex, drugs and evil, some country music is pretty raunchy too. He seem to focus on the beat or what he thought rock beat is.
I remember listening to the "Striving for Excellence" cassette tapes regarding the supposed morality of music, which were narrated by some elderly couple (I can't recall the names) who went through music history. Basically, jazz was positioned as the "predecessor" to rock. Even classical music written in the "romantic," 19th-century era was cast in a negative light for being too sensual and apparently not mechanical enough.
Absolutely, sensual is evil, so don't read Song of Solomon, whatever you do. And don't look at your spouse's naked body or respond to their touch. The only permissible caress is one without sexual intent, right Bill?
A bed "undefiled"? Impossible: People lay down together there. They even--hush--KISS!
Gothard's net regarding which music is sinful is a broad one, extending way beyond rock music.
Per Gothard:
- If the singer's voice has a sliding and sagging pitch, it gives a sensuous impression to the hearers.
- An imbalance in beat can cause the loss of physical strength.
-20th century songs glorify the the subjective experience.
-Loud music is bad because it blocks out the internal communication of personal conscience.
-Triple meter songs create a dangerous rhythm pattern
-Breathing into the microphone communicates a sensual message.
I don't believe there is very much in the music world that meets his standards, other than hymns and classical, and even classical depends on when it was written, as JB has noted.
The use of the word "sensual" in the conservative Christian culture I grew up in has often struck me as strange. It's not a word you come across much outside of that context.
Literally, it simply means "of or related to the senses," and while that certainly can include sexual arousal, it could just as easily refer to a description of crunching leaves, a chilly breeze, and the smell of smoke in the distance to describe a walk on a day in autumn.
The Christian use of the word "sensual," though, seems to be identical in meaning to "sexual," except it doesn't make us blush to say it.
Nathan,
I've noticed this as well. It's funny, looking back at my childhood and remembering words that I used to get scared about. For instance, I once browsed through a catalog of classical piano sheet music, noticed that the word "sensual" described Claude Debussy's impressionistic style, and recoiled in fear. Amazing how much IBLP can condition a young mind.
Does the fact that the term "Jazz" and the term "Rock and Roll" both originated in (Jazz) or at the very least came to mean (R&R) sexual activity . . . mean anything in this discussion? Or is that all incidental?
It doesn't require a genius or a Word from the Lord to conclude that those music genres were in fact invented to play to, harmonize with our baser motivations. It is crazy to deny it. Rock beats, Jazz rhythms are like alcohol . . . added in increasing amounts to the daily diet by alcoholics . . . much defended . . . addictions. "I can give it up any time". Really! What does that look like? "But I don't want to". OK
Is sex evil, Alfred? Is there anything in Gothardism (promises of "success") that appeals to our baser motivations? Are our baser motivations unholy? Did not God make us a fusion of body, soul and spirit? Or our our bodies evil traps in which we must writhe until released into the spirit world? Are you equating our nature with evil rather than distinguishing how that which God intended for good is twisted by sin, so that it is not the physical nature of the act or feeling that is evil, but whether or not that act or feeling is oriented toward the glory of God. Paul says a believing spouse "sanctifies" the unbelieving. One member of a couple honoring God in sexual expression sanctifies their partner. This is the opposite of the clean becoming unclean by virtue of contact with the unclean.
Jesus has turned it all upside down. Let's Rock!
"Does the fact that the term "Jazz" and the term "Rock and Roll" both originated in (Jazz) or at the very least came to mean (R&R) sexual activity . . . mean anything in this discussion? Or is that all incidental?
Does the fact that sinful human beings can be redeemed through Christ's sacrifice mean anything in this discussion? Or is that all incidental?
I am not quite sure what to make of all that, Don. Is sex evil? Not at all, no more than Plutonium is evil. In the wrong context it is the worst evil that may befall a person. Same for opiates . . . are they evil? Goodness. There are real reasons why opiates, plutonium AND sex are heavily controlled by the government.
If people are putting cocaine in cough medicine because it make the little kids so happy, we ought to rejoice! A good gift of God, designed to be enjoyed.
Sorry for this grump . . . you grow on a person, Don . . . I actually look forward to reading what you have to say. This was sort a discouraging jaunt for me. I expect that sort of thing from people who don't think and don't care.
J.B.: Please interpret. People being redeemed, praise the Lord. If people get into unnecessary messes from which they are then gloriously redeemed . . . not quite so exciting. IF "sensual" music tends to weaken a person's resolve to stay away from bad sex, destructive sex, boy . . . I am not sure if we should be celebrating.
Like I said, it is like alcohol . . . drunks find a way to get alcohol into every meal and before and after . . . for any number of reasons they give themselves. Someone observing says, "You are addicted" Along the way they celebrate their freedom and trade recipes and have favorite brands and special ways of storing and sharing . . . and cheer on the experts . . .
Some people can handle their alcohol just fine. Others end in the gutter. One thing is certain: if you are a teetotaler, you will never be a drunk. Some people think that is smart.
If something is a stumbling block to a person, then sure - I can respect that the person should stay away from it. However, I've never met any people who have had their resolve "weakened" by simply listening to music with a rock beat. It doesn't work like that. Lyrics that aren't so God-honoring can be a different story, though.
What I was trying to get at is that no matter what a particular style of music may have been used for in the past, nothing is truly beyond redemption. Saying that rock music is "of Satan" is basically saying that Satan is capable of creation. But we both know this is not the case. Satan can only pervert what is good. It's our calling to play a part in God's redemptive work, and that does include any and all styles of music.
I think - no, I know - that Mr. Gothard went too far with that. As I heard him say at a seminar way back in Portland, OR back in late 1970s, the only way to make a folded piece of paper stand straight again is to bend it back the wrong way. Meaning, sometimes you have to correct one imbalance with another. He did that a lot.
The reality is that there is more to the power of music than you are admitting. And whereas it affects different people different ways at different times - often not at all - the reality is that it can have a calculated effect for evil.
Some things defy logic . . . you look instead to patterns to discern principles that you may not understand. It is no accident that R&R and Jazz music were born in some of the worst conditions morally imaginable. And that they are used like a drug by some people . . . like alcohol . . . to dull the heart and make a godless life easier to live. Just like people who lose their inhibitions against alcohol may well escape unscathed, so many ATIers find that embracing formerly verboten music doesn't cause them any problems. But . . . it doesn't have to hurt everyone to be effective. In families that embrace alcohol, a few get ensnared, trapped, can't take it. And some are greatly affected by the music, in ways others aren't. When the sun sets I think he will have been shown to be more right than wrong in his perspectives.
Alfred, bringing up the subject of alcohol and addiction and abuse has nothing to do with the topic at hand which is Bill's teaching about music in general and rock music in specific. To claim that jazz which was developed in a melting pot of different cultures in New Orleans was born out of the worst moral conditions is just not true. Likewise rock music which developed from big band jazz of the 1950's as morally corrupt the same. If someone thinks they see sexual implications in just about every form of music then the problem is within them, not the music. You keep stating that music is addicting like alcohol. Where is your proof for such a statement?
Bill opposes rock music because he sees it as an addiction. I say there is evidence to support that. No proof.
As to "Jazz", check this out . . . You are wrong: http://www.apassion4jazz.net/etymology.html Guilt by very strong association.
Alfred, I find your perspective to be fascinating. In light of your "baser motivations" statement, I'm wondering if you self identify as a Gnostic. If so, how is your view supported by Scripture? If not, what do you think is wrong (Scripturaly speaking) with the Gnostic perspective?
"I think - no, I know - that Mr. Gothard went too far with that. As I heard him say at a seminar way back in Portland, OR back in late 1970s, the only way to make a folded piece of paper stand straight again is to bend it back the wrong way. Meaning, sometimes you have to correct one imbalance with another. He did that a lot."
Jesus lived at a time when some very imbalanced times. He was also the greatest teacher to ever live. Can you give an example of Jesus teaching one falsehood to correct another?
Or, to come out and state my point: this concept of countering a wrong idea with another wrong idea is extremely dangerous, and directly contrary to the teaching that the truth will set us free.
Alfred: Does the fact that the term "Jazz" and the term "Rock and Roll" both originated in (Jazz) or at the very least came to mean (R&R) sexual activity . . . mean anything in this discussion? Or is that all incidental?
Alfred, every created thing comes from God. God is the Creator. Satan CANNOT create. He can only pervert. He has perverted music, sex, food, etc. So the fact that some kinds of music have become associated with immoral activities does not mean that they were bad in the first place, or that everyone who listens to those kinds of music will end up participating in said activities.
Alfred, Please think about your own words.
"But it doesn't have to hurt everyone to be effective." "…the reality is that it can have a calculated effect for evil."
How is it that you can make such comprehensive condemning statements about music, which is an entity without the capacity for moral choice, and yet reject, at the same time, the idea that Bill is capable of wrong doing? You dismiss the evidence that demonstrates BG made many calculated moral choices that harmed others, yet expect others to accept that certain music is evil in nature. Do these declarations about the supposed evil of some kinds of music not apply much better to your hero?
Is it really just simply that because your own daughters and you yourself were not harmed that you cannot conceive that others were indeed hurt and that these testimonies are true? That you are willing to blindly accept the word of a man who made choices to cover up the truth about his brother's sexual sin, yet discount the accounts of those young women who obtain no benefit from sharing the shameful things done to them? I try to examine your comments with an open mind,yet truly cannot understand your disconnect.
You are certainly correct on one thing. "Some things do defy logic."
"As I heard him say at a seminar way back in Portland, OR back in late 1970s, the only way to make a folded piece of paper stand straight again is to bend it back the wrong way. Meaning, sometimes you have to correct one imbalance with another. He did that a lot."
Or...you could correct imbalance with actual balance, instead of fighting fire with fire.
Alfred, thank you for your compliment. It is a blessing. I hope you expect direct confrontation from me when I see you skating or skirting. For instance, you start defending B.G. by relying, unreasonably in my thinking, on the "sexual" nature of Rock and Jazz, then move to the real problem being addiction (which of course leaves non-addicted people free to enjoy) but finally making a very reasoned and balanced comment beginning with this (on Nov. 13): "I think - no, I know - that Mr. Gothard went too far with that."
This sidetrack would have been a lot shorter if you had first offered such well reasoned comment on the issue.
Of course, when the focus is on "resolve", "stumbling blocks" and the weakness of other brothers a few issues come to mind. First, Paul says clearly that there is nothing wrong with eating and drinking but recommends abstaining in deference to another's weakness as an act of love and sacrifice which does not translate into a moral duty to abstain always. Clearly, the eating and drinking is not "evil", the evil is the weakness that must be addressed through instruction in grace and liberty. Why should we be satisfied leaving our brother weak in unbelief? Paul went "kosher" in Jerusalem because of their weakness, but he confronted Peter going "kosher" in front of Gentiles who would be weakened by following the party of circumcision.
Second, when it is a matter of resolve and resistance, I believe one is bound in suppression and repression instead of enjoying freedom and security in Christ. We are fallen. Our desires are twisted, but Jesus's (and Paul in Ephesians 5) pointing to Genesis 1 and 2 directs us to rediscover the beauty of sexual desire, redeemed by grace. If sexual expression inside a healthy covenant marriage can be fully enjoyed without shame and guilt, then so can sensual arts, in a proper context and carefully avoiding temptation of the weaker brother or sister. Even art rooted in human depravity reflect threads of revelation, as in expressions like "I can't get no satisfaction". Duh. Only Jesus, dude!
From my present perspective, Gothard taught repression and suppression of sin instead of freedom from sin. From his own confessions, it appears highly likely that he has always struggled fiercely against sexual temptation without attaining true freedom. For this reason I repeatedly recommend that men, especially, consider carefully The Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West. In marriage and particularly righteous sexual intimacy (inter-personal communion), there is much Goodness and Glory, revealing the intimate relational nature of the Triune God and the nature of that Marriage that is before us in His Arms. Please, if you would know the path to freedom, please read that book. Let marriage be honored by all and the bed be undefiled. Rock on!
With all the BG warnings, repeated in this thread by Alfred, about the dangers of the wrong kinds of music promoting "base sins", I just want to point out that biblically and from a classical Christian perspective, there are sins far more insidiously dangerous than these "sins of the flesh," and those are the sins of the mind and heart, such as pride and condemnation of others. These are far more difficult to recognize for what they are and repent of than those of the flesh.
And so in Matthew 21:31, Jesus tells the chief priests and elders of the Jewish people that even the most despised of "sinners" (in their eyes), the "tax collectors and harlots" would be entering the Kingdom ahead of them, because these repented at the preaching of John the Baptist.
Jesus' parable in Luke 18:9-14 also comes to mind and also the story in Luke 7:36-50.
In my experience, non-religous people who are caught up in sins of the flesh are far more broken, tender-hearted and capable of repentance when actually confronted with the grace of God expressed in Jesus Christ than those sinners (Christian or otherwise) who have it outwardly together morally, who tend to compare themselves to others based on outward appearances, but who have no real clue how desperately they need Christ.
Exactly. It's easier to pick out a topic like music, clothing, television, etc and go hardcore against it instead of dealing with the ACTUAL struggles in our own lives.
agree 100%
The old order Mennonites and Amish ban pianos because they were used in Honky-Tonk bars. Catholics said that sex can get perverted, so let's tell people that it's more holy to be celibate. Same crazy thinking. So, let's redeem that piano and use it for God's glory.
Someone mentioned the heart of the artist. Check out this nun doing Madonna's "Like a Virgin" showing a pure heart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0e8Uve7cJU
It's also easy to go after something in a way that allows us to justify our tastes and preferences as superior. I remember when I was little, a part of me recognized just how bogus the anti-rock beat teaching was, but another part of me clung to it because it allowed me to flaunt a value statement about music whenever I felt marginalized for enjoying classical music more. Not very Christlike at all!
The reason they used popular songs (bar songs) is because paper and ink were harder to get back then. The congregations usually didn't have a bunch of hymnals that they could follow along with, so they used popular melodies that everyone already knew and changed the words. It's the words that glorify God, not the tunes.
I was a music major in college. The best, most succinct definition of music I ever hear was that "Music is the art of sound." That's it. Like pretty much anything else, it's what we do with it that matters. And I would even go so far as to say it has more to do with the heart of the musician and less with the music itself.
Rob, I can name even more examples about some classical composers:
J. S. Bach's musical styles almost got him fired from a job once as a court musician. And it was over rhythms that were considered to be too sensual. Now of course, Bill Gothard himself would have no problem with Bach's music. But even Bach faced some of the same accusations back in his day and time too, thereby proving that this argument about certain musical styles being evil is all hogwash.
Beethoven was an alcoholic.
Brahms was an atheist.
Paganini was a violin virtuoso who could play so fast that some had claimed that his musical skill was satanic.
Wagner was a noted anti-Semite (Jew-hater). Decades later, Adolf Hitler would sometimes play Wagner's music in the background while giving speeches.
Just some more that I thought you might be interested in knowing.
Let me also add, Strauss likewise was considered too sensual for his time. JS Bach was also scandalous because he started to use women in his choirs instead of castrated males for high voices. The composer of the Christmas classic "The Nutcracker" was a homosexual. Mozart had questionable morals. Franz Lisz was a famous playboy and the list goes on.
In truth, it was the ten reasons why rock is evil (non reasons actually) that piqued my interest in the study of logical fallacies and to learn what makes a "solid argument." The reason Gothard's list is no good argument against rock music is because most of his "reasons" beg the question. You have to assume rock is evil to come to the conclusion that it is evil, in most or all of the ten arguments made on the list. I can't remember all the reasons, but one was an appeal to "avoid all appearance of evil." See? All evil is to be avoided. Rock is evil. Ergo rock is to be avoided. It is a valid syllogism, but it is not proved that rock music is evil; it is merely his assumption that it is.
Alfred,
Jazz originated in the melting pot of New Orleans and is a blending of European and African influences. Rock music did stem from the big band jazz years and yes the term rock and roll is a street term for sex and was first used in Cleveland Ohio. That is why the rock and roll hall of fame in is Cleveland Ohio. However, many other cultures have rich music which would include the middle east. We really don't know what kind of music David wrote the Psalms with but considering some of fast pace type of Jewish horahs there are, I would wager that Bill Gothard might be shocked to listen to the original music style of the OT. I'm sure it wasn't passive classical. Bill Gothard cannot point to a single Bible verse that would claim that one form of music is evil and another form is better. All of this is based on his own opinions and internal struggles. Just because some DJ in Ohio used street slang doesn't mean that all rock and roll is sex related or is addicting as you are claiming and have the audacity to say this is similar to an addiction to alcohol. You have no basis in fact for any of that. Bill didn't study music and didn't play any instrument as far as I know. Bill's definition of good verses evil music basically banns all music. Again there is only one major religion that does that and that is Islam which views all music as worldly. When the Taliban first lost control, the radio stations switched from reading the Koran to playing the local and very beat filled middle eastern music. Any time Islamic countries become more radical, the first thing to go is music.
On the subject of Biblical style percussion - Psalm 150 "Praise Him with the timbrel and dance." This is what the timbrel, called a riqq in Arabic, looks and sounds like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbXMcemeuOE
This all brings to mind something my cousin told me. His little boy was learning to ride his bicycle. He was warned not to hit that tree. So he mumbled to himself, "I'm not going to hit that tree, I'm not gonna hit that tree..." CRASH!!!!! Because that's where his focus was. If BG was so paranoid about hitting that tree (music with a beat? huh?) that he had to focus on it, he surely had his focus wrong and was a sitting duck for hitting something, ahem, 'sensual'.
If we focus on Christ, we don't have to make lists and lists of trees not to hit. We'll miss them every time, because we're saying (or thinking),"I'm gonna run to Jesus, I'm running to Jesus!" And, CRASH! We're in His arms. Peace. And you know, we probably won't even see the trees that He wants us to miss.
that is a wonderful analogy. thanks!
What you said is actually very scriptural, Sunflower.
Obviously there is still direction to be circumspect, wise as serpents in regards to evil, right? Preparing , training for battle?
H. B. to you today, Alfred!
Thank you, Lynn. I really appreciate it.
If this is your birthday, many happy returns of the day.
Let's don't go back into militarization of the faith. We've been through that.
Happy birthday, Alfred!
I will be a good boy. I will not militarize faith. Thanks, Don. And J. B. I would to God I could look y'all in the eyes . . . over Starbucks (no, I don't do beer . . . despite my family being all German) and we could talk about Jesus. How awesome it is to be saved . . . 100% unmerited . . . how faithful, perfect He is. Unlike our heroes.
Happy birthday Alfred!
Thank you, Kevin
As a Mario Kart fan, this makes me think of the folly of trying to avoid those pesky banana peels on the track by focusing on them. Silly illustration, yes, but the general principle is so true. :-)
I'd add that it's not just the focus on sin, but also the mindset that accompanies it. When our lives are dictated by a fear of falling into sin, that fear usually stems from something deeper, like a larger fear that God is keeping a ledger of all of our rights and wrongs and will punish us for slipping up, or an insatiable desire to be in the right and maintain appearances - or perhaps both. But when our focus is truly on Christ, sin is no longer just the "wrong choice"; it takes on a much more personal meaning as what hurts our relationship with God.
Very well said. (Except I don't know anything about Mario Kart.)
I love Mario Cart! It is a wonderful way to relax among friends. Usually we all end up doubled over in laughter after repeated cartoon disasters.
On the topic of ridiculous rules, I knew some in ATI who viewed even such innocent and engaging video games a Mario Cart as unmitigated evil. Now, I will acknowledge that video gaming, unlike rock music, can be actually addictive; but that is no reason to censure those who might spend a couple of hours enjoying a game like the afore mentioned with friends.
When I attended IBYC in 1979, the song "You Light Up my Life" by Debbie Boone was still a big hit and playing everywhere. Bill took issue with the song as an example of Christian compromise because of the last verse (it can't be wrong when it feels alright". Bill took that as a moral compromise in that right or wrong shouldn't be determined by how you feel. Even though he didn't mention Pat and Debbie Boone by name, he implied that they were allowing themselves to be used and compromised. The song is a love song sung from the perspective of someone who is lonely and finally found their love. It isn't specific but could be applied to God which is what a number of Christians viewed it at the time. It is an emotional love song. The last verse in the context of the whole song isn't about sex and compromise but about someone expressing their emotions for someone else. At the time I thought "oh no, the song is bad". Time and perspective and understanding helped me realize that this may have been an overreach. Is the last verse meant to reflect "feel good do it relativism"? Or is it an expression of emotions of love in that love feelings are alright and not wrong?
Similar note, a couple years ago, I sat in a church sanctuary at an acoustic concert by two of the guys from the band Petra. When I was growing up, there had been a running joke within Gothardite families that bands like Petra have done as much good for the Kingdom of God as "Christian pornography." Harsh accusations were leveled at all Christian contemporary performers about their motives and their walk with God. Sitting in the audience, listening to Bob Hartman (founding member of Petra) give a clear presentation of the gospel message, the irony struck me that I had never heard Bill Gothard speak like that. As far as I know, Bob Hartman has never had any sexual scandals. Here he was, playing an acoustic set to a smaller audience (in sharp contrast to the absurd analogy to alcoholism), and preaching the same message, if anything sharper and clearer than ever. All those harsh, judgmental things BG said about guys like Bob through the years and yet Bob continues to have a reputation that is above reproach. And I hope that Bob's reputation is genuine, without skeletons in the closet; meanwhile, Bill's skeletons have been rattling too loud for anyone to hear what he has to say any more.
It just floors me that still today, Bill has defenders who a) falsely accuse and judge someone like Bob, and b) completely excuse and whitewash the actual sins that Bill was committing in secret. My goodness, what a shame.
Bill versus Bob - when my career is in its twilight years, let me be like Bob, not Bill!
(if it were revealed that Bob did have skeletons in his closet, my respect for him would be directly proportional to how he handled it: if he were to initiate confession and seek a good process of restoration, that would be ideal; if he were to respond with humility and cooperation to those who tried to help, that would be crucial; if he were to cover up and attack, like BG does, my respect for him would be wounded, probably mortally, and I would not waste one breath defending him. Rather, if I said anything at all, it would be the same kind of appeal that is made here on RG, namely, that he repent and do whatever he could to make things right. That is all hypothetical, though. To my knowledge he has remained above reproach.)
I remember the band Petra. I think they very much tried to reach out in their music to the unchurched. You make an interesting point, Bill did take different shots at different Christians. I remember that he made some nasty comments about the late Francis Schaeffer in that Bill thought that he studied too much philosphy and it messed up his mind. He took pot shots at the Boones. Of course, one can't say anything about him because that would be against Christian unity and the Bible but he could take digs at others. There is a need for heros and role models that we can trust. I'm sure that Bob Hartman is who he says he is and his main desire to reach out to others is his main motivation.
Hey, even Twisted Sister looks like your Grandpa these days, sort of a sweet fellow, watched him . . . Kiss is a warm and friendly bunch of guys. Jesus alone is judge. You KNOW I can trot out any number of really nice people in the Bible that suffered some severe judgment . . . because they did not observe some of the - to us - minor points that God had commanded.
Ever hear of the "Children of God"? The daughter of the founder (David Berg) and husband ended up in a leadership role in ATI for a while. He was actually really good when I heard him. Robert Newhouse. When they left the CoG cult, they knew it inside and out.
"How can it be wrong when it seems so right?" That is SEX! Sex is cool, it REALLY feels so right . . . "two people just being who God created them to be without shame", as one "Christian" told me as he decried all of the church "sex rules" against what is referred to as "fornication". Sex is repressed. Sex is misunderstood by dour people trying to control you. Sex was meant to draw us to Jesus.
In point of fact, it was designed to draw others to Jesus - The "Children of God" believed that. They called it "Flirty Fishing" . . . worldwide prostitution for Jesus. And they, Brother, preached John 3:16 like you and I preach it. Testimonies of people getting saved. Not making this up, will document if you are unfamiliar.
So . . . I say . . . Jesus sometimes really strongly disagrees with our "How can it be wrong if it seems so right" mentality. Sort of doesn't matter how it feels or seems. If He said "don't", well, we better not "do" - and if we are used to believing our emotions, we are going to get into a world of hurt. MAYBE an eternity of hurt, if we don't know Jesus.
And your point is? Nobody is talking about using sex to spread the Gospel. Nobody is claiming that all rock musicians are perfect. Red herring, much?
Alfred, all sex is not immoral. Godly sex is revelatory of the intimate love of God. In Hosea 2:16 God claims for Himself the word for husband first used by Adam when he falls head over heels for Eve. "Ishi". Adam's feelings overwhelmed him and turned him into a touchy, feely poet. You should try it, it is cool!
Sex inside marriage can move us closer to Jesus. Paul spends much of Ephesians 5 explaining this Mystery as the spousal love of Christ. A husband's tender and loving initiative reflects the initiative of the Bridegroom in Redemption. A wife's responsiveness reflects the response of a believer to Christ's initiative. A husband's unselfishness reflects the sacrificial love of Jesus. A wife's submission to THAT Jesus kind of love reflects our capacity to yield to Him. "Male and female" "image" Him in His Trinitarian Interpersonal Communing Love.
You do better if you limited your denunciations to sexual immorality instead of "sex". As it is, you appear to believe that the body is an evil trap instead of a fallen vessel in the process of redemption. Jesus pointed us to Genesis 1 and 2 because purity in sanctified (Paul's word in I Cor. 7) marriage is part of His Redemption. He arose bodily. My body will be fully redeemed. Adam's sexuality preceded his lust. God made sex good. Don't hate your body, purify your heart. Songs that reveal our need are perfectly consistent with the Gospel. We are needy. Jesus is the Supply for our need. Repression denies the need. Healthy spousal intimacy can reveal the sweetness of the supply.
Boy, if you only knew me. I am a big fan of sex . . . got 11 kids, BTW. And now I am sensing that you missed the attempt at irony and rhetorical statements to make a point. My point is that its place in life IS limited . . . not something to be worshiped, in any case. Those that worship sex instead of the One who created it end up forced by God to live out perversion as a punishment (Romans 1). We better avoid that.
Yes, Alfred. Your irony must have gone right over my head in your repeated arguments claiming that any music rooted in sexual feeling is evil per se. I can't help it, I'm an engineer and a lawyer and I take words literally and quite seriously.
These discussions can be difficult enough without you saying something that you know to be contrasting with reality, merely hoping everyone "gets" it. Please let your yea be yea and your nay be nay. Just say what you mean.
How about this. Sensual - generally sexual - stimulation is like a drug. Like alcohol, or cocaine. Sex is powerful, bending the will, causing otherwise intelligent people to do really stupid things. Like drugs do. Alcohol can be managed and made a normal part of a healthy life. But only with controls. Minors are not permitted to consume the stuff because it has a high likelihood of problems. Sex outside of marriage is exactly the same.
SO . . . the government keeps liquor companies from advertising to minors. Restricts them in other ways. Cocaine has been banned, even though people in other countries consume small amounts of it in a regular and possibly healthy way (Cocoa leaves).
Yet . . . music that stimulates sensual parts of our being . . . is not regulated? How does that make sense?
It is one argument to allege it does not . . . stimulate. I say empirical evidence would speak to the contrary. Some here have acknowledged that possibility, including, apparently, yourself. If certain music puts you "in the mood" . . . and may even minimize inhibitions - like alcohol does - how are we continuing to assert that it is "no big deal", certainly nobody's business - particularly a preacher - to regulate, speak against?
Is THAT clear?
Your mechanistic argument was already clear. Your view that sex and chemicals are analogous is pretty sad, and seems inconsistent with Genesis 1 and 2. But I understand. You are fighting the fall with rules and works. Nonetheless, law is for the lawless, not the redeemed.
Alfred,
I'm not sure where you dug up that disgusting web site with disgusting terms but that is only one person's definitions for a number of Jazz music terms. When I think of Jazz, I think of the one of the greatest jazz trumpeters, Louis Armstrong. He is famous for one of my favorite songs, "What a wonderful world". That song expresses hope, love and contentment, it is a wonderful world. There is absolutely nothing sexual in it at all and this from one of the greatest Jazz musicians of all time. When I think of Jazz, I also think of Scott Joplin, one of the early and great ragtime musicians. I took classical piano for 12 years and his ragtimes are just as complicated and intricate and difficult to learn on the piano as JS Bach's 2 and 3 part inventions. All you have done is taken one perverted interpretation and used those to dismiss a wonderful and rich American original form of music.
For all of Bill's angst of rock music and the so called dangers, it seemed like his own limited music choices didn't prevent him from his own desires with young girls and acting on them. That because Alfred, sin originates in one's heart and for 99% of the average person, their music choices are not going to cause them to fall into immorality. What is in their heart will.
Rob War, I am so glad you brought up trumpet, and "What a Wonderful World." I have been feeling left out since I have not been able to come up with a reason for a youtube (like all the other cool kids :-) You might like this,
Bastrompet | Eric Westerink | What a wonderfull word
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddBv6m7ysXg
I think it is my favorite bass trumpet video. You might know this, but a bass trumpet is an octave lower than a regular trumpet. Sounds a lot like a trombone, only a little brassier. Somewhat rare. If you like it, you might save it. It is hard to remember the spelling of the word "Bastrompet" (in the title.)
don't feel left out! thanks for the link and I just love that song, it is a wonderful world because God made it.
This is nothing new or unusual, Rob. There are many other sites that say the same thing. People are into origins . . . THOSE are the origins of Jazz, including the sexually charged term itself.
You DO know that a whole generation labeled R&R as bad music . . . but we are so much more enlightened now. I remember reading of those that struggled with the pull of Jazz music before and after they were saved . . . long before ATI was invented.
I accept that no amount of argument is going to change your mind. So the discussion will never go anywhere. Just accept that some cannot deal with it as objectively as you do.
What generation labeled rock music as totally bad? Most objections were about the lyrics and what people sang about. Bill Gothard took it a step further and tried to make some case about the beat of it as inherently evil. That was just his own opinion. You can hardly point to anything in Jazz music that would cause people to morally fail. Jazz music is mostly instrumental to begin with anyway. If someone (in this case Bill) is struggling internally with his own physical desires that is from within Bill and not derived from either rock or jazz music. Bill would also have to go after country music, some forms of classical even to be intellectually honest. Sin comes from within oneself. Definitions do change over time. Take the word Protestant which meant in the 1500's in the beginning of the reformation a protestor to the Catholic Church. Now, Protestant doesn't mean that people are still protesting, it means an umbrella of Christianity outside of either Catholic or Orthodox churches. Take the work gay, which in its basic meaning is happy. Now it means a homosexual person. You want to take the root meaning of either jazz or rock and roll which may have been slang for sex and then state that this means the rock and roll and jazz is about sex, therefore is evil music. But you and Bill your hero want so street type term to its original and claim that is why these forms of music are evil when jazz music is not about sex and the same for rock and roll music
Alfred, you do see sexuality as inherently evil. Gothard impressed us and our children with the same confusion which derives from the alienation established in Genesis 3. I am sorry for you. Jesus directed our attention to Genesis 1 and 2. Please read The Theology of the Body for Beginners. Every man I know who has read this has tasted of moral freedom. Then read Song of Solomon with a heart open to righteous, God-imaging passion. Rock on!
It is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but sin dwelling in him revealed in what comes out of his heart. It is convenient and self-justifying to blame the external. But it is error.
I still think that one of the worst results of the 'teachings' of IBLP is the false sense of being better than everyone else. On the other hand, you felt worse because of all the guilt. Shame. Talk about encouraging isolating ourselves from others, pride. I remember BG saying, "If you feel guilty, you are guilty." That one phrase put me into so much shame and condemnation that it caused panic/anxiety disorder. Talk about reinforcing the German shame-based upbringing! Again, it caused me to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because I hadn't learned to hear the voice of the Shepherd who only gives fruit from the tree of Life.
Isn't it interesting that he taught not to obey your feelings, EXCEPT feelings of guilt?
It seems to me that the honest legalist and the truly spiritual feel like Paul in Romans 7: desperately unworthy. The difference is, the legalist thinks and prays in comparison, "Thank you father that at least I am not like that even worse sinner over there", while the spiritual man says, "Lord have Mercy on me a sinner." Only one goes away justified.
Don, "Isn't it interesting that he taught not to obey your feelings, EXCEPT feelings of guilt?"
I have struggled with guilt. Today, one of my first thoughts is, what kind of guilt is it? True or false guilt? It seems like I must have heard a sermon at some point about this verse: 2 Corinthians 7:10 (KJV) For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
I remember it was a turning point for me, to understand that not all guilt is from God. Furthermore, the wrong kind will kill you. So my test today is, Can I repent of this thing and be forgiven? (then go on in liberty) Or is it something I just feel bad about anytime I think of it...forever and ever ahem (death.) If the answer is, I can get forgiveness great, get on with it (freedom here I come!) If not, ignore it, it is probably from the pit. No need to do morbid introspection, day after day, looking inward and only finding paralyzing madness and death.
This is what has helped me. I am sure there are other insights from that passage. I must confess, I cherry-picked some extra translations to make my point more clear (yes, it has come to this :-)
2 Corinthians 7:10 The Message (MSG)... Distress that drives us to God does that. It turns us around. It gets us back in the way of salvation. We never regret that kind of pain. But those who let distress drive them away from God are full of regrets, end up on a deathbed of regrets.
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)... Pain handled in God’s way produces a turning from sin to God which leads to salvation, and there is nothing to regret in that! But pain handled in the world’s way produces only death.
Maybe guilt - conscience - is not a feeling.
"15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. " (Rom 2)
That SOUNDS like that pesky law that we are running from so hard . . . is actually written in our hearts. It forms the basis of our conscience. And apparently will witness against us on that final day, pointing to things it told us that we chose to ignore. Not a feeling . . . actually, a God ordained witness to our heart, EVEN if we don't have a Bible.
I thought of a BG example of promoting guilt. He seemed to place an emphasis on things like, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." True, it is nice to know the history of that famous written work by Edwards. But the way I remember it, BG went way beyond that. The problem is, the more you read that sermon, the deeper in the pit you dig. At some point, you are ready for someone to toss down a knife, so you can slash your wrist and be done with it.
It was the Power through Precision section that quoted Charles Finney's "Break up your fallow ground", which nearly broke my mind. The sermon required an obsessive search for hidden or forgotten sins in order to get right with God. It came as no surprise to learn, years later, that Finney denied some of the most basic beliefs of Christianity, specifically, that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers (Romans 5:19)and that Christ's blood continually covers all our sin (I John 2:1-2). With such heretical beliefs, it is no wonder that Finney's sermons produced such rotten fruit in my life.
Thank you Quiet One. Your extra details brings back more memories. I do not remember other examples, but I think there were many more evil "guilt trips" slipped into the poison. I think it was worse than just regular poison that you might use for pests. It was more like "heavy metal" poison. That is very hard to detect. By the time you discover what the problem is, you are in very bad shape. The symptoms are many and seem totally unrelated. "Heavy metals" are really hard to get rid of and it can be very dangerous and costly to do so. I could go on and on, but it sure sound like what some of us have gone thru with BG.
And this shaming is how BG groomed the girls. Talk about sneaky control tactics. Read the Crying out for Justice site stuff and you see it over and over and over in the church. So sad.
There is an interesting blog article by Jimmy Akin about bad music
http://jimmyakin.com/2005/07/bad_music.html
Now he does write from a Catholic perspective and was answering a question posed to him about listening to bad music. What I think is key here is that one cannot simple be in a perpetual flight from temptation and that what may be a temptation will vary from person to person. Trying to completely avoid all temptation will basically destroy any ability to lead a normal human life. The key is learning to manage temptation as a risk for life. For Bill , it seems that is own risk for temptation must have been high and that he then used that as a standard for all Christians. Is listening to a song "you light up my life" really going to lead someone into justifying immorality based on the last verse? Is listening to Petra going to cause someone to do drugs or be immoral especially when the lyrics are about Jesus and none of those things? Does "its a wonderful world" jazz song prove that jazz is all about sex? Is listening to Strauss going to make one horny? Sadly, Bill's one issues and scruples were made to be everyone's issues and scruples which is the problem with much of his teaching.
Music, movies, books, etc, cannot CAUSE someone to sin. We sin because we choose to sin. Saying that rock music makes people sin is just as ridiculous as saying "the devil made me do it." We all have choices to make in life. Yes, a song with dirty lyrics or a racy romance novel might get our minds going in the wrong direction, but we are the ones who choose what we do with it.
"You Light Up My Life" is an dreamy, emotional song . . . Perfect for the ladies. It represents everything a woman wants . . . and THEN it presents a barrier to all of that . . . something SOMEBODY said was "wrong" with it . . . and the rhetorical question is: HOW can something that perfect be wrong?!
Well . . . happens all of the time. When I hear ladies speaking about their nightmare, abusive ex-husbands . . . I wonder . . . HOW did they choose so foolishly? Maybe . . . it was emotional, dreamy, romantic, perfect, light-up-life kind of stuff . . . and God did NOT leave a witness SOMEWHERE that this was not good? I can't believe God will do that.
So, you see, the music DOES have a big impact. The song speaks to your emotions, telling you of things you long for . . . the words help your mind rationalize just enough to get you over where you need to be. To make a big mistake. I DO NOT understand the "wrong" and "seems right" part . . . in a good song. Just don't. If it is wrong, it is wrong . . .
Oh good heavens Alfred, you are so condensending to women. The song is a simple love song with lyrics from the prespective of someone that was lonely and now found someone. It doesn't mention sex, it doesn't mention if it was a woman or man singing it and it was a huge hit because it struck a nerve which most big hits do. Debbie Boone who made it a big hit sung it towards Jesus. Your crack that women are at fault in getting involved in abusive marriages and then divorce seems to blame it all in goo-goo eyes dreamy romantic nonsense. Maybe the real answer is that women get in abusive unhappy marriages because they are following their chain of command under Bill Gothard and their fathers pick out the hubby and not them. Like the nonsense we see with the Duggar children.
You.
Condescending.
Twit.
There is a LOT I don't go into here for personal reasons, but let me tell you one thing, Alfred - "You Light Up My Life" or "it can't be wrong when it feels so right" really didn't cross my mind when I chose to marry a man that turned out to be nightmarishly abusive - emotionally, spiritually, financially, verbally. Dreamy and perfect aren't the way I'd describe it, either.
You just demonstrated a huge difference between Gothardism and true Christianity. Gothardism has taught you to be condescending and judgmental. And to blame victims.
You continue to stick by your friend of many names (now using yet another alias, by the way). If you don't believe there's a problem with either his behavior or his theology, can you not tell that there's a problem with his fruit? None of us are perfect. I'm afraid my attitude at this moment is far from it. But I'm talking about patterns, habits. When you think and act according to Gothardism, you have a pattern of thinking of yourself more highly than you ought ... of judging. And it's wrong. It's not wrong because you're not doing it right. It's wrong because it's flawed and it cannot produce any other kind of fruit.
How many reasons do you need, Alfred?
There were a couple of really nice guys who liked me when I was younger.....but no, they went to the wrong church. I was pushed to date a man from our church.....you know, I listened to my parents. He was abusive. No, it was not my fault. And it had nothing to do with popular songs. We Mennonites did not listen to that, either. Nobody taught me what traits to look for in a man, nobody taught him how to be a man, nor kept him accountable later when I asked for help.
We joined the whole IBLP crap where I tried and tried and tried and tried to do it all right, and that made it so so so much worse, I can't begin to tell you how much. Slavery is alive and well there, and maybe you don't get what slavery feels like, but I sure do. For all of history, people have died so their families and friends would not have to be slaves, and here in a 'free' country, people are indoctrinating each other to voluntarily opt for slavery, because some dude knows how to sound smart and spiritual while deceptively spouting scripture? Creepy. I feel so stupid for falling for it. And every day I weep for what it did to my children.
Sunflower, "And every day I weep for what it did to my children." I am sorry for what you went through. I have found it next to impossible for anyone to understand this, unless they have been involved with BG. I am just looking for a way to stand along side.
I do have a story that you might like. You mentioned, "nobody taught him how to be a man..." Nobody taught me either. So I made a lot of mistakes. I was able to pass along advise to my daughter beginning while she was a teenager. I let her know she was plenty smart enough to find someone who she was attracted to. I was sure she had her list and needed no help from me. However, I told her, never get involved with any man who acted like Ahab. 1 Kings 21:4 "... And he laid him down upon his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread."
I am sure you know the story Sunflower. Anyway, I told my daughter if she married a man like Ahab, who pouted and acted like a baby when things did not go his way, she would be very sorry. I told her she would probably end up hating and despising him. Even if she loved him, it might not last. She perhaps would end up with no respect for him. In short, it might contribute to her becoming a Jezebel.
Years pass and one day she calls me and tells me she might have found the one. She said, (and I quote,) "He is the most non-Ahabish man I have ever met." Up until then, I had no idea how much advise she took from me.
A month or so ago they celebrated their 10 year anniversary. They have 1 girl and 2 boys. They are very happy. By the way, my boys have heard the same sermon.
Sunflower, thanks for sharing. God is able, in his way to redeem things. Sometimes in this life, for sure in the next. Who knows what you can teach your kids and grandkids?
Thanks, I'll remember that. So right, the pouty type is to be avoided. One who is quick to be offended but doesn't care if he offends others.
Who sinned, this man or his parents?
For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
Alfred, if you care about integrity, please ask your wife to read your comment and share her honest response to the hardness of your heart.
Please listen to the honest response of women to your comment.
Vis a vis the song: I'm sure the Pharisees said similar things about Paul and the other "rebels": "It doesn't matter what any spirit says to you, what you feel or what visions you have had, you will reap wrath for eating with Gentiles."
When I hear ladies speaking about their nightmare, abusive ex-husbands . . . I wonder . . . HOW did they choose so foolishly? Maybe . . . it was emotional, dreamy, romantic, perfect, light-up-life kind of stuff . . . and God did NOT leave a witness SOMEWHERE that this was not good? I can't believe God will do that.
I think this is a significant comment that reveals not insensitivity as much as a belief system at work. Sometimes people say "agree to disagree" and I think the valuable part of that is getting down to the basic points of substance on which people disagree. I think this comment goes to some important points of substance that are places where many people in the RG community would disagree with your belief system, Alfred.
MatthewS, I agree about the belief system at work. " HOW did they choose so foolishly?" can be translated to, "that's what you get." It turns out I use that phrase (when muttering to myself), "that's what you get" a lot. Not because I mean it so much, but to impersonate a family member who uses it a lot. It is all done in fun and jest, but it points to an underlining mindset that is faulty. I should change it to, "without the atonement of Christ, that's what you get."
There seem to be a lot of things that Alfred "can't believe" regardless of the evidence or logic. Bringing those presuppositions out into the open and contrasting them with the presuppositions' of others might assist us all in understanding why we seem unable to come to consensus on anything. We keep ending up where we start, not seeing that we are walking in different universes (of the possible).
I'll start. My presupposition is that regardless of reputation, any man can sexually harass or abuse a woman under his control given enough opportunity. In fact, the only thing preventing it in every case is the Spirit of God and His Mercy. All lust, and all are capable of succumbing to that lust.
A second presupposition of mine is that the truth of a man's teaching is not related to how many people follow him or are "helped" by his teaching.
Don, there could be some good stuff to explore here.
I think some key issues are:
Does the end justify the means?
Does a leader get to operate by a separate, hidden set of rules than he asks of his followers?
Are men equally capable and culpable as women of their own choices before God, and the other way around, are women equally capable and culpable as men of their own choices before God?
When abuse or other sin is discovered that has affected people in a group (say a church, para-church, or other organization), is it more important to preserve appearances or to address the sin (and hopefully restoration) openly?
When God sees a leader in power who is oppressing those under him, is God more concerned with preserving the power/submission structure or with caring for the oppressed?
As written, some of these are obviously loaded questions, not purely objective. I'm sure if someone were trying to have a true meeting of the minds, they would want to find a way to word some of them more objectively.
Incidentally, I see some of these issues as being involved in Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisees in Matthew 23.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+23&version=NIV
Hypocrites who put heavy loads on everyone else, who speak carefully so as to hide their true intentions, white-washed tombs and dirty cups who are clean on the outside but dirty inside, legalists who strain out every gnat but gulp down camels, who tithe to the smallest degree on their smallest crop yet who neglect the "weightier matters" of justice, mercy and faithfulness.
Conversely, 1 John and other passages speak to walking in the light, confessing and forsaking, and so on. I think Jesus and his followers presented a way of life that includes grace for our weaknesses and failures, an expectation of weakness and of falling short, and a way out of our failures without either excusing them or beating us up for them.
This is a different topic, but one of the dishonest attacks that Bill and his followers keep repeating is that the folks of RG hate him and want to destroy him. No. What has been asked for is his repentance, not his destruction.
My belief system is based on the following:
"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (1 Cor 10:13)
IF we fall into trouble - sin, as we would later acknowledge it - we can be absolutely sure that it was our fault. Because God guarantees a "way to escape" so we are able to stand and overcome any temptation.
If we fall we ignored some clear direction God gave us . . . personally, not the other fellow. There are a lot of instances - abusive marriages, other missteps - where the "way to escape" is not apparent to the individual. Saying "if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't" means we haven't found it yet. Since otherwise we would say, "Knowing what I did know then, I chose to ignore _______".
Some of those "ways to escape" involve removing certain things that weaken us, personally, from resisting temptation. Again me, not the other fellow. Maybe music can be one of those things . . . something God (not Bill Gothard) warns this individual or that one, but it gets ignored. I say it is worth considering. Foolish to ignore.
Alfred, can you distinguish your views from Job's first 3 friends? It seems to me that they concluded his trouble had to be rooted in his own sin. Your conflation of "trouble" above with "sin" betrays your abuse of the scriptures you cite. All trouble is not sin or evidence of sin: "everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted". Thus, trouble follows everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus.
What does Jesus have to do with sin and escape?
If a man can escape sin by overcoming any temptation, why did Jesus have to die? Why didn't he just teach men to see the way of escape?
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
...if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
For circumcision [apparent lawkeeping] indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
... Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
My concern is not with your insight, Don - that people continue to not take the "way to escape" - but that you appear to be dismissing this quite clear Scripture. It remains true - let God be true, every man a liar. No believer EVER *has* to sin . . . there is always a "way to escape". Apparently we are too dull or stubborn or proud to see it or want it. Can you disagree with that?
This is a quite significant point . . . for it fully shifts the blame for sin on us, NOT Adam or God withholding grace (for the Calvinists) or the curse or our parents or anything else.
I stuns me to realize that this may turn out to be the crux of the whole matter. Grace - at least the grace we need for life - IS the ability and desire - "favorable inclination" - to do what God wants us to. This verse assures us that that grace will never be lacking. So . . . the reason we sin is because we are proud - and only humble people will take grace.
"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:5) There is the principle of authority too, BTW . . . ALL of us "submitting" to those that are older, all of us "subjecting" ourselves to each other, clothed in humility. Apparently submitting to others is also key to getting and accepting that grace. All of which figures into that "way to escape".
You are a man who thinks and ponders, Don. Ponder this for a moment before responding.
Alfred - I've followed your posts with great interest over the last two years or so. However, I think you're loosing sight of some key issue on the issue of Bill's teaching on rock music: 1. His competency on the subject (non-MD, non medically trained, non-pastor) is suspect; and 2. The teaching is based on a patchwork of scripture in conjunction with testimonies of young (teens-20's ages) ATI students, of which many, now in their 30's-40's have repudiated.
His academic background (psychology degree) gave him more knowledge on how to manipulate people than it gave him tools on correctly parsing scripture. The testimonies, which AT BEST were offered in the context of young people looking for something they were told to find, and at worst, deliberatly coerced, twisted/exaggerated, or taken out of context.
Yet, all evidence to the contrary, you still seem to defend him just for the sake of defending him. Full marks for loyalty, but this isn't the office watercooler where you stick up for your office-mate, this is very real and has real repercussions in people's lives.
I would think that when a person places themself in the public area they open themself up for critical review, yet anyone who does a critical review of BG is attacked by his defenders in ways they would not allow BG himself to be attacked.
The double-standard is glaring, and while I don't THINK you mean to identify with those who hold this double-standard, it certainly comes across that way at times...
I would love for you to proove me wrong. :=} Just for fun, do you think you could compile a list of where you feel BG got specific teachings wrong?
add to the list that Bill did not study music nor play any instrument
Dave: "Bill Gothard received his B.A. in biblical studies from Wheaton College in 1957, an M.A. in Christian education in 1961 from the same institution[7] and a Ph.D. in biblical studies from the unaccredited Louisiana Baptist University in 2004." Not sure where the Psychology came from?
I like to have stories straight, since misinformation or even outright lies serve no one. I doubt you would disagree. As far his "supporters" springing to his defense . . . How many besides me are you dealing with? Most have the sense to stay out of the arena. Lion's den.
As to music, obviously Bill's concerns are more spiritual than physics. What he puts forward relies largely on induction, I.e. Observed patterns . . . Associations . . . Years of counseling. I mean, how would a music theorist be more prepared to discuss the effects of music on the spirit, soul, and body than Bill? I noted above that Jazz and Rock are so linked to perverted sex that the terms are street terms for the same. Induction observes evidence like that and asks "why?" So . . . Answer that instead of brushing it off. Many great advances in science have begun with exactly that type of observation . . . You know, the rats die first, then the people die of bubonic plague. Why?
BTW, I was under the impression that Bill did play a musical instrument in high school. shall consult my sources.
My sources confirm: He plays the trumpet (high school, brings out occasionally) . . . and the autoharp.
enough of the secret sources
Oh, please. You know I am in contact with Bill and some of those closest to him. Believe me or don't believe me - do you really think I am lying?
Bill is not qualified to make any assessment on music and psychology Years of induction or observation is subjective nonsense. Bill came up with his bad music analysis solely based on his own opinion and most likely internal struggles. Bill based his analysis on a faulty view of body, soul and spirit and strung a bunch of Bible versed together to try and prove his points. The Bible verses quoted in the article based on Bill's own material have nothing to do with rock music or music in general. The Bible is totally silent on if there is good music or bad music. And I'm sure the music of the middle east and Bible times would not past Bill's standards anyway.
Alfred,
Interesting on the trumpet, though not my claim and also, IMHO, sort of irrelevent. I could be wrong on degrees, his online bio only lists:
"Bill Gothard received his B.A. (1957) and M.A. (1961) degrees from Wheaton College and, a Ph.D. (2004) degree from Louisiana Baptist University." The PHd was honorary or some sort of minimal correspondance course I believe, though that came in well after my time so cant confirm/deny.
Through all my time at HQ I heard Psychology as his undergrad. Would be interested in your source on that. I like your convo style though. :)
I think you might be willing to concede that the cast majority of the pro/con discussions are not online, but played out inside families and churches, were repercussions are real and result in damaged relationships. I find it interesting that a man of God would be happy for his name to be the cause of so many damaged relationships, but I digress.
How about that list? If you think there's nothing of note worth critiquing in his teachings then mark your spot on that and I'll leave it alone.
Dave, the confusion might stem from this: BG was "in the graduate program of psychology at Northwestern University, where he made the discovery that either he had to drop out or seriously jeopardize his faith." –Christianity Today
I'm not sure how dropping out would save his faith, if he was hiding from issues rather than reasoning them out. So he was drawn to, yet afraid of, psychology, and this tension influenced his own ideas.
Jay, I'm reading with interest, and I like your input. Loved your last sentence.
I was a psychology and CE double major at Wheaton College. In general, I find psychology students are overwhelmingly those highly motivated to understand themselves and others on a deeper level. They know from their own experience that many times things are not as they seem, and they are not content with superficial judgments and simplistic explanations (especially where these do not add up). I would say that my study of psychology was for me the beginning of a deeper understanding of the real intent and meaning of many of the Scriptures as well. (This is true not so much of the theories, which being based on various human philosophies are at best partial truths that need to be critiqued in the full light of Christ, but of the empirical observations and studies which were a move toward more truly objective understandings about how people function which can expose personal biases and explode myths and false beliefs in these areas. A key example is the observational studies of Piaget describing the stages of cognitive development from infancy to the acquisition of adult abstract reasoning.) That BG was afraid of studying psychology to me is very telling--especially in light of the kinds of problems with his life and ministry being described at this site.
I, personally, have no significant problems any of his teachings. I have a big problem with imbalance. That has always been the problem. I could go over issue after issue.
Fair enough, though by imbalance, are you talling about not being in moderation? Completely agree we are to be in "moderation in all things." Would you agree with the idea that Paul's exortation toward's moderation introduces a sense of ambiguity of personal preference or individual perspective? Or that perhaps sometimes what exactly moderation should be, is decided on the context in certain situations?
I guess what I'm driving at is: are there a specific set of actions/beliefs, one might say "specific dogma(s)", that should be considered in and of themselves moderate, regardless of the context, and without any room for personal decision-making? Also, in your opinion, When looking at a proposed action set, can two sincere Christians draw different conclusions on what exactly moderate behavior means, and both be "correct" ?
One big issue in these type discussions is the problem of ambigious language, some words have connotations to some people and not to others, and I would like to understand what you consider moderation/balance to be.
Our pastor preached a fantastic message yesterday on 1 Cor. Multiple passages throughout the book, as well as Col. that point towards the idea that first, Jesus Christ Crucified is THE central message of our lives, and EVERYTHING flows from that. Paul repeatedly provides lists of characteristics of what we shouldn't be, as well as lists of what we should be, but these lists are composed of descriptors: avoid anger, wrath, immorality, and out on kindness, meekness, etc.
However, he doesn't say exactly what to do. I find that to be the beauty of Paul's writings. I take issue, and I believe Paul would as well with a Christian who says "this is what those lists mean to me, therefore this is what it should mean to you!"
There's a concept that psychology that is referred to as "Projective Identification" (PI). You may know it by the term BG uses: "expectations". The idea of PI is that you project an identity on a person in such a way that they begin to assume it themselves. Note, the focus isn't on how the person is projecting the identity, it's on the receiver and how they assume the identity being thrust on them. The means that the projector uses are usually subtle, and many times the projector isn't doing it counsiously. It is a natural function of their beliefs and view of their idea of the lower relationship b/t them and the receiver.
For instance, the projector will not attempt this with one they consider more powerful than them, and can't help themselves with someone they consider weaker than them.
This is the paradox with BG: he created a set of dogmas, then used his knowlege of humanity to project them in a subtle yet powerful way in the context of his times, then when challenged, hid behind various defenses that are truely fascinating from a psychological perspective, but I think we have enough here to start.
I think when Alfred is talking about imbalance, he is making a reference to heresy and Bill definition of heresy is truth that is imbalanced. That is not the meaning of heresy which really mean a departure from orthodoxy. For example, Bahai is considered a heretical group from Islam in that it is a departure from orthodoxy Islamic teaching and views. Mormon, JW etc are heretical groups in that they depart from key orthodox Christian teaching. I think what Alfred is driving at is that Bill's teaching is correct but people have had an imbalance in how they have used and applied it in their lives. Paul's comment about moderation in all things shows the God's wisdom in considering where the gospel will go and spread and all the different cultures and groups Christianity will encounter. Looking at our own American culture, our definitions of excess and moderation has changed. It is fluid. Rock music's beat which is what Bill considered evil affects different people in different way as does all music. Only a very few will be affected in the way that Bill states as dogma and set in stone. My earlier link to Jimmy Akin's article about bad music states as such. One simply cannot make some list of what is or isn't bad or evil music especially based on what Bill did which was a focus on the beat.
That was pretty much "spot on", Rob. Was reaching for the "Like" button :-). I find Bill to have isolated a number of key neglected, essential truths from Scripture. Like long lost "missing vitamins" they are instantly recognized as important and quickly cure a number of unsolvable problems. The church rejoices. The corollary quickly follows that these are the key to ALL problems and everyone piles on. Bill does not discourage this too much. When you dump too much fertilizer on a hungry lawn you start with an explosion of green . . . Eventually the lawn dies. Balance, moderation, patience.
So, with a few subtle differences, you're agreeing in concept with RG ( albeit using very moderate and concilliatory wording) yet defend Bill. Something in this scenario isn't adding up.
Well . . . there is a vast difference between saying that Bill's definition of Grace is false, vs. saying that he has applied the concept of Grace in an imbalanced way. Saying there is no "Chain of Command" in Scripture is much different from saying that the scriptural concept is applied in an unbalanced way.
Alfred you said, "Bill does not discourage this too much." What an understatement!!!! Of course, he does not discourage drinking the Kool-aid. DUH!!!
True, when the one time I talked to him personally, he admitted reasonable stuff. I was shocked. It made me crazy. Nothing like what he said in the many seminars i attended. My internal response was, "Now you tell me?!! What about all those years you said the opposite? Why did you lie to me?" I did not have words to say that (for years) because I was reeling, dumbfounded. Thanks to RG I have been able to process the disconnect.
Alfred, I do not doubt that BG is very reasonable to you in person. How else would he have supporters like you, if he showed his true colors all the time?
I appreciate you kind complement Alfred but I am not sure what you are agreeing with me about since I am saying that Bill definition of heresy is bogus and I would wager it was used to cover up looking at his teaching as heretical. Bill's teaching is heretical. It borders on gnositic, Pelergian and semi-pelergian.
Fascinating, thanks Jay! I do remember that now. He brought it up at a sunday night meeting once.
As an amatuer student of psychology, I find his self-identification interesting. Given his propensity to use language of polarity, I'm not sure whether that statement was in fact a true recounting of his reaction, but if it is, your thoughts are spot on.
My opinion is that it is probably a combo of him finding out enough he didn't want to know more about himself, and he re-told the story with a slant to establish credibilty with folks who distrusted the fuzzy science of the field... Regardless, I doubt we'll get a clarification from him, unless Alfred fills him in, "consults his sources" on this convo occuring and relays his answer, provides a first hand rebuttal... ;)
Speaking of Alfred, still waiting on that list...
Look up. I responded just before you did. There is nothing on the list. As stated, however, lack of balance has been a big problem.
So, taking the hot topic of the moment, rock music, I think he has a fundamental point. Music is integral to Scripture and spiritual things, and music, like verbal statements, carries a message, not to our mind but to our emotions, and our spirit.
The balance is that just like not every use of alcohol is evil, so not every instance of a "beat" - of any ilk - in music is evil. There is a place - but its effect must be understood. And there are reasons that some folk swear off all music of that kind, just like some swear off of alcohol.
Or authority. Imbalance is the key. Scripture has clear statements about submission, subjection, obedience. Some suppose that to be somehow "done away with" in Christ. It is not. And rebellion carries consequences. BUT . . . there are times when stepping outside of commands is the right thing to do. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (last verse of Romans 14). Obeying someone without faith is far worse than disobeying them with faith.
Or birth control. Our society has missed the boat, even the church. WE gave society the right to call children "choices" when we - the church - embraced birth control, once universally considered immoral. They just take the concept much further than we do. Children are ALWAYS a blessing, even those ill conceived under circumstances God forbids. BUT . . . once you have walked that pathway (we have 11 wonderful, awesome children) and your wife is ready to die, completely discouraged, because of physical problems from childbirth, then your realize that, well, BC is never presented in Scripture as a sin . . . otherwise Daniel would have given his life to avoid the castration that made him a "eunuch", just as he was prepared to give his life to not eat the idol meat. You discover that your wife is far more valuable than many children, and you do what you must. And the Lord accepts each of those offerings.
Or even home schooling. The most scriptural educational program to be found, but tempered with "governors and tutors" as Paul describes, which could include a great many other possibilities, as long as they are under the control "of the father". (Gal. 4:2)
I could go on and on and on. What he teaches is truth . . . it needs to find its place balanced by other truths.
I do believe we may have cross posted... But not sure in your response where you addressed the fundamental auestion of ambiguity, perhaps looking up to my other post to see what questions I posed might be in order.
"The balance is that just like not every use of alcohol is evil, so not every instance of a "beat" - of any ilk - in music is evil. There is a place - but its effect must be understood. And there are reasons that some folk swear off all music of that kind, just like some swear off of alcohol."
You claim to agree with Gothard on essentially all points, yet this statement is extremely contrary to the teachings of the booklet that sparked this entire discussion.
Alfred,
Bill defined all music as worship. The problem is that all music is not worship or meant to be as such. Music is definitely used in worship but all music is not worship. There is nothing in the Bible that states this even with the largest book being a song book, Psalms.
Alfred,
Reading through your points. I'm having a difficult time disagreeing with you except some non-substantive nuances perhaps...
I'm also finding it difficult to see where you agree with BG... Perhaps you could explain why you feel compelled to defend him, and by extension, his behavior towards young women, when your positions are so vastly different and as a father, it would seem you would be repulsed by his behavior...
Open to any and all clarifications you may have.
Show me please where Gothard says to apply HIS principles with balance. Are you saying that if someone gets totally messed up by applying what BG taught, then it's bound to be their fault- they should have realized that his unchangeable principles for success were meant to be worked out with balance? It's always the fault of the victim, isn't it?
So one can reserve the right to discontinue childbearing if there is a health issue, because...ah...now I realize there was balance implied in BG's ironclad rule against birth control. Sorry, I don't see him offering this freedom to pick and choose according to your circumstances. My way or the highway is the teaching he inflicted on his naive followers. If you departed in one tiny way, you were in sin, not out of balance.
As humans, we do have the tendency to swing from one end of the pendulum to another, and no one is more vulnerable than youth desperately seeking to find their way. They are the portion of society most vulnerable to extremes, and it is not surprising this is the segment BG focused on as he taught his unchanging principles.
And what better way to prey on them than to separate them from their parents who might have spoken into their lives with counter arguments.
First, in a post further up, you quote about 'the younger submit to the elder, and all submit to each other....'. I do believe that the word submit simply means to adapt to each other, otherwise you've got a big mess with everyone telling everyone else what to do. That would fit with what Jesus said, "The gentiles lord it over each other, but with you that's not the case....." There is no place for chain of command in what Jesus himself said. "Call no man master, or father even". And, "You can't serve two masters." Paul and all those guys had some good things to say but if it doesn't line up with Jesus' teachings, we need to reexamine it and see what we're missing.
Then, the bit about what if the mother is really sick and already has lots of children. That was my case, and I very distinctly remember having a BG book in my hands (threw it away but it was part of that medical series) that had stories of women deathly ill but still having more babies and how God blessed them and how godly they were, blah, blah....... So I kept having babies. Yes, I survived. Yes I love those babies. But the marriage certainly didn't survive, the children ended up having way too much work to do.......it was horrid! But I'm wondering where this 'balance' suddenly comes from because I don't remember any balance AT ALL.
Oh, and there was that teaching about fasting. Fasting to cure morning sickness no less. Yes, I did that for 2 days. It messed up my blood sugars and electrolytes so that I was hospitalized for a week, couldn't get out of bed for months, panic/anxiety attacks like you have no idea......I was sick for years after that one.
I am amazed that no one has ever sued them for medical malpractice, for some of the crazy things that they taught. Encouraging pregnant women to fast to cure morning sickness?
There is one poster here, Steve, who shared that Bill Gothard encouraged him to fast longer and longer. He ended up being hospitalized and developed cancer as a result of the complications that originated from this long term fasting.
It would not surprise me at all if there have been many long term illnesses and deaths as a result of the medical garbage these guys put out.
I remember an ATI dad, fresh off of a conference, teaching the rest of our little church about fasting. At the time I had no idea that this was related to what is taught in ATI, but I was shocked at his encouraging others to partake in these long term fasts. The things he was sharing were very unsound medically, so much so that I spoke up about it.
Sunflower, I remember hearing BG and a MD give a lecture at Bloomington, IN (ATI yearly conferences were held there in the late 80's.) The MD talked about how the medical community knows about the safety of pregnant women fasting from the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. I believe in fasting, but this kind of "pick and choose" where you get your information is part of BG's style. Evil.
But to add evil, to evil, I am guessing that after taking BG's advise, he did not dip into his millions to help pay for any of the mess he created. Probably not. <> If you had only been more balanced everything would have been peachy. As it was, just a dirty penny to be cast aside. If you would only have tried harder. <> Just evil. No compassion. No kindness. Just evil if it did not work. It must have been your fault.
I started a response to Samuel that got lost in a hiccup . . . Tried to recreate. In response that my comments contradict Bill's teaching on rock music:
"Not really, Samuel. I like my analogy of alcohol. Is alcohol evil? Inasmuch as it is asserted that it is, I think that is wrong. The wisest man that ever lived said this:
Proverbs 31:4-7
" It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine;
nor for princes strong drink:
Lest they drink, and forget the law,
and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.
Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish,
and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.
Let him drink, and forget his poverty,
and remember his misery no more."
Alcohol has a beneficial effect in that it causes brain cells to temporarily starve, which slows the brain down . . . And lets a person relax or forget. Sometimes that is a very good thing. The people of Somalia almost universally consume a certain leaf that contains a mild stimulant that helps them through a tough day. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat. When a recent war cut off supplies it became a huge crisis. People use caffeine in a similar way - I know I do. If the coffee supply were suddenly disrupted, it would really have an effect.
When the immune system over reacts it makes our lives miserable, so we take immune suppressing drugs - like antihistamines, Benadryl - to make it through. A strong immune system is a very good thing, but some immune reactions are so strong that without suppression we suffer permanent damage, or die. I heard of a certain South American fly that bites you and injects eggs into you. The worms that hatch land inside your eyeball . . . Never leave, don't do anything, hibernate. People who live there there have thousands in their eyes and live happy lives, immune system relaxed. Yet if you or I get just one of these worms in our eyes we may lose the eye as our immune system goes about to kill it. "Good" in this case is very damaging.
In each case there is a problem coming from something God originally never designed us to deal with, a problem that should be solved. If you know Bill he is after "ideal". Kill the flies, limit exposure, reduce the stress of life, live healthier, reduce toxins in the environment with pure food, water etc. . . . Pure music, pure reading, movies. But the reality is that we DO live in a less that ideal world, and sometimes it is more damaging to create "ideal" than it is to cope with the lack of it. It takes wisdom to manage that.
The rock beat makes music to help people cope with life. It is not ideal, function very similar to alcohol . . . But in our fallen world, trying to live apart from it, as evil, can cause more problems than solved. Sometimes the wisest thing can be to pitch some very, very good things overboard to keep the entire ship from foundering in a storm. Knowing what to pitch and when takes the wisdom of Solomon. Fortunately the Lord has promised the same if we but ask Him in faith.
So . . . I agree that "the beat" is not ideal and can cause problem, like a drug. I disagree than it is inherently or universally evil, just as I believe about alcohol (and for the record I have chosen not to drink in our culture, despite haling from a German culture where conservative Christian young people serve beer and wine at gettogethers). What Bill does is try to move folks away from things that cause problems by emphasizing only the real negative aspects of it. Some deliberate imbalance to achieve the energy necessary to reject it and gain the benefits from that action. If no Christian drank, net effect overall would be better. If CCM didn't exist, I believe the overall spiritual life of the church would improve as well. But the cost to implement and enforce at times exceeds the benefits, which are limited.
All very thoughtful. But what is the principled basis for yours or Bill's ideals? Scripture? In context or out of context? One doctor's speculations? One theorist's analysis? On what authority is "melodious" music ideal and a beat driven music not ideal?
And if the ideals are presented as moral imperatives (and B.G. did present many as moral imperatives), what is the principled basis for you setting them aside: how do you measure whether it is more damaging to satisfy the ideal or "cope" with less than? You are making pragmatic arguments against "purity". Is pragmatism the true measure of application of Scripture? If so, is that dependent on the wisdom of the individual, making the individual the arbiter of "right" and "wrong"?
Fascnating points Alfred. I have read of some other people who believed the ends justified the means, Lenin, Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, to grab some highlights.
If you're saying that Bill delibetately justified the pain and misery that resulted from his influence because he, single-handedly, was "bringing the church back in balance" then I would offer that this is usurpting the clearly explicit role of the the Holy Spirit. While one's actions MAY be used of God, it is in His way and His will. To unabashedly claim that Bill felt a calling to assume the role of church concience is a very extreme view that I don't think passes the test of scripture. I'm rather shocked this would be your defense...
I can't help but think you are either
A. Trolling.
B. Trying to overlay your beliefs/interpretation of events in an attempt to justify BG, or minimize his many critics, or
C. You are writing from a script of talking points attempting to interject a revisionist view of BG's history.
2. You are probably about to hear from many of Bill's "lab rats" who experienced great pain b/c of BG's influence.
I don't know why you've avoided so many of my questions, I'm not sure what that omission from such a prolific writer as yourself means...
In short though, to summarize what I can piece together, you believe:
1. BG was unquestionably right in all his teachings. (If any man says he is without sin, he is a lier and the truth is not in him).
2. BG taught extreme positions publicly to bring the church back in balence, yet if you talked to him in private, he would say you had to be balanced ( Let your conversation be yay, yay, and nay, nay, for whatsoever else cometh of evil).
3. He had a responsibilty to purify the church, singlehandedly.
4. Bill's extreme positions were right because of the effect they had, namely bringing the church back to center, but had to be taken in the perspective of them being out of balance.
Why pray tell me, when people living this "out of balance" lifestyle benefited his pocket-book and ego, they were true believers in the vision, but when their carefuly scripted lives fell apart, or they were found in violation of a minute subset of BG's rules, they become "people who didnt know how to have balance" and ergo, BG, in one fell swoop, is absolved.
Paul taught balance and moderation and personal realonsibility. BG taught standards and extremism, both in word and deed, AS WELL as what the image of his ministry was carefully and subtlly crafted, and now at the end it's his followers' fault because they were not balanced enough to see his deliberate overstatements of extremism which he taught in his zeal for the church?
Please say it aint so Saul, say it aint so.
Dave, I am reminded of the time on the Gothard discussion list when it was declared that we were examining Gothard's teachings, not the views of those who mitigate them.
Don, I agree that there is no argument made for why the back beat is not ideal.
Alfred, what you have said in essence is a mitigation of Bill's circular reasoning why rock music is evil. Most if not all of his ten reasons beg the question. "Less than ideal" is a mitigation of what he teaches, which is that it is EVIL, but on what basis do you say the music is less than ideal? I can understand evil lyrics, for sure, but for the life of me if one says the form of music is evil or less than ideal, it is because to that person it IS evil or less than ideal, but not by a explicit Bible teaching, just by that person's private view alone. It could be a view formed by association of rock music to something really evil, which makes the person a weaker brother, or it could be a view based on misusing Scripture where one actually teaches others it is evil, which makes the person a Pharisee. I say Gothard's teachings are the way of the Pharisee, which is the way of a blind guide, declaring sin where God has not declared sin. The way he did this in his list was to twist Scripture into making it say what it did not say.
You must acknowledge that a majority of God- fearing folk rejected Rock as evil when it came out, Lynne. My mother warned me earnestly of the dangers of that style of music many years before she ever heard of Gothard. Why do you think that is? Do you think we can sense anything to be good or evil empirically, or are we required to try it and understand it and only after the experts have weighed in back away? Why, she rejected drugs and drunkenness and Ouija Boards for no better reasons. All big warnings. I see the wisdom of her perspectives after all these years. How could she have known?
Hi, Alfred. I'm sure a lot of God fearing people rejected rock music the same as they rejected women wearing slacks or putting on make-up, card playing, theatre attendance, and many things like this. Josh McDowell is an exception. I well remember him complimenting the band Petra before one of his evangelistic talks. To quote him exactly, he said, "Wasn't Petra great?" And people reject ouija boards, drugs, and drunkenness because both the Old Testament and the New Testament condemn divination. Paul the apostle drove out an evil spirit from a girl, and the spirit was even telling the truth about him! And drunkenness is likewise condemned, which would include the stronger stuff. There is a clear command to not be drunk with wine. But there is no such command against a particular form of music. Therefore, to say your grandmother rejected divination and drunkenness for no better reason than she rejected rock cannot be true, unless you can make a Scriptural argument against the form of music itself.
You must acknowledge that a majority of God-fearing folk rejected Rock as evil when it came out..."
There's also been quite a contingent of people who reject technological advances or anything new, different, or unfamiliar. It has nothing to do with inherent morality or the lack thereof. It's our natural resistance toward change as human beings.
" If CCM [contemporary Christian music] didn't exist, I believe the overall spiritual life of the church would improve as well."
I could not disagree more. And not just because the music of Rich Mullins, Michael Card, Twila Paris, Jars of Clay, The Waiting, Sara Groves, and many others who are typically classified as "contemporary Christian musicians" have greatly enriched my own spiritual life as well as that of the church in many parts of the world.
But because "contemporary Christian music" has existed for as long as the church itself has existed. Whether you want to talk about Miriam and the children of Israel, David, Asaph, and the sons of Korah making a joyful noise before the Lord, or the first century church worshiping with "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs," the sacred music of the church using plainchant, and eventually (despite controversy) including instruments such as the guitar, and even the piano, Bach's worship music, Handel's "Messiah," the hymns of Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley, the songs of the slaves in America who clung to Jesus despite the wickedness of those who called themselves Christians, or those of Fanny Crosby, or those of Bill and Gloria Gaither, to the songs sung today in the church around the world-- the love of God in the person of Jesus has moved believers of every era to worship Him in song, whether that song has melody, harmony, or a beat.
I love the way Rich Mullins once introduced a song he was about to play on the hammer dulcimer: "I'm going to play a song by one of my favorite Christian musicians; his name was Johann Sebastian Bach."
Interesting perspective, Alfred. It is certainly more sensitive than much that you post. I find it interesting that you equate forced castration of an unmarried captive to "birth control", as if the only thing significant about the matter is the actual production of children. Temporary abstinence for a wife's health is an option that appears outside the scope of your reflection, as if a man can't live without sex. You may consider this balanced, but it seems a bit utilitarian to me. But thank you for your honesty.
There have been centuries of contrary Catholic thinking and teaching on these matters that might prove more "balanced" but less utilitarian or man-centered.
Even though I am very thankful to have 8 children, I always though it oddly performance-based to be around ATI dads (and moms) who measured themselves (and each other) by their total child production. I felt like they missed the point of rejecting contraception which to me has been: man and wife relating to one another and the potential of our physical union in fear and awe, and with acute awareness of the Spirit's participation in our love. Too, it has helped us see fruitfulness as an innate characteristic of God's love (John 15) rather than merely an option. Abstinence seems a loving option in many circumstances. Might it be more truly loving than a condom in some cases? Is the purpose of marriage sexual fulfillment or a demonstration of sacrificial love?
The above are honest reflections on Alfred's comments, not intended to establish definitive rules, and definitely not intended to challenge anyone.
All Christians up to the 1930 did agree and teach that birth control was wrong. That began to change in the 1930s when the Anglican Church was the first Christian group to accept artificial birth control. The Catholic Churches teaching on birth control and the reasons against it are a far cry from what Bill gothard promoted. The Catholic Church see the marital act as a total giving of one self to the other spouse. In that total self giving is an openness to life which could be the by product of that union. The Catholic Church does not promote that married couples are suppose to have as many children as possible and that spouses are only suppose to have sex during the women's fertile time only (which is what Bill promotes based on OT laws) and does not even consider that marital relationship is suppose to be a binding selfless giving. The Catholic Church leaves it up to couples when they join together and if there is health, financial and other issues that would make it difficult to have children, then it is perfectly legitimate to abstain during the woman's fertile time. Bill does not at all consider these types of issues but promotes that couples are suppose to have endless children whether they are able to afford them, raise them and if the woman is healthy enough for them. While maybe on the surface Bill seems to be agreeing with the Catholic Church, he is a universe apart in the reasoning and practicality of it all.
Well said Rob. Like so many things, BG taught a caricature of the loving Truth and in so doing has alienated many from the Reality.
Everything in our lives should be spirit-led. I have a friend whose husband was in prison for molesting their son. When he came home, she felt that they should not have more children for a few years. She prayed and the Lord showed her which days to abstain. Every woman is different, so again, you cannot make a law of it. That is the beauty of the spirit-led life. And the difficulty, if you don't like intimacy.
On a side note for the comparison of booze addiction to music, this really is a simplistic arguement that quickly breaks down in the details.
We can have that discussion, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on why you are such a staunch supporter of Bill first.
There is no such DMS defined "addiction to music" It is a made up bogus psycho babble at its best. There is a world of difference between someone that becomes addicted to substances and someone that likes a certain kind of music. The first is a defined addiction with parameters. The other is fantacy in someone's head.
Great points Rob.
Complex issue that has been reduced to a "see, it's just like that" superficial discussion. Unfortunately, the simplistic fear-based position is easier to sell in one-way marketing pitches than a nuanced, fact-based discussion.
Whats frustrating is that when you attempt to examine the facts and logic you are met with psuedo-science and twisted scriptures. When attempting to point that out, the simple fact that you question this half-backed dogma is used against you.
"Ya just gotta have faith man."
If a reckless disregard for logic combined with an abuse of scripture is considered faith, than I gladly wear the mantle of having little of it...
We are on the same page. I have been away from Gothardism for a long time. Participating on this blog and reviewing the material, I am shocked at the anti-logic, intellect and reasoning that Gothard promotes and is shallowed by his followers. I think part of it has to do with anti-intellect string in evangelical Christianity and well as the age of Bill's target audience which is teenage to 20 something. What I am still trying to figure out is how pastors that have been trained in seminaries and had education bought into him and promoted his seminars to their flocks. Sadly, the rich and indepth Christian history of education and reasoning and even used of philosophy is thrown out by Bill's seminars.
Dave: Back up a step to compare alcohol to "the beat" - and other aspects of music that would make it feel physical, sensual. When they take a hymn and "jazz it up" or "make it contemporary", what are they doing? Adding those elements, like you add ingredients to a food. You add “the beat” to music for the same reason you add alcohol to food – maybe you like the taste, but mostly it just makes you feel better.
As I have stated often, What I heard at those seminars back in the 1970s changed my life . . . for good. It was not Bill but Jesus I was dealing with. Scriptures blazed with light as I understood things that had never made sense. There was a joy and freedom that is hard to describe. Groups would gather in the halls between meetings and just sing, impromptu. At the close of one of those seminars in the Portland Memorial Coliseum with around 10,000 others I recall a woman in the seats ahead of me turn to her neighbor and say, "I feel like when I was first saved." . . . and I knew exactly what she was talking about.
The fruit from those seminars remains. I am not alone. I have had 40 some years since then to examine and live and prove what was taught. Many others speak to me of life and marriage and family changes that remain to this day.
He is right. Yes, we struggle with balance at times . . . but who doesn't. Too much zeal is the characteristic of many fresh new disciples of Jesus Christ . . . time and experience matures us all.
You said: "Perhaps you could explain why you feel compelled to defend him, and by extension, his behavior towards young women, when your positions are so vastly different and as a father, it would seem you would be repulsed by his behavior..."
He is a spiritual father to me in a way that is unique. He has given his life - all of it - to invest in believers . . . me. I get unhappy when I see so many mischaracterizations of things I know to be so different. Someone referenced his "millions". All I know is that I paid $45 one time to attend that first 30-some hour seminar, parking included, plus a large seminar syllabus plus life time alumnus benefits. Meaning I have in all those years attended many times and never paid again. Whatever millions he is supposed to have, I have been to his house several times. The exact same house he grew up in, inherited from his parents. He works at his kitchen table. He keeps up his own lawn. The car he drives is a 1970s something or other. He never goes on a real vacation . . . he is up at 4AM and goes to bed late. Never married, attempting to forgo that joy of life to see the ministry enhanced. I see this with my own eyes . . . I have a son who works at HQ who has lived with Bill and watched him up close and personal for a decade. He is no fake.
The matter with the "girls" was inappropriate, it was just stupid. What happened happened for the most part in front of others, which gives some idea of how Bill viewed it. Charlotte's story fits the stereotype and expectations of others but does not fit any of the other stories . . . and emphatically does not fit what my wife and I . . . and our son, a decade on staff, living at HQ, observed. My wife is disgusted when she hears the stories of the unwanted touching – she was bothered by what she observed of his preoccupation with the pretty ones, favoritism, as was my son, getting to play in the political games resulting from that. But nothing that lead any of us to conclude our young ladies in close proximity to him were in danger. It was offensive in large part because it reveals such a lack of understanding of the world of women, and how damaging the appearance was to a ministry that we deeply appreciated and believed in. But these terms - pervert, groomer - they are just wrong.
We believe Bill really should have found and married his woman. That he didn’t fully comprehend the strength of his sex drive which, although he stayed away from sin, bent his perceptions to make hormone related attention and touch justified because of other overt motives. The biggest failure was ignoring the warnings of others. Bill has always done things his way. His strength of will, power in his spirit has kept him going through immense adversity. He is used to ignoring naysayers and negativity. That strength got him in trouble when he brushed off the concern expressed by others as fear, or misunderstanding, instead of the warning from the Lord that it was.
But we are convinced he never crossed any of the sin lines. If I couldn’t believe that because of evidence I know, I could not be defending him here. If that is true, then “Charlotte” is not telling the truth. The Lord knows – may He make it plain, however it really is.
Alfred,
by your own words, your son's direct observation and even what your wife thinks, Bill obviously has a problem.
No matter what his habits are, his work ethic, living in his parent's old home, driving an old car etc doesn't make Bill admirable or even correct. All these things that you like about him doesn't make him Biblically correct at all and just looking and reading the stories here, there is a whole lot more damage and hurt due to Bill than glowing stories like you are promoting about yourself. You again should start your own blog in support of Bill, you could even name it "recovering Bill". I don't think you and your points and arguments and questioning of others is working for you here. It goes around and around in circles. I'm honestly not sure why you keep at it. Despite of what you think and experience, Bill's teaching is heretical, it isn't supported by any other Christian group and denomination no matter how many Bible verses he quotes and you think are spot on. You don't seem to want to look at how it isn't Biblically correct. Bill has taken bits and pieces of a number of different things which are considered heretical and not Biblical. You are refusing to look at these things.
I get tired of hearing about his old car. Once cars are beyond 25 years, they are considered classics and then it becomes harder and harder to service them and find parts. Someone that spent a good amount of his time traveling isn't going to have the time to care for and manage a home so "living" at home with his late parents is more of a convenience than anything else. Working long hours, little sleep can also be a form of escape from being alone. Staying single so he can "devote" himself to his ministry is likewise and excuse and escape from a real marriage commitment. If he is so wise and most of his teaching is about having Biblical wisdom why is he acting so "stupid" in your own words. If these things impress you Alfred, then it doesn't take much because a normal thinking person looking at Bill will come to the same conclusions. Again Alfred, start your own blog in support of Bill. It's time to do so.
You have several times now helpfully summarized my life for me and also provided a prescription for my future. I just don't see things as you do. Maybe . . . Maybe you are missing something, Rob? No chance, no way, since 99% here agree with you?
A lot more people feel exactly as disgusted with the phony Jesus and his teachings as you are with Gothard and his teachings. Pointing to ruined lives. You know I am right. In fact, the Bible, if it is to believed, says that the majority will reject it . . . And Jesus . . . For "logical" reasons. In fact, Jesus suggested that the "majority perspective" was a great clue as to where not to go. That rejection, people hating you, and pain and trouble and things not making sense were indicative of being right. I am paraphrasing, but I think you will find I accurately expressed what is taught.
Just saying that almost universal rejection, people in trouble, popular logic are no reasons to back away in and of themselves. It really comes down to "is this consistent with what Jesus taught?" And, also, is the man himself evil. Which is what we are trying to establish. You are convinced, I am not.
Alfred,
I really don't know where you get your ideas from but I can honestly say I am not missing anything in my life and my walk with the Lord. I also do not secretly agree with you on Bill or the things he teaches. I have no idea how you would say that "I know you are right." Rejection of what Bill teaches is not based at all on what you are trying to claim that the end times people are going to reject God and the Bible. The majority of people on the site reject Gothardism because they DID follow him and it ruined their lives. That is not universal rejection based on what you are claiming. I consider Bill a heretical teacher how has mixed in a bunch of different ideas together and sold it to unsuspecting Christians with the help of pastors that should have known better.
Alfred,
Once again, we see the comparisons you make between Bill Gothard and Jesus.
You said:
"A lot more people feel exactly as disgusted with the phony Jesus and his teachings as you are with Gothard and his teachings"
"There are a huge number of ex- Christians on this website . . . And their reasons for rejecting Jesus mirror their reasons for rejecting Gothard."
Rejecting Bill Gothard is like rejecting Jesus.
You said:
"You know I am right. In fact, the Bible, if it is to believed, says that the majority will reject it . . . And Jesus . . . For "logical" reasons. In fact, Jesus suggested that the "majority perspective" was a great clue as to where not to go. "
Except, he was talking about Jesus being rejected, not Bill Gothard. The world's rejection Jesus has no bearing on people's repulsion with a false teacher and serial sexual predator. People's lack of acceptance of Gothard and his behavior, does not give us some sort of indication, analogous to Jesus, that Gothard is really right. Think of the absurdity of that. Most in the world believe Bin Laden was evil- this majority belief means he is somehow right? People are disgusted and reject Jerry Sandusky- so, he is being unjustly persecuted just like Jesus? Charlie Manson has followers that still believe he was a just man- the vast majority reject this and think these people are fools. Analogous to Jesus, I think not!
You have recently compared the plight of Jesus followers to the plight of those still in the program, still supporting Bill Gothard, pointing out how Jesus warned that there would be persecution for followers. Followers of Jesus, Alfred, not followers of Bill Gothard.
These recent analogies are concerning Alfred. You equate walking away from Gothard to walking away for Christianity and Jesus. Reading your posts from the past 3 years, it becomes apparent that you see this equation because Bill Gothard is much more than a teacher, much more than the president(formerly) of IBLP. You talk as though he is your personal Jesus and that to leave Gothard is to leave Jesus.
Kevin, "Think of the absurdity of that." So true. I am reminded of the Grace of God that pulled me out of such absurdity myself. I just could not see logic. I experienced almost the same as Alfred did with is description of the, "those seminars back in the 1970s changed my life ." Alfred's paragraph above seems like unbelievable history today, but for those of us who live it, Alfred's describes exactly how I felt. I would be embarrassed to admit it in such detail (as Alfred did) here on RG with all the creepy things that have come to light. It is hard to identify with those experiences, and then renounce BG's cult/teaching. Today I can speak against that cult, pray for BG and his followers, and at the same time, understand how it happened. Those experiences in the 70's were real.
Indeed, "Think of the absurdity of that." We can not compare BG to Jesus. I like your comment and perspective Kevin. Thank you.
Kevin,
This is spot on. Thank you for this.
What sex drive? He has affirmed that he has NEVER touched a woman with sexual intent. So how did his sex drive impact the inappropriate conduct? Your words betray that you believe Bill is lying about his sexual intent.
Don, don't forget Alfred's admission Nov 10, "An unpleasant Bill who can be petty and was extremely careless with familiar behavior toward young ladies under his care is substantially different from a sexual pervert."
It's all about the lines, Guy. Not the heart.
Don, spoken like a true committed hardcore legalist. How do you know so much about this stuff? :-) All I am saying, is ... I read about this stuff in a red notebook. (in my best innocent voice)
Guy, we might actually recover (so long as we don't cross any lines!). :-D
I'm (foolishly) dipping in to point out:
— — — — —
Alfred,
Your paragraph 1: FEELS ARE BAD! DON'T ADD THE FEELS TO THE MUSIC!
Your paragraph 2: FEELS ARE WONDERFUL! I HAD SUCH LOVELY FEELS! JESUS LOVES MY FEELS BECAUSE THEY APPEAL TO VERY CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE OF EUROPEAN DESCENT.
I'm paraphrasing.
— — — — —
Rob,
In my view, based only on Alfred's behaviour here and not any personal knowledge of the man himself, an Alfred blog would lack three things that he really wants.
1. An large already existing audience.
2. Hours of devoted attention to every word he wrote. (Negative attention is still attention. A person who craves attention will take any kind they can get.)
3. Ready written articles to poke at in hopes of finding a weakness.
— — — — —
End of dipping in.
Hi Jeff,
yes, I agree that Alfred wont' do it do to some of the reasons you have listed. I thought I would plant the idea in his head anyway. Maybe … Someday…. who knows? I think he could come up with some pretty interesting articles like: "Why navy seal training is good for your 7 year old" and the latest mortal sin, women wearing pants, lets tell the Pope" and Let's hold a fundraiser to buy Gary Smalley glasses because he can't see" and "practical advise on how to sit in Bill's lap".
These are just some ideas. I think Alfred should to it. He is a crack up here, I think he should have his own place to further the cut up status.
Oh yes, the 'modesty' of dresses and skirts......yup, we did that.....until I realized why my husband was lying on the floor during family devotions, while we read the wisdom booklets.......and it wasn't because the carpet was so comfortable......funny what legalism can do to a person.....
Rob War, Alfred is not the only crack up here. ""practical advise on how to sit in Bill's lap." :-))
I hate to see Alfred go. He represent what I once was. Many have invested a huge amount of time and prayer for him. I have seen him admit things the last few weeks that are miracles. Who knew??!!
Guy, I agree. I guess I was trying humor to brake up the tension and sometimes humor can communicate better than logic and arguments. Alfred is too much fun for me. His logic is unbelievable to me. I'll keep your points in mind!
Rob War, you know how you write something, it is clear, then you say, nope. I was not so clear. I should have posted twice. The two paragraphs had nothing in common.
The following should be in a separate post.
--------------------------
Alfred is not the only crack up here. ""practical advise on how to sit in Bill's lap." :-))
Alfred, "What I heard at those seminars back in the 1970s changed my life..." Mine also. Change my life for good at the beginning it seemed. Then it destroyed me. That does not change the facts of history. The way I see it, your paragraph about that time is spot on. I have very fond memories of that time. As I recall David Pigg was with the group who went to Indianapolis to experience the story you described. I hope he jumps in to tell his account.
Alfred, as far as I care, I put that experience in the closet. Only once in a while do I drag it out. I now see it as one of the hardest things to accept: God can use someone like BG for a brief time. or God's Spirt was already working in those people at that seminar and BG just happened to be in front. It is really not important to explain it all, that is where we sometimes get in trouble.
Alfred, I believe your history account on what happened on the 70's. Of course, I disagree with your conclusions.
that was very well put Guy. I think you are join great and what you have to say from your experiences are valuable.
Anyone that did not live in the 1970's can not understand anyone living for Jesus back then,[let's just add], that did.People got saved outside of the church,[institutional],fellowshipped outside of the institutional church,and had identification,significance,outside it.That the institutional church and Bill Gothard were well aware of this is an understatement.Jesus people,[ which I was], needed certain teachings,about authority,discipline,and structure.The fact that Gothard seemed to be saying the same things put an almost overwhelming power over us to cross over the Holy Spirit's context of what we needed,and totally embrace no holds barred,Bill Gothsard's.A very well known teacher in Indianapolis,endorsed Gothard.Who was I to cross these people with the clean cut image of God,church,Americanism?Or for that matter hayseeds,hippies,ignorant,naive new converts outside the institutional church,to dare defy leadership herding those under their tutelage to think past the barriers Gothard imposed?Pastors under his thumb,and the authority conferred upon this very well known and established Christian teacher took us in our naivity,to a place of bondage,and oppression scarring many.How dare anyone say that the 70's were better,when Bill Gothard was herding thousands upon thousands of baby boomers,into a chrystallized barren existance?No one that wasn't in it could realize the helplessness to break out.No one knew the distance imposed upon us in our private chamber of loneliness,by those busy with programs, seminars,conventions.It was only by the grace of God that I had deliverance.I was an automaton, hollowed out.I would say to anyone who needed to know ultimate ends,the walls of this ditch are too high,the ruts too deep,but Jesus can come into,go through,scale and cross,for one such as me.Thanks for your comment Guy.
David Pigg,
I am interested to hear more about this. Are you saying that at the time, in the 70's, Bill Gothard and the institutional church seemed to be on the same page?
Dave, I think the late Chuck Smith and the Calvary Chapel Movement did a better job of bringing in the 60s and 70s converts into church, by allowing there to be a very relaxed form of worship service, being excited about Jesus, lots of praise music, followed by what appears to be (but is not, usually) an off the cuff, conversational style sermon.
I remember sitting at the basic seminar and bill stating that the Jesus revolution failed because the new hibby converts would not give up their rock music. I also think that bill arose the same time as the she adding charismatic movement since both emphasized authority. However, the fort Lauderdale five split up and renounced what they taught as being in error. Bill has yet to do this.
I meant hippy instead of hibby, sorry!
Those darn hibbies and their rock music! Lol
"But we are convinced he never crossed any of the sin lines."... (per Alfred)
Respectfully, Alfred, do you have ANY comprehension on ANY level of how completely and utterly ridiculous you sound?
Alfred, when I read your claim that Bill never crossed any sin lines, I had the same reaction as Lemons.
unless it is a woman wearing paints, then she has crossed the sin line but Bill having girls sit in his lab, playing with their hair, taking off his shoes for a game of footsie with them … no sin per Alfred. That's why he needs his own blog to expound on these and other goofy statements he has made.
as an artist, I wear "paints" all the time.
Alfred - in addition to the analogy of alcohol to a rock beat (just one of many genres of music), do you not see how you've been sucked into a black hole of ignorance? (BTW - if you want a food analogy to music, it'd be more like cuisines, some spicier than others, all of us having our array of preferences.) A 3/4 beat (like "Amazing Grace") is unbalanced? And music (like "Chopsticks") is a form of worship? You believe your teacher to the point of absurdity.
You said, "... he didn’t fully comprehend the strength of his sex drive, ..." and that your friend "justified" "hormone related attention and touch ...," but have been famous here for your steadfast opinion that (*because he said as much to you*) Bill Gothard never touched a girl(/woman/female?) with sexual intent.
YOU used the phrase "hormone related attention and touch," Alfred. What exactly IS that? And how does it differ from touching with sexual intent? (As if *intent* matters legally, which it doesn't - it's just a way he can get over on you, poor duped Alfred!!)
And you say "Bill has always done things his way." Isn't this a hallmark of what the man himself teaches we shouldn't do? It was his "biggest failure" to "ignor[e] the warnings of others," and he got himself "in trouble when he brushed off the concern expressed by others ..." You refer to these concerns as "warning[s] from the Lord ..." Yet he didn't cross "sin lines." Because *he's said as much to you* and you believe him. What was he being warned about if everything was above board??
Besides the whole other level of considering sin in terms of how close you can get to it without crossing the "line," I again feel so badly for you, Albert. Look at what you yourself have said ... regardless of people you choose not to believe.
Some other things YOU have said just since yesterday: What happened (with "the girls") was mostly in front of others (except for the parts which weren't, which you choose to consider non-existent, since there are no outside witnesses ... because they DID happen away from others ... geeze.) Charlotte's story doesn't fit what you and your wife and one son have observed (because he didn't do it in front of any of you three, duh.) Your wife is disgusted by what she's heard and bothered by behavior she's observed herself, and you chalk it up to Bill's misunderstanding of women - this man who has brilliant insights to life with applications to both genders separately and in relation to each other. You also say that it's "evidence [you] know" that proves to you that he's blameless. You gullible twit. What evidence do you possibly have that precludes illegal and/or immoral behavior that you never saw and refuse to believe on the testimony of others? What evidence do you have that he's not manipulating and duping you? What evidence do you have of the intent of his heart? You only have what he's skillfully chosen to give you. You don't KNOW his heart ... you've only concluded what he has led you to believe about his heart. And why do you even choose to "[defend] him here" when he has taught about not taking up offenses? Is that not yet another contradiction to Gothardism?
You go on later to say that the "'majority perspective' [is] a great clue as to where not to go," and that "rejection, people hating you, and pain and trouble and things not making sense [are] INDICATIVE of being right." (emphasis mine)
While there is probably great agreement that the "majority perspective" can never determine or define truth, you fell off the deep end with the next conclusion. A huckster that wants to convince you that he's right has taken a concept from the Bible (narrow vs wide paths and all) and has completely conflubbergated it to make you think that BECAUSE he's on a very narrow path, BECAUSE people don't understand, BECAUSE lots of people refute him, BECAUSE of the "naysayers and negativity," that is INDICATIVE that he's right, and he proceeds to twist Scripture in your face.
Really, Alfred - it's what YOU said. YOU have allowed this man to make an --- of you.
Kevin gave several valid examples of how absurd this thinking is, one of which is Charles Manson, who's been in the news lately for being engaged. He's pretty convinced that HE's right, too, and apparently has great strength to ignore naysayers and negativity. What do you wish you could tell his fiancée? Does it disgust you that he has her under his spell?
You were correct, Alfred, when you said, "The Lord knows – ..."
As far as "... may He make it plain, however it really is." - I would suggest to you that maybe He's trying to do exactly that.
Elizabeth D, I'm glad you post here.
*Alfred (sorry for that slip of the keyboard)
And I love you, too, Guy!
Alfred, you said,
It was not Bill but Jesus I was dealing with. Scriptures blazed with light as I understood things that had never made sense. There was a joy and freedom that is hard to describe. Groups would gather in the halls between meetings and just sing, impromptu. At the close of one of those seminars in the Portland Memorial Coliseum with around 10,000 others I recall a woman in the seats ahead of me turn to her neighbor and say, "I feel like when I was first saved." . . . and I knew exactly what she was talking about.
By your own description, this atmosphere sounds exactly like the kind of emotionally charged mountaintop experience that IBLP often warned us about when it came to Christian rock concerts that would often produce new converts who would slip back into their old ways when the emotion in the music wore off.
Whatever millions he is supposed to have, I have been to his house several times. The exact same house he grew up in, inherited from his parents. He works at his kitchen table. He keeps up his own lawn. The car he drives is a 1970s something or other. He never goes on a real vacation . . . he is up at 4AM and goes to bed late. Never married, attempting to forgo that joy of life to see the ministry enhanced.
False modesty is the worst expression of pride.
I'm not even going to touch the matter with Bill's girls here, but I will say this much: your continually expressed desire to see the Lord "make it plain" and to "hear God speak" may already be happening before your eyes, whether or not you want to lay down your own pride and admit it.
"He never crossed any of the sin lines." This statement is as legalistic as you can get.
Just FYI, unwanted "hormone related attention and touch," particularly at work, is the definition of sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment definitely qualifies as sin, especially since it shows a selfish disregard for the victim.
Ladies and Gents,
I'm bowing out. It has been engaging and I hope for the best, but am saddened at the same time by so many people clinging to a way of life that bas been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
I really like a quote from Ben Hogan's foundational book on golf "7 Fundamentals of Golf":
Roughly paraphrased- "-A good golf grip is one that you can grasp the overall concepts of easily enough, but don't confuse the understanding of the concepts with having achieved mastery of the grip...Mastery comes only through understanding and putting into regular practice the finer points of a good grip. And from a good grip comes good golf."
This differentiation between grasping the concepts and knowledge of finer points is very apt and instructive.
sorry to see you go Dave, I wouldn't give up so easily and your reasoning and points are very valuable
Ditto this, Rob War. Dave, I've appreciated your input also.
Dave, I hate to see you go. I understand. One of my issues, is pacing myself to regulate my blood pressure :-) Maybe just take a break for a week or so? I will miss your comments and insights. Bless you.
Food for thought. An interesting perspective from a woman who could have been any one of countless ATI girls. I'd br interested in the thoughts from the women amoung us...
http://thoughtcatalog.com/samantha-pugsley/2014/08/i-waited-until-my-wedding-night-to-lose-my-virginity-and-i-wish-i-hadnt/
I read the article. Monogamy is the teaching of the Bible, and sexual relations outside of marriage is to sin against one's own body, according to the Bible. That said, to leave her with the impression that sex is evil is very damaging. The emphasis on performance to the apparent exclusion of a love relationship to God, and the outcome she writes is not surprising. Putting this kind of yoke around the neck of a ten year old is cruel. It reminds me when Corrie Ten Boom was about that age and asked her father what sexual sin was, and he kindly and creatively showed her she was too young for such a conversation. It sounds as though what she was taught has driven her away from true faith. In truth, our bodies are not our own, but that is her conclusion. Nobody wants to believe in a God who makes you feel dirty about yourself. It was heartbreaking to read the outcome of what she went through, but it is not surprising.
I am a woman among us and have always followed God's moral law so yes, my husband and I waited till marriage. I can honestly say that this is God's design and God's plan is His idea and what is best for marriage. With that being said from my personal experience, I think making 10 year old girls walk up in front of everyone in Church to promise to wait till marriage is abusive and sick. I think that was the start of the obsession with the author. I also think the constant obsessing and promoting of her virginity was fed by this traumatic Church experience. Even though she and her husband made this commitment before hand, flaunting it was unhealthy and did not add to a healthy marital adjustment. Her problems didn't stem from following God's moral law, it stemmed from an unhealthy and sick obsession with sex before hand in that virginity became a club starting with the experience at age 10.
rob war,
Just a question about the pseudonym you've chosen for this site. It seems to have a male connotation. Recently you've made comments,including the one above, that clearly indicate you are female.
For me, the male name seems misleading as I attempt to understand the meaning of your comments. Just trying to understand. Thanks.
I don't need to explain my name but it may be a part of my actual name and I will leave it at that. I have always indicated and I am a female. Assuming that the name Rob is male is your assumption not mine. I do not make assumptions of others names or parts of names used on this site or any other blog.
I agree with rob war that no explanation is required.
I would like to state for the record that I am not, in fact, a lemon.
Carry on.
^^^ This ^^^ :-)
Please do NOT share my name with any Minions from "Despicable Me":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJ_FDcCwTU
Bahahahahahaha, Lemons - thanks for clearing that up. Terry, Lynn, Chris, Ashley, Shannon, Robin, Taylor, Pat, and I all really appreciate it!
Just so everyone knows, my initials DO stand for something, unlike B.J. from M*A*S*H. :-)
I'm actually a young toad from Uzbekistan.
rob war,
It did occur to me that it might be part of your actual name, especially when you made a previous comment about your husband. I appreciate your reply.
I really enjoyed Samantha Pugsley's article. The point that caught my attention the most was how her church encouraged her to exercise a sin of the spirit "pride" to combat the sin of the flesh "sex outside of marriage". Both are sins. Both are offensive to our Heavenly Father. This type of teaching accomplishes nothing. It is still playing with sin.
I remember having this discussion with my son when he was in High School. Concerned over what was happening at different meetings he asked me to chaperon a church youth trip to witness how the youth were being motivated toward godly living. It was exactly like the article. Everything was about commitment. Very little was about true heart felt conviction as the person was moved by the Holy Spirit. After the commitment was made there was pressure to make the big announcement before the group. Pressure to conform replaced quiet acts of loving obedience freely given. Guilt and fear replaced freedom and love.
There is a third option. Sex/no sex isn't the only choices. How about replacing the obsession of sex with enjoying one's Savior and life?
After my chaperon experience I told my son, "One foolish thought is a sin. Jesus died because He knew it is impossible for us to go and sin no more on this side of Glory. As your love for Him increases temptations toward any type of sin decreases. Let's pray that the Lord will increase our ability to love."
Today, even without the big sex commitment, my son still lives a very moral life. He said as his Savior revealed more of His nature to love he found self worth and respect for others. Relationships are about connecting hearts.
I found her article very insightful as well. I did not agree with her personal conclusion, I thought she missed the point, in that having premarital sex would not have been the answer she was looking for, it would simply have been the other extreme of what she had endured. However I greatly sympathize with her, as far as feeling the shame for having been created female, sex is so evil, that there was no proper joy and anticipation with the culmination of the relationship, no wonder she had such a hard time.. I believe that is the point that people were trying to bring out when they posted the article.
Jesus saw the widow give her mite at the Temple, and praised her for giving out of her need in contrast with those blowing trumpets while they gave out of their surplus.
Suppose rather than the donation box there had been a "chastity commitment" box. Suppose the one blowing a trumpet was one "saving it for marriage". Suppose, rather than the widow, the other was a deflowered girl, repeatedly abandoned by uncommitted lovers, who purposed to give her personhood back to God in broken humility. Now, whose "commitment" do you think Jesus would have praised?
Exactly! One is committed to their example of purity. The other one understands the love to be found at the foot of the Cross.
"He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you"—John 16:14-15.
I believe too many churches are pressuring for commitments without waiting for the Holy Spirit to reveal the love and forgiveness available in Christ Jesus. In some churches and institutions there is a constant push for restoration before reformation.
So . . . This woman's experience teaches us that the Bible - read God - is wrong, Dave? The notion of waiting until the wedding night comes right out of the Bible. Presumably God will ensure that those that don't will wish they had, because these are His commands. I note the author is openly - and presumably, from the venue aggressively - "bisexual". Also Bible forbidden, carrying major God-consequences. Or so I thought. You disagree?
I am now completely confused as to who you are, where you are coming from. Take the "Jesus Facter" out of the equation and every aspect of everything we have been discussing is absurd and laughable. Forget Bill Gothard. There are a huge number of ex- Christians on this website . . . And their reasons for rejecting Jesus mirror their reasons for rejecting Gothard. One is as idiotic as the other. Help me understand.
"Presumably God will ensure that those that don't will wish they had, because these are His commands." Christ did not come into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved.
I think your presumption is not consistent with the way Jesus treated the woman at the well, Alfred. He did not ensure that she wished she hadn't. Instead, He sought to ensure that she learned the invaluable lesson that her joy would not be found in sexual relationships of any kind, but in Him. He saved her, just as He needs to save all those who wait until their wedding night. god is no respecter of persons, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The man who lusts in his heart is just as "sinful" as the one who "crosses the line" that you keep referencing in other comments.
I agree with LynnCD. This woman was deprived of the knowledge of the glory of God and therefore learned the wrong lessons from her experiences. It. Is. Not. About. Us.
Don, Many of us men might benefit by making a post-it-note to stick on our computer screens that read, "consistent with the way Jesus treated the woman at the well." Thank you Don.
No time now. Will post later.
Wait, the non-Christians on this site aren't a huge number. They are certainly present, but they are a minority on this particular website, (and all very welcome, btw). It's unfair for you to assume their reasons for walking away from the faith are the exact same reasons for walking away from Gothard.
The teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Gothard are NOT the same, therefore their reasons for rejecting Jesus are not the same. However, if they left the faith because they equivocated Gothard and Jesus as you seem to do, it's FAR more telling about Gothard and his teachings, and it's not pretty. Plenty of people have been run off by the church, for centuries.
I'm personally sick to death of people assuming that all and sundry walked away from Gothard because we want an excuse to sin, or some other such rot. I KNOW that's not why I left, God is the one who dragged me out, and I'm beyond grateful for it.
I think most of the regular posters are Christian. I think those that have walked away due to their experiences with Bill and his teaching might be more intimated to post comments. They shouldn't feel that way because most of the regulars would welcome them. I love the rest of your comments.
I didn't mean to come across as any negative thing towards any particular group of people and their various beliefs here, my intent was more to respond to what I saw as a wrong and ridiculous accusation by Alfred, I apologize if I cam across as offensive .
Oh no, I don't think at all you are offensive and you gave a great response to Alfred. I think it is true that most of the posters here are Christian especially evangelical and I think if someone started to add comments that maybe is no longer a practicing Christian, that might be intimating to them. I would like to see more input from those that left because they are probably the biggest ex-Gothard group I would guess. I hope that people that have left faith would read these articles and feel welcomed back and begin the process of healing.
Hey Alfred, I posted this elsewhere, but thought it might be useful to address to you. I don't think that article was posted to poo poo on God's standard for sexual purity, or to say that pre-marital sex was ok, I think the author of the article really missed the point, and didn't realize that pre-marital sex would have just been the other side of the same coin, and would not have answered her problem.
I think the reason it was posted was to show in real time how the church has damaged the beautiful, glorious thing that is righteous sex and sexuality, and the effect it has on the women involved.
I don't think the point of posting the article was the agree with her final conclusion about pre-marital sex.
Alfred,
Posting an article for discussion is not the same as agreeing with every sentence of the posted article. You overreacted in your response.
It does not surprise me that some people who have encountered and rejected Gothard might also turn from Jesus. Why? Gothard and his followers claim to represent Jesus. After getting hurt by Gothardite teachings and behaviors, a person might think, "They claim to represent Jesus. If this is Jesus, I must walk away."
I am in the process of learning how to separate Christians from Christ. I must confess, I felt very sad tonight when I read some of your comments. I was most disturbed by your use of the phrase "sin lines," which clearly implies that the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law. I had to remind myself that I cannot confuse Christians with Christ..
The main purpose of this site is not for you to argue with others about who is right and who is wrong and who knows Gothard personally. It is a site intended for spiritual healing. It is meant for people who have been spiritually abused.
I am thankful you were not abused. I am thankful you feel positively about your Christian life. However, as a Christian, where is your care and compassion for people who are hurting? Perhaps you should listen to them, defend them against further harm, minister to them, and try to understand them.
I want you to know that I have been abused in my life. Tonight, I came to this site specifically for spiritual encouragement. Your comments were not helpful. On the contrary, after reading your many distracting, argumentative posts, I feel discouraged.
It occurs to me that you might be afraid that if Gothard turns out to be a sinner or wrong in some of his teachings, it might somehow invalidate your life's work or your relationship with God. I assure you, it will not. Jesus will love you exactly the same. If they indeed happened, Gothard's sins are not a reflection on you. Gothard is his own person, and he is not the same as Jesus. This would not be the first time a human leader was fallible. Fortunately, you have Jesus, who was there before Bill Gothard and will be there after. If Bill falls, Christianity will be OK. It will not invalidate your beliefs.
I am certain that everything you have done in your life, especially with your family, has been with good intentions and God sees that. I see that. I don't want you to feel threatened by this site because we are all on the same team. You would be a brother loved and sufficient in Christ, regardless of whether Bill was innocent, fraudulent or a regular guy who never became famous.
"which clearly implies that the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law"
Lindsey, the above made me think of the word gentleness. I love the word gentleness. I will never forget the first time I looked it up in Vine's Expository Dictionary and found this.
Gentle, Gentleness, Gently
[ A-1,Adjective,G1933, epieikes ]
from epi, unto," and eikos, "likely," denotes "seemly, fitting;" hence, "equitable, fair, moderate, forbearing, not insisting on the letter of the law;" it expresses that considerateness that looks "humanely and reasonably at the facts of a case;" it is rendered "gentle" in 1 Timothy 3:3, RV (AV, "patient"), in contrast to contentiousness; in Titus 3:2, "gentle," in association with meekness; in James 3:17, as a quality of the wisdom from above; in 1 Peter 2:18, in association with the good; for the RV rendering "forbearance" in Philippians 4:5, RV, See FORBEARANCE. Cp. B. See PATIENT. In the Sept., Esther 8:13; Psalms 86:5.
I love that our Savior is gentle. I love gentleness is part of the Fruit of the Spirit. I love that gentleness does not insist on the letter of the law. I love that you are being able to separate Christ Jesus from those who have yet to be transformed. May The Lord continue to bring you healing.
Nancy,
Thank you for your thoughtful and kind response.
Lindsey,
This was a very good post.
"It occurs to me that you might be afraid that if Gothard turns out to be a sinner or wrong in some of his teachings, it might somehow invalidate your life's work or your relationship with God. I assure you, it will not. Jesus will love you exactly the same."
I think you have nailed it very well. So true, and I hope that Alfred reads this and listens.
Alfred,
I've heard, many times over, the refrain of how many people felt in the early days of BG. Over the course of about a decade, I sought out many past and present ATI fathers to help me understand this, and to a man they could not understand my (pre-RG) rejection of BG. I heard defenses of "I was so helped" and "He gave us something the church wasn't" and "You're just young and one day you'll realize what you were being protected from".
And then one day, I came to Jesus. Not the Jesus of BG with a program or twelve steps to achieve x,y,or z. I met Jesus who told me that the best I could do apart from Him was filthy rags. I met a Jesus who told me that I could love my wife and kids, not through a perfect program that would ensure their success, but because HE had loved me FIRST, and enough to die a criminal's death. I didn't love my wife because I got anything out of it, I loved her because she was a beautiful gift from a loving HEAVENLY Father, and likewise, I was a gift to my wife from that same Heavenly father.
In your language in defense of BG, I see many themes of loyalty that I ascribe to Christ. That is where I am coming from. I am concerned for you that your loyalty to a man is sapping away affection that our Jealous God says should be reserved for Him.
That bisexual woman you dismissed is no more or less a sinner than you or I. Who or what gives you the right to pass judgement (which is what your language implied)? Did God care any less for her at her birth than He did at yours? Does God consider her brokeness some how fake? Regardless of her conclusion, the people in her life who should have loved her, instead they loved using her as simply an object of their own beliefs. They spiritually raped her, and you don't seem to have the compassion and empathy to acknowledge it.
Is your brokeness and sadness over the fall of BG anymore painful for our Heavenly Father to watch than her brokeness of not getting what she was promised from God by those in her life who represented Him to her?
Did God care any more or any less for BG's birth than he did for your's or her's? Why do you put BG on a pedastal to be defended at all costs? The same God who cares for us all equally, tells us through the book of Job, that he is so in tune with HIS creation that He hears the young of the scavenger bird when they cry for food?
The God you serve says He cares even for the buzzards' babies. Should we not then build a life on compassion like that, or is your compassion only reserved for eagles like Bill Gothard?
.
Thanks, Dave.
You're very welcome.
Dave, that's it. No more nice guy (nice guy, get it :-) I'm going to have to be a little more forceful. After the above awesome comment, it would be a dirty rotten shame for you to leave. I do not have the horse power to take up the slack. Dude, just a week off!
Well yeah, that is a threat. Only a week off...or else. Or else, I will call for a vote for how others on RG feel.
Firm and clear need not be mean, Guy. Jesus looked on the rich young ruler with compassion, and gently told the man what he was grieved to hear but needed to hear. It is not nice to be unclear. It is not mean to be clear and truthful. When we withhold the truth to "be nice" we may be killing someone.
"Stop that, I'm afraid it will kill you." is tough love but it is love.
My bad. I forgot to insert {{sarcasm on}} at the beginning and then {{sarcasm off}} at the end.
One of my favorite passages in scripture:
Job 38 - "Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Now, gird up your loins like a man and I will ask you and you instruct me."
Then comes 38 questions/statements which illustrate how puny man actually is and how the Creator's knowledge and ability is more than man's.
The verse in question-
Job 38:41 - "Who prepares for the raven its nourishment
When its young cry to God
And wander about without food?
Man, I'm blown away. God listens to the cries of baby birds who are hungry and finds joy in preparing food for them! This isn't a twelve step program. This isn't an exposition on some dogma of the finer points of the higher calling of the "true" saints. This is love at the point of need!!! That is the nature of the love God has for the minute parts of His creation.
I'm floored when I think that this love is also extended towards me. Can I accept this love and NOT be willing for it to be extended to any other part of God's creation?
Alfred - I have followed your posts on RG and get the sense that you are at or near a huge point of need in your life. I sincerely hope my words were temperate and accurate enough to provide assistance to you. I consider you a brother. Misguided, but a brother. :) I actually think we perhaps agree on a number of specific points, but I felt led today to share what I did with you today. I hope that it was a help and not a hinderence.
Yours,
"dave"
Alfred, these lyrics are the end of a song by John Mellencamp, "The Isolation Of Mister" You won't like the hard core rock and roll song or artist. He wrote this for old men who have regrets. These lyrics struck me as I heard this non-approved BG song. I also thought of you and wanted to share. I'm with Dave, I consider you a brother.
That’s the way I always played it
Now maybe I played it all wrong
Been so indifferent about so many things
About my time and my rage
Thought I was livin’ a life of freedom
But I was living in a cage
And that cage bred with my lower self
So many knots I did not untie
They came undone by my faults
I said, go away, go away, go away
I’m quittin’ on you today
thanks for posting this Guy
Thank you, Dave and Guy. I really appreciate it.
I doubt you realized the irony of your verse, Dave. Why ravens and not doves? Ravens eat . . . dead animals. God ended one animal's life against its will for the baby raven to eat. From this we learn that God weaves tragedy together with blessing to make the sinful universe continue. It serves as a wake up call - God is not Santa Claus. Sin has dire consequences.
God tells us to love our enemies as He does, sending rain and food to the ungodly. Of course there are times He doesn't, because they have exhausted His patience, and He lets them die of hunger and thirst. The woman taken in adultery was free not because He "just" forgave her . . . The real point is that He worked hard to create a situation where the law could be satisfied . . . And He could be merciful (it took 2-3 witnesses to put anyone to death - and by law no stone could be hurled until they threw the first ones). Adultery is at or near the head of many lists of specific sins barring people from heaven - it remains a personally most dangerous sin. The Bible shows a God of intense love, pursuing each of us to save us . . . But not endless, unbounded patience for those that keep refusing. Time runs out, the door is permanently shut, there are people no worse than the "woman taken in adultery" in hell today.
What I have stated is the truth . . . I hope I can say "and you know it". The reality of endless hell and a "God of love" throwing "nice" people in it suddenly wakes us up to the fact that this all is not our little sandbox of reality that we get to create and live in. God is judge. Sin really matters. The bisexual lady and the "woman taken in adultery" both made serious, mortal errors, which if not rectified in time will result in eternal tragedy. Whatever "grace" is, it will not spring all people out of eternal flames. This being the case have real work ahead to make sure we get this right. Figure out what grieves The Lord and run from it as fast and hard as we can. Grace and sex sin appear mutually exclusive according to this definition in Scripture, meaning that while no amount of "course correction" will get a person into heaven, anyone unwilling to accept radical "course correction" cannot receive the grace that will:
Titus 2:11-12
" For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;"
Alfred,
you are a true Bill disciple. Only you would take the verse Dave used to show how God hears even the cry of baby birds and twist it into something else because the bird in the verse is a raven. In your view you take a simple analogy about how God cares and make it into some kind to judgement of God because ravens feed on dead animal therefore an animal died implying a judgement of God. Then you further this thought with God is love but He is losing patients so watch out. I think you should read the classic book "Your God is too Small" by JB Phillips because Alfred your view of God is too small and it borders on the other extreme of the Santa Claus God to the judgmental God is mad kind.
Alfred,
I didn't think you could possibly get any more twisted in your mangling of Scripture, but you managed to outdo yourself yet again. You took a verse about a completely unrelated subject that was making a completely different point and basically made it say what you want it to say about something else. Can't you see just how wrong this is? We keep inviting you to stop playing these games with the Bible, but you continue to refuse.
You said, "This being the case, [we] have real work ahead to make sure we get this right." I think this is pretty much the crux of the matter right here. Your view of God - or at the very least, that which you share with us here - isn't really that of a Father, or a Friend, or a Lover of Your Soul. It's solely that of God as Judge. You've been so conditioned by Gothardism that God is nothing more than an authoritarian to you. It's why you focus so much on the behaviors - the woman created adultery! the author is bisexual! - than the state of one's heart. If you want to have a conversation about "truth out of balance," this is probably the best opportunity. Did Jesus convince people to walk away from their sin by saying "God will judge one day?" I don't know about you, but seeing how Jesus was willing to humble Himself to the point of death on a cross and extend amazing grace to a wretch like me is much more of a reason to walk with Him and away from sin than relying only on the Law that is impossible to keep. Can't you see just how law-based Christianity with a checklist to keep makes it no different from any other world religion?
JB, love your comment. I could tell you showed restraint. You said, "I didn't think you could possibly get any more twisted in your mangling of Scripture, but you managed to outdo yourself yet again."
I have mentioned this before, but there is an army expression for someone who constantly messes things up. "He would mess up a soup sandwich." One way to look at this as a foundation: if your main focus in life is anything other than the finished work of Christ, (and all that entails) no matter how hard you try, you will probably mess it up.
And that is the kind of twisting of Scripture that 1) almost destroyed my faith, 2) keeps me far from BG.
"This being the case have real work ahead to make sure we get this right."
Wow, just wow! Keep working hard, trying to build that stairway to Heaven.
Alfred, Jesus is not some lawyer using evidentiary loopholes. The law was satisfied on the cross when Jesus died for the adulteress's sins and for yours and mine. He doesn't need loopholes. He crashed the gates of our destiny, Hell, with a fist full of pardons! PRAISE GOD!!
Sin's dire consequences were poured out on Jesus on the cross, whereupon He cried out "It is finished!" They pass over me in their entirety if I stand under the Blood. He who did not withhold His own Son, shall He not also FREELY GIVE us all things?
God is infinitely patient.
God is not willing that any should perish.
No sin bars you from heaven except the sin of rejecting His substitutionary atonement and the mercy and innocence He purchased for us. "He became sin who knew no sin that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ"
There are people no worse than you in Hell today.
These women's errors HAVE been rectified in time: at the cross! Have yours? At the cross or by your own works?
Yes, we should walk in righteousness, but we should not claim to be adding to the finished work of Christ.
Alfred, I'm glad you caught yourself and did not say: "and you know it". You have said a number of times things like that or like, "of course you must agree", yada, yada. As extensive as your interactions here and elsewhere have been, it concerns me that you either do not yet appreciate just how far apart the viewpoints of professing Christians can be OR you really think such comments can rhetorically bind your opponents to your views or premises. Either way it is both erroneous and inefficient.
From now on, be on notice, you may not presume that I agree with anything you say. Just say it, explain it and be prepared to defend it, but do NOT assume any agreement by anyone else. Don't put words in others' mouths. Convince me, don't command me. Let us reason together. Let us honestly expose our presuppositions and be willing to allow them to be challenged by others who may not share them. And let us search the Scriptures daily to see whether such things are true.
Now that you have created yet another diversion about the bloody justice of God feeding the ravens, what is the judgment-based explanation for God's clothing of the lilies? Is He showing broccoli just how vile it really is? Or is He rewarding lilies for having a name that is easy to spell?
Alfred, I want to share with you the full story of how God deals with immoral women:
Isa 54:
4 “Fear not, for you will not be ashamed;
be not confounded, for you will not be disgraced;
for you will forget the shame of your youth,
and the reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more.
5 For your Maker is your husband,
the LORD of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called.
6 For the LORD has called you
like a wife deserted and grieved in spirit,
like a wife of youth when she is cast off,
says your God.
7 For a brief moment I deserted you,
but with great compassion I will gather you.
8 In overflowing anger for a moment
I hid my face from you,
but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you,”
says the LORD, your Redeemer.
Jer. 3:
12…“‘Return, faithless Israel,
declares the LORD.
I will not look on you in anger,
for I am merciful,
declares the LORD;
I will not be angry forever.
13 Only acknowledge your guilt,
that you rebelled against the LORD your God
and scattered your favors among foreigners under every green tree,
and that you have not obeyed my voice,
declares the LORD.
Ezekiel 16 (PLEASE read this entire chapter to understand the meaning of “covenant love”):
59 “For thus says the Lord GOD: I will deal with you as you have done, you who have despised the oath in breaking the covenant, 60 yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish for you an everlasting covenant. 61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you take your sisters, both your elder and your younger, and I give them to you as daughters, but not on account of the covenant with you. 62 I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall know that I am the LORD, 63 that you may remember and be confounded, and never open your mouth again because of your shame, when I atone for you for all that you have done, declares the Lord GOD.”
Hosea 2:
14 “Therefore, behold, I will allure her,
and bring her into the wilderness,
and speak tenderly to her.
15 And there I will give her her vineyards
and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.
And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth,
as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.
16 “And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’…
19 And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. 20 I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD.
21 “And in that day I will answer, declares the LORD,
I will answer the heavens,
and they shall answer the earth,
22 and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil,
and they shall answer Jezreel,
23 and I will sow her for myself in the land.
And I will have mercy on No Mercy,
and I will say to Not My People, ‘You are my people’;
and he shall say, ‘You are my God.’”
Eph. 5:
as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish....
31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
May we all be washed and sanctified from our filth by His Love, Grace and Mercy.
And if I counter with many sections that talk about how angry God is with adulterous women who seduce men, talks about destroying them, why, you would chastise me heavily, Don. Because balance is simply not an objective here. So . . . I shall refrain.
Is that your response? That God is angry at sinners?
Please counter. I would not chastise you. I might interpret for you. One passage will do. One passage about God being ANGRY with the seductress. Not mere warnings for the tempted but straight out condemnation of the seductive one. One passage, and it can't be followed by any promise of restoration or deliverance. It has to be total, absolute, final angry condemnation. In proper context.
I believe any anger of God directed at the sin of mankind and sinners was poured out on Jesus on the Cross. Mankind's sins are atoned. I believe it is finished. I believe the lake of fire was prepared for the Devil and his cohort and that the faithlessness of men, not the anger of God, assigns sons of Adam and daughters of Eve to that eternal doom.
If you are familiar with Scripture, most of the passages I posted follow severe condemnation and discipline. It is God's final purpose and goal (Reconciliation) that inspires me, not the way-station of discipline or judgment.
Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved. There is no "balance" of "anger" in that profession of Jesus Christ Himself. It is total, one-sided Grace. We, followers of the Way, are then given the ministry of reconciliation. We are called to become all things to all men in hopes that some might be saved. The lost, including the legalistic Pharisees, stand condemned without us saying a word. Romans 1 and 2 are explicit about this, pointing that the wrath of God is upon ALL men and women equally, including you and me, unless we are delivered by faith and not by works of obedience. We have no calling to condemn. And we have a serious need to show mercy as he does. DO justice, LOVE mercy. NOT LOVE justice and downplay mercy. Justice kills. Mercy resurrects.
Do not despise chastisement if it pushes you to Christ and His Word. But if I misrepresent the message of Scripture, show me how that is so. I do not say "let us sin so that grace may abound" but "of course, we should walk in righteousness". Where is the imbalance in my statements?
For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning.
Alfred, I honestly think that you've become so preoccupied by "balancing" imbalance with more imbalance that your paradigm has become the very thing you set out to correct, only weighted in the opposite direction.
No, someone would simply respond with the story of Jesus forgiving the woman who was caught in adultery, which is grace, mercy and compassion at it's finest. He told her, 'Go and sin no more.' That was it.
Alfred writes: "God is judge. Sin really matters.. . .
"Grace and sex sin appear mutually exclusive according to this definition in Scripture, meaning that while no amount of 'course correction' will get a person into heaven, anyone unwilling to accept radical 'course correction' cannot receive the grace that will."
To paraphrase a favorite character from The Princess Bride, "You keep using those words (i.e., God, judge, sin, heaven, grace). I do not think they mean what you think they mean."
Alfred, does it not also require the working of God's grace for a sinner to come to the place where he or she is willing and able to accept "radical course correction"?
On the other hand, the conversation in this thread brings to mind this advice from a Christian classic on the vices and virtues from a genuinely biblical (as opposed to twisted proof-texted) perspective, which it seems, had it been heeded, could have corrected a lot of BG's veering so dreadfully off course.
--------
"Do not make judgments, and you will travel no quicker road to the forgiveness of your sins. 'Judge not, so that you may not be judged' (Luke 6:37).
"Fire and water do not mix, neither can you mix judgment of others with the desire to repent. . . .
"Those who pass speedy and harsh judgments on the sins of their neighbors fall into this passion [sinful habit/inclination] because they themselves have so far failed to achieve a complete and unceasing memory of and concern for their own sins. Anyone untrammeled by self-love [pride] and able to see his own faults for what they are would worry about no one else in this life. He would feel that his time on earth did not suffice for his own mourning [godly sorrow], even if he lived a hundred years, and even if a whole Jordan of tears poured out of his eyes. Mourning of that kind has, as I know, no trace in it of slander or harsh judgment. . . .
"You can always recognize people who are malicious and slanderous. They are filled with the spirit of hatred. Gladly and without a qualm they slander the teaching, the doings and the virtues of their neighbor. I have known men who secretly had committed very grave sins and had not been found out, yet cloaked in their supposed goodness they lashed out against people who had done something minor in public.
"To pass judgment on another is to usurp shamelessly a prerogative of God, and to condemn is to ruin one's soul.
"Self-esteem [i.e., pride/vainglory], even when there are no other attendant vices, can bring a man down. Similarly, if we have got into the habit of passing judgments, we can be destroyed completely by this alone, for the Pharisee was condemned for this very thing.
"A good grape picker chooses to eat ripe grapes and does not pluck what is unripe. A charitable and sensible mind takes careful note of the virtues it observes in another, while the fool goes looking for faults and defects." (St. John of the Ladder, from "Step 10 on Slander")
--------
Is there anything in the ATi materials that offers counsel like this? I get the impression pride and the judgment/condemnation of others are sins that ATi fails to examine in much depth, yet it appears to me Jesus treats these with more severity and sternness than any of the others (Luke 18:9-14, Matthew 23, Luke 11:37-52, Luke 7:36-50).
Alfred,
If real, the God you describe in this post is evil. He sounds exactly like a mercurial pagan god. I would not willingly follow an evil, immoral God.
Alfred,
One part one me wants to challenge you on so many assumptions in your words, but another part of me thinks that it will serve no purpose.
I shall limit my response to asking you if you can recognize the assumptions you overlayed on me.
"Dave"
Alfred you said, "... have real work ahead to make sure we get this right. Figure out... and run from it as fast and hard as we can." I hope it is OK that I just quote only bits.
Alfred, you have your passages to focus/major-on what you believe, and they are good passages. Mine are different, embracing the finished work of Christ, resting in Him, trusting He who began a good work... It seems to me that you don't leave not much room for someone like me to have the capacity to also embrace your passage in Titus. But I do.
Does the next verse in Titus say: "or else"? If not, it does not support Alfred's thesis.
Titus 2:11-15
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.
Alfred,
There are also many people in hell who said, "Lord, Lord, we did many things in your name."
What criteria should we use to determine who should or should not end up in hell?
I would think that it is NOT as simple as people that failed to live up to a set of standards, I think its clear that it is more along the lines of people who failed to accept God's forgiveness. What criteria should we use to determine whether or not people had accepted God's forgiveness?
Exactly! Getting back to the topic of who Jesus claimed to be more capable of understanding the Kingdom of Heaven - I find it interesting that He focused on the people who knew they were sinful, abject failures in life and needed something more, not the ones who tried to "make sure they had it right." It's so counterintuitive to our merit-based human ideology, but 2,000 years later, the modern church has practically forgotten about this concept in its attempts to keep up appearances and focus on moral behavior instead of the heart.
The big win for Alfred is not truth or logic but rather redirecting the focus of the discussion away from the real issues that matter.
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/03/stolen-treasures/
You're absolutely right, Matthew. I'll reiterate what I posted about Alfred's commenting behavior on "The Agent of Satan" article:
1. RG posts an article bringing up an issue with Bill or the culture he has built that is clearly grounds for ministry disqualification as per the Scriptures.
2. Alfred tries to dissect the claim being brought forward by either repainting the incident being described in a completely different light or by pointing to unanswered questions or holes in the narrative - insensitively and with minimal attention to personal boundaries (see Larne, for instance).
3. Reasonable people attempt to either point out the flaws in Alfred's own claim or attempt to show him the bigger picture of Bill's web of deceit, the spiritually and emotionally abusive nature of IBLP culture, Bill's own inability to live up to the standards he enforced among everyone else, the questionable nature of Bill's "Jesus Plus" theology, and, of course, the lives that have been broken by IBLP. Depending on the response...
4a. If a participant in the conversation chooses to engage Alfred on the basis of the details on which he's focusing, he will often either jump around to other details to avoid what makes him uncomfortable or conflate the presence of a fuzzy detail to mean that the entire account is invalid, and one more accusation can be crossed off the list.
4b. If a participant in the conversation chooses to engage Alfred on the basis of the big picture, he will often either deflect the big-picture advice or exhortation brought forward without actually considering it for himself (look at IBLP through a different lens, see the people who were hurt, etc.) or try to identify something the other person got "wrong" in an attempt to steer the conversation down a rabbit trail, more than likely to prove that their suspect judgment in the "wrong" area must therefore extend to Bill and IBLP.
5. Steps 1 through 4 are repeated to the point where Alfred begins to invoke the Bible whenever convenient, regardless of the text's original context. As he gets more desperate, all it takes is for some word or idea to appear in a verse or passage, regardless of authorial intent, and he will jump to use it in an effort to spring a "gotcha" on his detractors.
6. Once he can't craft any more responses using the above tactics, Alfred plays his trump card: "God will judge one day and set this straight." This is what this ultimately boils down to: wanting and waiting for God's approval to justify 40+ years of IBLP involvement. There's no room for grace in this pride-based paradigm.
Forgive me for sounding presumptuous here, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that Alfred's flitting around between topics to dissect in-depth is a coping mechanism that helps him avoid seeing the big picture and examining his desire for self-vindication.
That is well said. I truly dislike having to point these strategies out. I wish we could all engage Alfred at face value.
To borrow a concept I've read elsewhere, a person who is trying to logically reason and have a golden rule kind of give and take is operating in reality 1. There are other people who are intent on winning at all costs, and do not care about following consistent rules nor about the other person's feelings; they are operating in reality 2.
It makes you feel like you are going crazy if you are living in reality 1, and you assume the other person is, too, and yet they are really operating in reality 2.
So for one example, for someone operating in reality 1, if Alfred says that his feelings were hurt by something, you would assume that he would then turn around care about someone else with a similar level of sensitivity as he expected for himself, and you will be surprised and confused when he acts as if he has no feeling at all when the other person's pain is in view. When you realize he is operating in reality 2, it makes sense: his sensitivity about his own feelings is about gaining control of the conversation (as opposed to sharing vulnerability or forging a friendship), and his insensitivity about the other person is also aimed at gaining control. Control and attention, those are the thing.
Again, I am not trying to be cruel and I don't like describing this pattern. Perhaps my own understanding is flawed, but that is truly what I believe I see in Alfred's style of commenting. This doesn't mean none of his comments should be interacted with. It is good for all of us to do our best to continue reaching out with gentleness and respect. At the same time, it is beneficial for my own sanity when I am aware and not naive.
You guys are awesome,[where is Guy S.?]Account after testimony after story reveals that Bill Gothard is not the kind of person to play "softball" with.After brutalizing victims,hard conclusions showing how that perhaps the only chance to gain a breakthrough is trying to convince those with spiritual umbilical chords wrapped around this man,that the truth is this "harsh,this severe,this unkind,and up till true repentance, this unforgiving".I realize our redemption is a process,but for the severity of protecting Life Invested,"harsh"measures have to be taken against death.Thanks Rob War,Elizabeth D.,Sonflower and Matt.S...Aleksander Solzhenitsyn would be impressed.I am too.
David Pigg, we posted at about the same time. But you might have been faster. I hate that :-) Bad enough you use to beat me in basketball, now this??!
I also truly dislike having to point these strategies out. It has been 6 days since the "stalking accusation/indictment." However, I see no correction yet. I was hoping it would be resolved by Alfred. Maybe he is leaving it un-corrected as a warning to others? On one level it's kind of serious.
Cyberstalking is a Class 4 felony in Illinois. (720 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/12-7.5.) A person convicted of a Class 4 felony faces imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than three years, a fine of up to $25,000, or both. (730 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 5/5-4.5-45, 5/5-4.5-50.)
MatthewS part of what you said, "There are other people who are intent on winning at all costs,"
MatthewS, I hope it is OK to quote from your link a response by Dr David Orrison. (about 1/4 down) ..."In fact, people like Alfred are one of the reasons it is hard for some to move on. They find grace, but meet with these intense questions and intimidating confrontations, and pull back into the shadow in fear."
Thinking about holding Alfred to the golden rule? You might think it is OK to use "intense questions" like Alfred does. Be careful. Make sure you are clear to the point of absurdity. Behind that smile, it sure looks like to me, the brother in Christ, wants to win at all costs.
I should add that I have already gotten an a "weak sauce" apology from Alfred. It means nothing, but I did not expect anything else. However, no clear retraction/correction on the legal issue. On Nov 14 I said it might not be a good idea to discuss this since it was easy to judge the facts laid out. My blood pressure was high enough and I had hoped Alfred would resolve this all by himself. I guess it is OK to discuss now.
"weak sauce" compares ...to the "mild" sauce found at Taco Bell; weak, insignificant, attempting to be like the other hot sauces, but not living up to expectations.
Alfred,
In the presence of 2 or 3 witnesses, I can't help but conclude the disrespectful way you treated me to be par for the course. However, as I age, I find it easier and easier to overlook disrespect to me. It's either justified or its not and I'm old enough to know the difference.
I cannot however, tolerate such disrespect for the scripture. I am showing respect you as you are perhaps closer to my father's age than my own, perhaps you split the difference, regardless, my response is tempered by my desire to show respect to your age.
I ask for an apology to the group on your disrespectful treatment of Job 38. In a passage where God clearly and beautifully illustrates to us how his care and attention to the details of His creation that we find distasteful, you went and said we should consider those disteful details as results of God's judgement of sin. If God cares about them, how can you be so easily dismissive of them?
Alfred, we are all distastful details as a result of sin. You, I, the woman at the well, even the buzzard babies. Your inability to recognize your own state as one is truely alarming to me as understanding and accepting that is foundational to appreciating Christ's love!!!
I don't think you realize the line you are crossing in being so caviliar (sp?) about scripture. I don't think you feel you are even being caviliar about it. Your words indicate a lack of love. Your words indicate you value BG's teachings and person over the empathetic love and saving work of Christ. You appear to think that feeling pain for sinners trapped in sin is somehow at odds with being Christian.
I can sincerely say that I feel sorrow for you holding to your version of the gospel and the lack of love it brings, and the corresponding lack of appreciation of the true depths of Christ's love.
I would leave you with one question: when you get to Heaven, is your defense going to be that you faithfully supported a man, or is it that you humbly followed the Son of Man? Cause right now, it seems that you place more value on the former...
Perhaps I should said "your inability to emphatize with those who share your same state..." instead of inability to recognize your own state.
Perhaps you do, I can't say. Your words indicate it, but the only conclusion I can legitimately draw is that you can not emphathize with others.
My apologies for the over-reach.
Oh, Dave . . . Apologize for my analysis of Job? Should you apologize for promoting the account of a woman who concludes that waiting for sex until marriage is bunk? Not asking that - but it is like waving a red flag in front of a bull - I am the bull. That is a black and white thing . . . from an evangelical perspective. Do you disagree? Or did you not really read it?
As to Job . . . did the matter of the "ravens" never strike you before? It did me. Personally caring for those little birds involves personally killing off some other animals. What if you are the deer God causes to be hit by a car to provide that lunch? Would you feel loved? I am not sure I get all of the implications - I was just surprised that you picked that, of all things, to highlight the grace of God. Maybe . . . maybe you can explain that one. That would be a help to all of us. But you could acknowledge that you picked a strange section to highlight for the point you were trying to make.
I really don't know where you are coming from, Dave. Please don't take this personally. There are major effects of not being able to look people in the eyes and see their expressions and reactions. Contact me privately - maybe I can let you into some of my world. I am far from whatever you think I am.
As to veering off course - Matthew - not fair blame me for all of this. An article against chastity in the middle of a discussion of the woman taken in adultery is far from "on point" . . . Should just be ignored? If you believe that leaving the topic is my intent, you are wrong. Instead ponder that there are often multiple people directing things at me, often in relation to things unrelated to the OP . . . which I lose track of as I flip between responses. But I am far from alone in that.
Alfred, this is what's really frustrating about trying to reason with you. You've become so inundated with legalism in the world of trying to "get everything right" that you're at the point where you instantly shoot down and marginalize broken people who obviously haven't. No, I can't truly speak for Dave here, but I don't believe for one minute that his posting of that article was to "promote" an anti-chastity viewpoint. If his accompanying comments are any indication, it was so that we can help continue to identify trends in the modern church (of which IBLP is a part) that build up sex as a "reward" for waiting and ultimately shame women into submission...only to shatter them when the expectations aren't met and the narrative goes south. But you refuse to see that. All you can see is that the woman who wrote the article is wrong, wrong, wrong. You don't even try to understand how she got to where she is. All that matters is that she is wrong.
I'm sure glad Jesus approached the sinners in His day much differently when He ministered to them.
Yes, and Dave asked for comments from women and some of us did comment. In no way do I agree with the authors conclusion of anti-chasity but I totally understand the set up which started with putting 10 year old girls in front of the Church to make promises they didn't understand and shame them into chastity. That is not how to teach morality. The better way is to teach that sex is a beautiful gift of God for marriage. It is a sign of unity and love between one man and one woman in marriage. God gave us this desire because that is His design. This bond of love in marriage is also God's way for bringing new life into the world. This very special gift of sex is meant for marriage and when we don't follow it, we sin against our own bodies, we may bring a child into the world when not ready for it and having sex outside of marriage does hurt the later bond in marriage. If the author had been given this sort of teaching, I don't think she would have come to the conclusions that she did. That is why Dave brought it up. It is important to discuss this in a society that doesn't support chastity and faithfulness but teaching it wrong and using it as a club can do more damage in the long run.
Alfred,
Ravens are omnivores. They have a diet of berries, fruit, insects as well as small animals and carrion. Death is here as a result of sin. God does not choose animals to kill for other animals to eat. The sin of Adam infected the whole creation which is groaning. . .God in his wisdom, has provided a way for dead animals to provide nourishment for others, and prevent the problem of rotting animal carcasses in the wild. Slow down with your answers, and spend some time contemplating what others are trying to express to you.
Alfred said: "Maybe . . . maybe you can explain that one. That would be a help to all of us."
No, Alfred, not to "all" of us. You. You cannot co-opt the "us" here into your crazy making.
You are on your own in this. The "we" here are not asking Dave for clarification.
Dave, patient saint that he is, doesn't need to contact you privately. He sees what you write, and listens to your responses to the folks here. He sees you. And thus you want to take it offline.
He really does see who you are, Alfred. Shouldn't this be something you should be "alert" to and give heed to? I think so.
Alfred,
Ravens are not popular birds. They are not pretty, they are usually viewed as pests. They are bad boy birds. But God created the raven and even He cares for their young when hunger. That is the point of the verse not what you have twisted to, some kind of judgement thing because part of the ravens diet may be dead animals.
Alfred,
I sincerely and from the bottom of my heart wish you the best.
To interject some humor at your callousness, and twist a movie quote, "it appears we are at an impasse. I'm no match for your wits and (to deviate from the script) I do not wish to wield the sword. "
In all seriousness, on your head be your stubborn refusal to respectfully reason together. I will continue to respect your age and your claim of salvation but I can no longer respect what you choose to do with it.
If you are a bull, I would recommend staying out of a china shop.
Thank you, Dave. I wish the same (the best) for you and yours.
Don't let one person determine whether you continue to contribute on this web site. This place is bigger and has many more reasonable people here than one unreasonable one. Focus on sharing your ideas and thoughts and continue with that in mind
There is an article on pathos.com called The Esther You Never Knew. This pertains to the above discussion about sexual sin. Even more it pertains to how we view the Bible. Is it a book of morals OR is it a book that reveals God's character, who He is and What He has done? It is HIS-story. A quote: "God-not humanity-is the main character in the Old Testament, and He is always the hero. Sometimes he uses good people to do good things' but since there are hardly any good people, He ends up using messed up people to accomplish His will. And so He uses liars like Abraham, thieves like Jacob...."
I'm afraid that Gothard's seminar, ATIA, etc. ended up using the Bible as merely a guidebook for success.
We need to worship God as He reveals Himself in His Word, not just reduce His Word to moralistic platitudes which are "guaranteed" to bring us health, wealth and prosperity. What a bunch of greedy little low-lifes we are when our own success is our goal rather than worshiping the God who chose us before the foundation of the earth, sent His Son, Jesus, to live a perfect life and graciously redeem us for Himself and then sent the Holy Spirit to woo us to Himself.
Kay,Well said....Gothard's strategy in the spectrum of his non-optional ministry demands total submission on a two pronged basis.The initial bait which you perceived correctly is the great sales pitch for his natural religion,on your adamic nature,You get out of it what you put into it;one hundred percent guaranteed,results totally successful.This I would say works in his caste system,[sorry,down the road,no inferior women to be treated similar to the sales pitch hype];this only for men.Now the flip side of this false penny runs into a hyped false so called God Centered emphasis on "giving up all your rights","not take up an offense",entreating us to take up his false cross down a path built for you to become an automaton,while we,not suspecting any of his ulterior motives,sex molesting,exploiting workers to voluntarily work overtime until their health is ruined,draining our meager finances for a seminar, fall down that slippery slope to passivity,loneliness,condemnation,and oblivion.This is a part of the total sacrifice demanded for Gothard's kingdom.Bear in mind this dichotomy of going from your success story to your enslavement is all controlled by the exact same man with the puppet strings.At best we're offered a few crumbs from the Master,"You obey well"or an authority figure;"You're so submitted",but never expect in this caste system anyone from established authority to get down there in the trenches with you.The final devastating realization you may finally discern is a completely thwarted warding off of the spiritual cry of your heart as in "I was hungry and thirsting for the Word of Life and you offered me... a system....by which in my starvation I could live a life of "submission".Hey how successful is that?
^^^^^^^"Hungry and thirsting for the Word of Life and you offered me a system by which in my starvation I could live a life of 'submission'. Hey how successful is that?"
Best succinct summary that ever described the period of time during which I strove to succeed in developing godliness according to Gothardism.
Taken some time off to re-read and reflect on this exchange. I've really appreciated the opportunity for sharpening here, and the entire convo has been very helpful.
Alfred, I don't know if you are still checking this page, but I would make a modest recommendation - print it out and save it, and re-read through it a couple years down the line. I would hope that time and the absence of a "competitor" that must be "beaten" will relax your fight/flight instincts and allow you to see the words for what they are.
I wish you the best, and I hope that one day you find perfect peace.
Where did BG come up with the pre-sup that all rock music is evil? How doe he define "rock music"? Would it be anything with a beat? What about Psalm 150? Perhaps BG would not appreciate the Bee Gees, but would he appreciate 1940's era music? Glenn Miller and Benny Goodman, for example, we're not rock musicians. Could BG and his followers get into the "swing" of that kind of music? What about classical music-----after J.S. Bach was a pietist.......hummmmm
Virtually every type of music is ruled out by Gothard, except for hymns and some classical. Anything with a beat is evil and will stir up lust, per Gothard. Not sure where he came up with it. It may have been his early work, trying to solve conflicts between parents and so called "rebellious" kids in the 60's. I would imagine that most of those he encountered that he considered rebellious listened to rock music. Combine that with the theme of questioning authority, found in so much of the 60s music, rock and otherwise, that I would imagine it was a fairly natural link for him to make between various forms of music and rebellion. As far as the part about the beat, others have suggested that there is a racist element, connecting African tribal music with evil. I have not read that teaching- perhaps others more familiar can comment.
Bill always stated in his seminars (at least the ones I attended) that an African convert was waiting and heard according to Bill, rock music and claimed according to Bill that it was the same music and beat that he used when conjuring up evil spirits and casting spells. Bill doesn't name the man, where he was from, when this happen and which music he supposedly heard. That was Bill's proof that rock music was the same music used by African tribes in their pagan rituals.
Rob, I remember that. That story became my main (to my shame) reason to avoid rock music. Even though I purchased, "Striving for Excellence" it was not persuasive. I just assumed that I must not smart enough to understand it. I only had the African convert as "proof."
Guy,
don't beat yourself up over it. Bill was a very convincing sales man. For most seminar attendees, by the time he talked about his views and ideas about music, one was already trusting and believing what he was saying. There is a point that listening and watching violent shows and listening to music that promotes immorality and violence can be an influence. I think there are studies that prove these things. I personally don't think that a number of "rock" stars are admirable moral characters that I want to support or listen to. However, Bill took it to an extreme and too many followed him as if all of this is gospel truth.
I'm not sure if IBLP was ever this explicitly inflammatory, but a few months ago, I caught a video on YouTube of a radical street preacher railing against a Christian rock music festival and going into the African "origins" of rock music, blaming the negro spirituals for allowing that particular style of music to seep into American culture and saying that "they didn't quite take Africa out of the Africans!" While IBLP may not have been that overtly racist, it's pretty evident that the same viewpoint was at play: much of black culture was thrown under the bus in a very underhanded way, whether for being too emotionally charged or filled with syncopated music.
JB, I got your same vibe. Of course, BG had a get out of jail card by sometimes prominently embracing color. I remember in the mid 90s at meeting in the ITC, (pastors seminar?) an older black man was introduced by BG to speak (introductory type comment.) Looking back on it, it looks like it was a politically correct move.
Some questions for thought, Bill took rock music as a cause of teenage rebellion but is rock music a real cause or is rock music a reflection of what was going on in the 60-70 culture? Rock music (as in all music) reflects was it culturally going on not the root cause. African music and spirituals have been around a long time, much more time than rock music and it's ill effects according to Bill. Likewise is Bill's concern about music causing lustful thoughts and desires proof that the person who doesn't listen to beat filled type music should have no problems with their physical desires? Then what explains Bill's problems with young girls? It would seem that because he didn't listen to any music but hymns and maybe some classical, he should have his own physical desires under lock and key and be pure as the wind driven snow. In other words, his own life and behavior do not match his teaching in the area of music. Again all of this supports what Jesus said is that sin originates in the heart of man, not from externals.
Good points Rob War.
"Rock music (as in all music) reflects was it culturally going on not the root cause."
Yes, I agree. However, for Gothard, correlation meant causation whenever he so desired, without any need for additional supporting evidence, other than non-verifiable anecdotes. The man literally uses every logical fallacy in the book.
If we use a little Gothard logic on Bill's own behavior, this is the conclusion one would draw.
Bill Gothard listened to hymns and classical music.
Bill Gothard lusted after teenage girls.
Therefore, hymns and classical music cause people to lust after teenage girls.
Yes, someone ought to warn Bill about the dangers of hymns and classical music. Hopefully he wasn't listening to Johann Strauss which was considered racy music in it's day.
So it appears that BG based some his his arguements against rock music,at best, by an urban legend and at worst by an all out fabrication. I have often wondered where he got his facts for his seminars. Kevin I like the "pretzel logic" that you just gave about hymns. Why so many people have fallen for BG's teachings is beyond me------ when I tried to warn people (especially the gothadites) That there is something (almost everything) wrong with this guy's teachings, I was viewed as a "rebel"-------but guess what? I like that! I know the Greatest Rebel ------Jesus died for my sins and put the Pharisees in their place---sound familiar?
Yes, that story is definitely an urban legend, my understanding is that each time it's told, the individual was from a different country, quite possibly a different kind of person in each story, i.e. native preacher, new convert, missionary, etc..
gives new meaning to the saying "legend in his own mind". Now it's urban legend in his own mind and if one tells a lie long enough and hard enough it becomes reality (in Bill's mind at least).
Todd, one of the Wisdom Booklets I ran across the other day had an entire "resource" devoted to warning against backsliding, and it was capped off by - of all things - Jesus's rebuke to the Pharisees! Not even kidding. According to IBLP, the Pharisees weren't being rebuked because they were hypocrites who were so focused on the letter of the Law, but rather, because they weren't keeping it well enough. When even the nature of the Pharisees is redefined, it's no wonder it was so easy for us in the program to become just like them without even realizing who we sounded like.
JB - that one would be interesting to see as an article, especially with a scan of the booklet.
I would agree Elizabeth. The teaching that the real problem with the Pharisees was that they did not keeping the Law well enough is definitely article worthy.
Sadly, I don't have the booklets anymore. But seeing them again confirmed what I had long suspected, especially after conversing with the IBLP supporters here: there's a distinct pattern of establishing correlation / causation relationships between certain actions and certain consequences, no matter how far-fetched the connection. Then, further implications are laid down as the law with the correlations assumed as fact. It's a very effective way to cement a lie as truth simply by telling it over and over again.
And if anyone dares to raise a different opinion, there's always the classic fallback strategy: "rejoice" in your "persecution." Wisdom Booklet 11's opening true/false quiz literally had "Suffering for Christ is a privilege" as one of the statements. The seeds of romanticizing the idea of being in a marginalized position were already sown at such a young age.
Would you happen to remember the number of the booklet?
I'm pretty sure it's 15 ("city on a hill") in the "Power through Precision" resource. It's definitely within the first 20.
"According to IBLP, the Pharisees weren't being rebuked because they were hypocrites who were so focused on the letter of the Law, but rather, because they weren't keeping it well enough"
Ugh! It's amazing how many things that IBLP gets completely backwards. That teaching could not be more wrong.
Gosh, that jogged my memory! One of the first cracks in the Bill is right was his comments about the Maccabees revolt recorded in the book of Maccabees 1 and 2. According to Bill, they did not have a right attitude when the son's refused to eat pork and were killed. This is the reason according to Bill why these books were not included in the Bible. I thought at the time that didn't seems right. Bill needs to correct his facts in that Luther tooks those and the other 7 out of the cannon of scripture. Catholic and Orthodox do consider them as part of the Bible. It had nothing to do with having a right attitude and submissive spirit. He can't even get his history right.