One of my earliest memories was walking down the hall from my Sunday school class to the sanctuary, pondering in perfect happiness the most important thing I knew: Jesus loved me, and his Father, God, loved me. They loved me even more than my Mommy and Daddy loved me. And that’s how much I loved them back.
My relationship with Jesus was so simple in those early years. It was simple Bible stories. Simple truths. And simple faith. When I remember how it felt, the word that comes to mind is peace. Perfect, joyful peace.
When I was about five, my parents joined Bill Gothard’s Advanced Training Institute (ATI) homeschool program, and they pulled my older sister out of public school. Mom and Dad seemed really excited about it, and it was mostly pleasant for five-year-old me. Being an ATI family was not something I questioned, let alone resented. I embraced this whole “New Approach to Life.” I loved attending the Children’s Institute. I could not wait to be old enough to teach CI’s, serve at Training Centers, and go on ministry trips with the Institute. I not only drank the Kool-Aid®, I had my own little Kool-Aid® stand, spreading the “truth” to other young people when I got the chance.
When I was about eleven years old, I remember looking at all the many Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) publications on our bookshelves. I was pondering those verses about “testing” every teaching against the Bible, and being wary of false teachers. We were constantly on guard against anything that might pollute our minds, including Christian material (at least that was my childhood impression). Everything was suspect. That danger lurking everywhere was unsettling to me. So my young heart overflowed with gratefulness for ATI. I said a prayer of thanks that we were part of that program, because at least we knew everything that came from IBLP was true – in fact, it was as trustworthy as the Bible itself!
Seriously, that’s what I prayed. That memory triggers nausea these days. And it’s so very telling.
In retrospect, I’m sure that if I had said any of this out loud to my parents, they would have explained that IBLP publications were not, in fact, on par with the Bible. But if my parents, ATI pastor, or any of the rest of the ATI parents in our circles had communicated that Bill Gothard was just as fallible as anyone, and he too had to be listened to with discernment—well, I missed the message entirely.
As a teenager, I achieved my childhood hopes of serving with the Institute in various capacities. I personally observed Bill Gothard at conferences and in our staff meetings. That’s when I saw a man who quietly ate up the adulation when the crowd frequently interrupted him with lengthy standing ovations. I saw a man who cared far more about his preferences, and the appearance of IBLP properties, than the physical needs and limitations of his volunteer staff. I saw a man who flashed thinly veiled anger when he sensed that his staff and students weren’t reverently hanging on his every word. This “man of God” looked more and more tarnished as time and experience went on.
At nineteen I attended my fourth Basic Seminar, this time with a notebook that was already filled out, and my Bible open. I looked up the “supporting” verses for each point and quickly realized that the verses were taken out of context, or twisted to mean something they clearly did not. Not all references were misused, but far too many to be excused as isolated mistakes.
By the end of that year I had resigned my staff position. Although I stayed loosely involved with temporary programs, I would never serve on staff under that man, or trust anything he said, ever again.
But some ideas were deeply rooted in my thinking. Throughout my youth I had believed with all my heart that if I followed the Basic Principles, and kept “the standards,” God would give me the “Life Success” He had promised. But then He didn’t perform as expected. I realized in time that, while there are a number of “dos and don’ts” in the New Testament, smoking, drinking, music genres, clothing specifications, and birth control were conspicuously not mentioned. At all. And ironically, those were the standards by which I measured my righteousness before God. It followed that the Life Success “promise” for following those standards was similarly bogus. And maybe my entire understanding of God was bogus.
The memory of my early faith in Jesus came back to me, and I longed for that simplicity and peace again. But my entire Christian upbringing was deeply intertwined with IBLP and like-minded teachers. I had been tricked, manipulated, and just plain lied to. I didn’t know what was true and what wasn’t, and I had never felt so lost and scared.
Over a decade later I’m still struggling. Like many of my former ATI student peers, I can’t sit through a church service anymore without having a panic attack. Reading my Bible is similarly troublesome. Both activities are so strongly connected with manipulation and deception that they can trigger an avalanche of negative memories, doubts, and fears.
I try to listen to sermon podcasts while doing housework. The more casual setting minimizes the associations. I can pick preachers who don’t sound like the ones I grew up with. But I have trust issues now, and trying to vet a “safe” preacher is an emotional adventure all its own. When critics claim, “All you have to do is go to the scripture, and see what the truth is! And this man is not preaching the truth!”, it just makes me shake my head. I know all too well that with a little creativity you can make the Bible say any “truth” you want it to. I also know what it’s like to know a teacher is “off,” but not be able to clearly articulate how or why. So maybe the critics are crazy, or maybe they should be heeded. I don’t know.
I feel deeply inadequate to discern truth or error. The fear of being led astray again always claws at the insides of my chest. It would be sweet relief to just shut my brain off on the whole topic of spirituality. But I can’t, because I still need to know Who is Jesus? Really?
Others who have shared my struggle with church services and Bible reading recommend reading different Bible versions from the King James Version that we were immersed in during IBLP years. Reading a verse in different words can help break free from negative associations, and (hopefully) false teaching that was attached to the verse. But years of indoctrination leave me with a deep seated concern that other Bible versions are adulterated and dangerous, so there’s just a different kind of anxiety reading non-KJV options.
If it looks, sounds, or feels like the brand of Christianity I was raised on under IBLP, it makes me want to run. If it looks, sounds, or feels like the brand of Christianity that IBLP taught me to fear (which is basically anything not in the conservative fundamentalist camp), it makes me wonder if I should want to run, because maybe this was one of the things they were actually right about? The confusion is maddening.
It sometimes feels like riding out a hurricane. The fear. The awe. The anger. The sorrow. The desperate hope. The complete overload of all senses. And I find myself asking God to simply give me peace. To make the spinning stop. He hears my cry, I’m sure, but the spinning hasn’t stopped. Apparently my storm must go on for a while.
So…how do we find Jesus? Thousands of us raised under a false teacher are desperately asking that question. We’re out of the cult, but how do we quiet all the voices in our heads, both subtle and loud? How do we return to the Bible that was used to deceive us, and learn the truth about the Man from Nazareth?
I really want to know. But even if you were to tell me, I probably wouldn’t trust you. I’ve been sold a formula before.
Brandy (Zeek) Minter was part of the ATI homeschool program from K-12 and beyond. She was part of Children's Institutes, Pre-Excel (begrudgingly), the Young Ladies Counseling Seminar, ALERT staff, STEP instructor, Sound Foundations, IPS, and completed all three Journals. She is now happily married with four young children, and hopes to get back in touch with her outdoorsy adventurous self as those kids get older.
Photo © JA Photography & Design.
July 31, 2024
I'm so sorry for your experience. Sometimes Christian music helps me. I love this song that is on Indelible Grace's website: Come Yes Sinners. All the verses are wonderful, but a couple that stand out to me speak to our great need and God's abundant grace.
2. Come ye needy, come, and welcome,
God's free bounty glorify;
True belief and true repentance,
Every grace that brings you nigh.
Without money, without money
Come to Jesus Christ and buy.
3. Come, ye weary, heavy laden,
Bruised and broken by the fall;
If you tarry 'til you're better,
You will never come at all.
Not the righteous, not the righteous;
Sinners Jesus came to call.
Yes. This. I was never part of ATI, but I was part of an abusive church for five years, and THIS is what it has left me with. It seems that everyone believes they are right and can "prove" it by Scripture, but when people use Scripture to come to diametrically opposing views, how in the world do you determine who is telling the truth?
I imbibed the poison in much the same way as Brandy. I remember thinking how wonderful it was that ATI protected us from all those false interpretations out there. There was one difference though, an obscure pastor who lived in near poverty and preached at our tiny church. The church never grew in all the time he was there. There was no outward success to make me think he did this for the money or prestige. I didn't realize it at the time, but his sermons, which most visitors found boring, subtly changed my outlook on Christianity. One of the first series he did was on John 14-17, and he spoke on something I had never heard about before - the work of the Holy Spirit. From the King James: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" (16:17) I didn't make the connection then - it took a few years to recognize the error of Gothard; but when I began to see it, I didn't doubt my own judgement, because of that teaching that the Holy Spirit would guide all those who trusted in Christ. The pastor wasn't perfect, and I even disagreed with him on some things; but I knew I was free too, because I, like the pastor, had the Holy Spirit to teach me.
A wise woman who had been through much tribulation in her walk with the Lord asked me...."What if the sermon you hear on Sunday is confirmation of what the Holy Spirit already told you earlier that week?"
In saying that I found out that I was not to rely on the pastor's sermon for my "enlightenment" or "horoscope reading" of the week. It put the relationship with me and God back on just the two of us, me and God.
That said, I have not been to church in 20 years after a split due to legalism and infighting. I rarely read the Bible but ponder on things with the scriptures already in my head and heart. I like to say my walk with the Lord is more like... run, fall, get up, stumble, walk away, fall, hide, get up, get dragged, lay down, rest, do nothing, get up, slowly walk, turn around, go in circles, then find out I have a blindfold on, take it off, put it back on again, fumble, stumble, etc etc etc.
I wish you the best and know that God will never leave or forsake you.
If it looks, sounds, or feels like the brand of Christianity I was raised on under IBLP, it makes me want to run. If it looks, sounds, or feels like the brand of Christianity that IBLP taught me to fear (which is basically anything not in the conservative fundamentalist camp), it makes me wonder if I should want to run, because maybe this was one of the things they were actually right about? The confusion is maddening.
Brandy...I feel your confusion. You are not alone. I'd never want to abandon my faith, but it's so tough to know just what to do with it in the midst of the shortcomings of modern mainstream Christianity. When everyone around you is so concerned with "saving face" to stand strong against the world while others are being crushed and marginalized by the very abusive systems they seek to uphold, it can be so disconcerting. Where do you turn? Thinking outside the box has been so actively discouraged in cultures like IBLP where "the truth" was used as a whip to force us into submission that now...the thought of doing so is truly frightening.
It's a mess, isn't it?
Blows my mind that when Jesus looks at the Church, He loves her. He calls her His spotless bride.
I don't understand that at all. But if Jesus can be that gracious and forgiving to such a messed up group, I guess you and I have to keep trying to be gracious and forgiving too.
In other news...I really believe that revival is brewing. I'm so excited to see what God's going to do with our generation and the next!
You ask some good and honest questions and some of us have found that the search and answer is to start looking and reading the earliest Church fathers and looking at either the Catholic or Orthodox Church. When you start looking at real and early Christian history and the works like St. Augustine, St. Ireneas etc, then you realize that the bill of good you have been sold is not at all taught by the ealiest Christians, then your spirit and mind can untangle itself from false teaching. Read the Didicade one of the earliest pieces of Christian writings. There is nothing that even closely resembles IBLP. A good book that summarizes early Church teaching and figures is by Jimmy Aken "Fathers Know Best" which covers the first 800 years. I just finished the book "Girl at the End of the World" by Elizabeth Ester who came out of a fundamentalist cult. She pieced her faith back together by being willing to look at Christianity outside of Protestantism. If you want to free yourself from Sola Scriptura,which is what is at the bottom of all of this, you need to be willing to go to the Churches that don't teach it.
Last year while I was an overnight guest, I picked up "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity" off a night stand and couldn't put it down. Blew my mind, and deeply resonated.
It had long seemed odd to me that I was educated with a *thoroughly* Christian approach, and yet the history of the church was largely un-discussed. I knew there was persecution under Cesar, Christians were fed to lions in the Colosseum, and then the story picked up again with Martin Luther. I supposed that there just wasn't much in the way of records for that time period, but apparently the records are there - they just tell a tale that contrasts starkly with evangelical Christianity.
Been meaning to read more on the subject by a variety of authors, but my book list is long, and my reading speeding is slow. Still - thank you for the book suggestions. Definitely being added to that long list.
Yes, Blessed Cardinal John Newman, Catholic convert from the Anglican Church and early leader in the Oxford movement said "to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant". Perhaps the most challenging endeavor any Christian can do is to start to read and learn real early Christian history and the writings early Church fathers. But once someone starts down that road, there is no turning back.
To be "deep" in history would include being disgusted with the Roman Catholic church and goings on during the time that included burning John Hus at the stake. There was a lot during that particular episode that reminds me of IBLP, except, of course, that IBLP could not execute anybody. But the politics of destroying the righteous and turning a blind eye to sin among leadership reminds me of some stories on this particular web site.
To be "deep" in history would be to understand Martin Luther was thrown out of the Catholic church. That he protested Tetzel's selling of indulgences to get people out of purgatory - so a building could be built. Fund raising by promising people their loved ones wouldn't suffer so long in purgatory if they would just give! DISGUSTING!!! That these kinds of "protests" were what got Luther in trouble.
And, to be "deep" in theology is to recognize the Council of Trent rips the assurance of salvation out of the heart of the believer, contrary to the Word of God in John's epistles, who wrote "that you may KNOW you have eternal life."
To be deep in theology is also to recognize that the semi-Pelagian theology of later Catholics is very much unlike the theology of Augustine, who was much more like Calvin in this regard vis a vis total depravity.
I was not raised Catholic. But I have had former Catholics tell me the level of bondage to legalistic rules, meriting grace, etc., and it all very much reminded me of similarities to IBLP. I lived with a devout Catholic woman (ie - not a former Catholic) who said after she died, her first question would be - "Did I make it?" (I am NOT making that up!) And from what I have read of church history, there are many differences between early church history and the RC or EO of later years.
If I come across as caustic, I'm sorry. I'm not sure else how to put what I'm thinking. I know, I know about Chuck Colvin and Sheldon VanAuken, and Elisabeth Elliot's brother converting to RC. Also Francis Schaeffer's son and EO. But for the life of me I don't understand it, knowing the little history I know, and the little theology I know.
Thank you for your comment LynnCD. I do not view your expression as caustic. We need the freedom to agree or disagree, otherwise it is not freedom. Bless you.
I think Lynn that it will not help the original author if we start taking pot shots at others suggestions. I do not desire to go off target on a Catholic vs Protestant debate but a number of things you stated are not accurate. Christian history didn't start with the reformation and it seems like that is what you are focusing on with a reference to Huss which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. When I'm talking about "deep into Christian history", I am referring to the first 800 years not the reformation or the middle ages. The man I quoted Cardinal Newman use to state the Pope was the anti-Christ in his early writings. Likewise, it is easy to look back on either the middle ages and the times before and after and have to consider that freedom of religion was not a political reality like in modern times so what religion the king or duke or whatever was, it was expected the subjects would be as well. Heresy was seen as a crime against the state. We can see this during the Roman times, we see this even in countries like England under Henry the eighth. When he broke with the Church over his divorce and remarriage, he made it illegal to be Catholic and jailed and killed those that didn't want to follow him. Violence and death for not following the ruler's religion wasn't just a Catholic thing from that time period. Speaking of violence, Martin Luther himself isn't exactly perfect either. Hitler's 6 step plan to eliminate the Jews mostly came from him and his pretty violent threats against Jews of the time. Hitler used Martin Luther to silence Lutheran pastors in Germany.
I think what is most concern is the rant about "legalism". Really? After article after article and subsequent comments on this blog, you really want to accuse the Catholic church of legalism in comparison to Bill Gothard when practically none of this stuff from IBLP can't even be found in any Catholic teaching at all except maybe no artificial birth control. And even the reasons and basis used by the Catholic Church is totally different than Bill's use of OT laws.
If you are going to rant against other Christians, please do so with facts not platitudes. Have a blessed Easter.
To be deep in history is to not cease to be Protestant. Whenever you see unbiblical evil going on in the name of Christianity and speak against it, you are protesting.
John Newman is wrong on that count.
This site is nothing if not some kind of protest against IBLP's teachings and many of its activities. And I applaud it for being so.
And *I* used platitudes? Saying if you are deep in history is to cease to be Protestant is itself a BOGUS platitude, taking a GRND swipe at MANY who gave their precious lifeblood to defend the truth of the Word of God against such things as indulgences, merited grace, and much, much more.
"I think Lynn that it will not help the original author if we start taking pot shots at others suggestions."
I am merely taking a "pot shot" at the quote from Newman. The basic argument in that "platitude" of his is the RC claim to the early Church Fathers, perhaps even the Bible itself, which the Protestants forfeited. That is all I am being "Protestant" about. You have a blessed Easter as well.
*which the Protestants forfeited.* Should read, "which he claimed the Protestants forfeited."
This is exchange is a really good example of my comment below.
What if we were able to fully embrace the thing/emphasis/theology that gives us peace without the insistence that it is superior to all other things? What if Catholicism is right for rob war *AND* Reformed Christianity is right for LynnCD? What if because they are both following Jesus and they are different people, they have both picked what is best?
What if, in fully embracing the thing/emphasis/theology that brings me peace, I don't hide from the horrible things that exist in my tradition? The fact is that Catholicism does have the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. Calvin was fine with sentencing someone to death for believing the wrong thing. Protestant England killed a lot of Catholics. And so on with every Christian tradition that exists. Whether you are a Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Calvinist, Baptist, Charismatic, Progressive, etc., there is some kind of major shame that happened in your tradition's past – most like in the past 12 months!
What if we could each graciously say, Yes, the tradition I have embraced has great shame and has destroyed lives. It has also helped me to recover grace in my own life, so I extend that grace to those who have recovered grace through other traditions.
i'm not saying that we should shut up about abuse or that we should shut down dialogue about differences, rather I propose that our starting place should be: I assume that the peace you have found is legitimate (even if I think your tradition is full of crap because I know beyond a doubt that my tradition is full of crap).
Jeff. thanks for your challenging grace filled questions. It will take time for me to process.
Jeff, thanks for your comment. It seems to me that peace from severe emotional suffering is needed before one can think clearly about what the truth is. There are some spiritual abuse counselors who say their clients need to destroy their Bibles, because of the ptsd reactions they have when they see one. This is extreme, and happens because of extreme abuse at the hands of spiritual leaders but it happens. But Christian counselors would not want to leave their clients in that state forever.
I do not believe emotional peace should be the ultimate goal for the believer - but rather what the truth is about God and how we are to live before Him. Sometimes life really stinks, but truth does not change, and God's message of redemption for humankind does not change.
I will leave this conversation with one link to a Catholic site - and what I want to communicate is, not the goodness of Protestantism vs. the evils of the RC Church (although it may seem that way), but to stir the remembrance that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." There was a time that the RC Church refused to allow people to read the Bible for themselves, and we have Protestantism to thank for the labor (and martyrdom in some cases) to give God's Word to everybody. This is what this Catholic site acknowledges. It seems to me that where ever a system, be it IBLP, the RC Church, or spiritual abuse that happens within Protestant churches - there is some kind of autocracy that the Lord hates. Jesus spoke of the harsh rule of the Gentiles - that people in general love to lord it over others - but this was not to be so in His Church. We can see this unbiblical authoritarianism in IBLP, in RC Church history, and in many instances in individual Protestant churches. I hope people catch that I said Protestants can be abusive and controlling as well. But I am thankful for the Protestant movement because it gave the Bible back to the masses. It should never have been taken away.
Abusive power and corrupt teaching both destroy people, and hinder them from understanding that God came to bring good news of eternal salvation from sin. And there are many strange strains of Protestantism that are abusive, AND teach bad things both. This site is devoted to exposing one element that came out of Protestantism.
The things that make for peace must involve a system that is servant-hearted at its core, and also teaches God's truth accurately. The best way people have to understand Christianity is through the Bible, so they can be Bereans for themselves and check everything their leaders teach, just as the Bereans did with the Apostle Paul. And the Holy Spirit commends them for that.
Here is the link I would like to leave with: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a198.htm
Excuse me that site is not a Catholic site - but I agree totally with the link, and realize there are many Catholics who now read the Bible.
rob,
I would like to know what your understanding of "sola scriptural" is? I've noticed in the past that you think this is somehow a problem for the church. It is my understanding that sola scriptura is part of a three legged stool that also includes sola fide, and sola gratia. These three truths of scripture alone, faith alone and grace alone are in direct contrast to tradition, works and merit. The teachings of the church did indeed need reforming, because tradition was held to be more important than the word, and salvation did not come by grace through faith but by merit because of works. Bill Gothard and IBLP was certainly not an example of sola scriptura, as he added his own teachings, traditions and opinions, and taught them as essential truths.
I too am a student of history, but I cannot look outside of God's Word for truth. "Lord, to whom shall we go, You have the words of eternal life?"
Aila, thanks for your irenic tone. Your questions are more crucial than my objection to Newman's statement.
The three solas that you are refereing to come from the reformation. Bill Gothard certainly is an example of sola scriptura in that he claims that all of his teaching is directly from the Bible. Sola Scriptura is the hall mark of Protestantism and with everyone claiming that the Bible is their only and final authority, the result of that is a hugh splintering that one sees in Protestantism with 20-40 thousand groups. The Catholic position is scripture in conjuction with the magisterium (teaching authority of the bishops)and apostalic tradition. One of the comments Luther had at the end of his life is that he got rid of one Pope but made a thousand more. Even the earliest reformers following this idea couldn't agree and had sharp disagreements on what the Bible says and teaches.
An example on how this plays out is baptism. Most all Christians agree that baptism is important but is baptism a sacrament which means when one is baptized, saving grace is imparted to them or is it just a nice ritual done because Jesus told us too? Can it be done on infants and young children or only adults as Anabaptist/evangelicals state. Now most here are from a baptist view and would say that in Acts, infant and young children being baptized is not specifically mentioned therefore this is unbiblical. However, there are a couple of mentions like with Cornelius where everyone in the household was baptized which infers that if there were children/infants that they were included. If though you look at early Christian history and realize that infants and children were baptized then who is right? This is just one of hundreds of examples where very well meaning good Christians following this disagree yet all of them point to the Bible and state they are following what is in the Bible. Karen points out from the Orthodox which is the same as Catholic that there is a governing Apostolic authority in how the Bible should be interpreted and applies in the Church and one's life. Certainly the 300+ years before the cannon was made official, apostolic authority and tradition guided the Church as it does today in Catholic and Orthodox. 20+thousand denominations all claiming sola scriptura ought to pause and made one rething this.
Hi rob war,
I think we may just talk past each other, because our understandings are so different. Just because someone claims sola scriptura doesn't mean it is true. Bill Gothard added his own opinions, preferences and interpretations in many areas. I first encountered BG's teachings as a college sophomore. I didn't attend his IBYC seminar but had roommates and other friends that did. They returned each night telling me of new things they had learned, and I remember discussions when I said, no, the Bible doesn't teach that. Bill fooled a lot of people. He must have been very charming, because my friends thought he was great.
We each have a responsibility to know God's Word ourself. Most of us have a foundation from our childhood, or perhaps our first encounter with the gospel. I would be remiss if I chose to not use my intellectual abilities, which are a gift from my creator, to study God's word myself and see if what I have been taught aligns with what is found in scripture.
But God who said, Let light shine out of darkness, has made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the Glory of God in the face of Christ, but we have the treasure in jars of clay to show that this all surpassing glory is from God and not from us. 2Cor. 4:6-7
God has given us his word that we might know Him. His word is sufficient. The great truth of scripture is that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He calls me to be faithful, to follow and to be a servant. It seems that many times, customs and traditions and rules get in the way and prevent people from knowing Jesus. The one who says Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matt. 11:28. My refuge is Jesus, I rest in Him. He is the Word. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 Yes, the Word Alone, Grace Alone and Faith Alone.
You all are forgetting two other solas of the reformation:
4. Solus Christus (“Christ alone”): Jesus Christ alone is our Lord, Savior, and King.
5.Soli Deo Gloria (“to the glory of God alone”): We live for the glory of God alone.
The Five Solas.
Don, I did not forget the other two. I am very surprised that Bill Gothard's aberrant teachings are being referred to as an example of sola scriptura, when every major critic Of Bill I have read have explicitly stated, or VERY clearly implied that their motive power for speaking out was sola scriptura, among other motivations. The accusation leaves me speechless.
Don,
I did not forget the other two. They came a little bit later than the three I referenced. The three I mentioned are significant because scripture, faith and grace are in direct contrast to tradition, works and merit. You are welcome of course to add any comment you would like but please don't presume that I forgot something.
Lynn,
I think we need to make a distinction here - the issue that seems to be at the heart of this discussion about Sola Scriptura is not so much the original idea of Sola Scriptura as much as how it's evolved over the past few centuries. Instead of deeply studying the Bible, countless denominations and toxic groups like IBLP are all touting their particular interpretation and use of it as inerrant or infallible. Calling one's interpretation and application of the Bible "the Bible" can easily lead to Gothard-sized problems.
JB, thank you for considering what I said. I do not believe that the definition of Sola Scriptura has changed over the years. I believe Gothard's problem is a false view of authority, and a sinful problem of refusal to be accountable. We are comparing his teachings against Scripture as the final word, and are finding him falling horribly short.
I do not see the problem of, say, differing views on how to baptize, and churches that differ over it, because all arguments on this subject are to some extent arguments from silence, and there should be respect.
But when obviously clear Bible teaching is twisted like a warm Twizzler (such as circumcision), with loads of legalistic rules thrown in the Bible doesn't even speak against (such as girls shouldn't ride horses), it needs to be called for what it is by the vast majority of Christians who can read their Bibles and think clearly.
The Bible says that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. John wrote to his letters so that believers "would know" that they have eternal life. Paul teaches very clearly we can't earn our way to heaven. Those who disagree with those things are disagreeing with very clear statements, and are not making a case from silence.
Hence, "splintering" (a term Catholics like to use to make it seem Protestantism is false) is not always a bad thing. Paul and Barnabas did it over John Mark, and it worked out well. The Corinthians did it, but for wrong reasons, and were rebuked for it. There will always be the concept of a local assembly of believers (churches) and the company of God's elect across the ages (the Church), and if there are divisions across doctrinal lines, the only crucial one would be doctrine that keeps people from trusting in Christ for their salvation. And that is what a lot of Gothard's legalisms do - make people proud of their spirtuality, some of them - which is why he should be opposed. Millstones, in a word. But how do we know he is wrong? Because of Scripture's plain teaching in so many areas.
Thank you Lynn CD, I appreciate your comment and agree that the concept of sola scriptura has not changed. The problem seems to me that many people would like a shortcut to knowing God's word. It is so much easier to find the "Christian guru" of the day, with his/her books and CDs, and all the answers, instead of spending time in his word.
The other problem that I have observed is that many "teachers" want to make the average person believe that he/she can't understand The Word on their own, after all the teacher has studied Greek, or Hebrew or studied in a remote place or received some special annointing. . .."do you know what it means in Greek?" I am totally put off when I hear that because I know what is coming. . . "See! you never really understood that before" . . . so now a person doesn't trust their own ability to read scripture and understand it. The truth is that God has preserved His Word and the Holy Spirit guides our understanding of it.
When we rely on His Word, we are relying on Him.
Brandy, Thank you for sharing your story. You are not alone in the fears you are expressing. Many others also have fears. One of the things that God has been revealing to our family in recent months is that a spirit of fear is a consequence of Christian conservative mindset and applications. I am seeing these fears among Amish, Mennonites, ATI families, Patriarchy families, fundamentalists, and they are probably in other conservative groups as well. These fears are not just a problem that comes from being in ATI or under Gothard's teachings.
At this point I do not understand fully why so many have these fears even years after they have left the conservative "box" or a conservative church or group. It appears that some/many do not even realize that what is bothering them is fear.
A whole article or perhaps a book needs to be written to help people find freedom from these conservative induced fears.
Fear is not a fruit of the Spirit, nor should it be part of the Christian life. God tell us, "For ye have not received the SPIRIT OF BONDAGE AGAIN TO FEAR, but ye have received the Spirit of Adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father" Romans 8:15
One of the things that helped my family the most in dealing with their fears was to recognize that what they were feeling was fear. For some of them they did not fully realize that what they were experiencing were fears. Occasionally one of them will react in a way that does not seem logical and when I ask them if they are fearful, it dawns on them that it is a fear. They can then make a decision not to allow that fear to control them. This is not necessarily as simple as it sounds but sometimes it is.
One of the things that helps me in putting away fear is trusting God when things are out of my control by fully believing "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28
God really does care about each of us individually. I have personally seen God work on our behalf many times. We named our farm Jehovah-Jireh Farm - The Lord will Provide, because of the many ways that He has provided for us and is continuing to provide, to guide, and teach.
Life is too short to live with fear. We can have freedom from fear through faith in Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. The conservative induced fears do not come overnight, and they likely will not all go away overnight, but the fears can go away!
"The conservative induced fears do not come overnight, and they likely will not all go away overnight, but the fears can go away! "
Yes indeed.
Love
Power
Sound Mind
-these are the spiritual gifts replacing fear
Rise up and Walk.
Bishop Timothy Ware,"Orthodoxy".I'm not sure if the title is quite right,then there is one called "Mountain of Silence".Google it and a former agnostic author of GreeK descent comes up, now, a very devout believer,who writes of having dialogues with elders and monks who counter his agnostic cynicism,and gently lead him into a testimony of faith and hope.
Brandi, I met you at SCBC... Girls week, I think. That's a bit removed from our ATI roots. What a surprise to finish this post and realize it was you..And I'm thrilled to see where God has taken you so far.
You articulated the difficulty of revisiting scriptures used to support old thought patterns quite well. Thanks for your thoughts and honesty!
Dana! Oh my. Took me a moment to place you.
Had no idea at the time you had any background in ATI. That year you led the most contemporary music we'd had at girl's camp in all the years I'd been going. It was very stretching for me at the time! :) After a few days of inward turmoil and lots of prayer, I eventually saw past the CCM music that was freaking me out, and saw two people who very genuinely loved Jesus and the people you were there to serve.
You were among many Christians, a lot of them at SCBC, that helped me respect other believers who had different standards than me and IBLP. The fruit of the spirit was undeniable.
Dear Sister, my heart goes out to you. Your life is so full of fear. I'm a former ATI mom in addition to having been raised in a very conservative setting. I knew that fear was my worst problem, but I didn't realize until recently how far reaching it was. I asked the Lord to perform Psalm 34:4 for me, "I sought the LORD, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears." He is working to do that in me.
How often I have been afraid of doing wrong or doing the wrong thing. I so wanted to please Jesus. But that kind of fear is not from Him. As Christians we have the Holy Spirit to guide us. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct your paths." Prov. 3:5,6 Look to God to guide you instead of looking for a perfect man to follow. Continue to ask God to reveal Himself to you. I believe He will show Himself to you and you will feel His love for you in a way that is greater because of what you have gone through. He does it in His time.
At times it has been brutal in the past two years in ways that God has been working in our family. But God said to me in the middle of one night when I was desperate for His help, "Just trust me." Then I knew that He had allowed me to go through this experience. Many times I have had such struggles and emotions inside and I would take a walk and tell God EVERYTHING. I would ask Him to work in specific ways to meet needs in our family. Sometimes I have been in awe at how He's answered my prayers. I am amazed that God cares so much for little me when there are so many people on this earth. He sees and hears me and He sees and hears you.
Conservatism and fear go hand in hand. Conservatism uses fear for it's purposes. God is not conservative or liberal. He is simply God. You can trust the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth as you seek Jesus.
A very helpful verse for our family as we've been working through and looking at some of the things we've wrongly believed is Romans 8:28, " And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Our time in ATI was not in vain. Our struggle relearning some things has not been in vain. He has brought us closer to Him than ever before. He has taught us so many things through this experience.
Ask God to free you from all these "voices" and free you from your fears. He loves you immensely. Ask Him to show you how much He loves YOU. He has your best at heart. Love and prayers for you.
"I sought the LORD, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears." Psalm 34:4
Thank you for sharing that verse. I needed that. :)
Thank you for sharing your heart and feelings. For all of us who have been in legalistic churches, it's as if we were wounded and need a long time to heal. Too often we want everything to go away quickly but in most cases it won't. Those teachings have been so ingrained in us that it takes a long time for them to go away.
It is very difficult to overcome the judgmental spirit that is pervasive in the IBLP teachings and legalistic churches. There are rules and rules and rules. Follow the rules, you're wonderful. Don't follow the rules and you are rejected. The focus becomes entirely on rules and behavior--not on getting to know people and find out what is on their hearts, not on seeking to show love, not on seeking to become more like Jesus. That is part of the healing--learning more and more about how Jesus lived, what was important to Him, how He treated others--and you'll learn that a lot of people who He ministered to would be condemned by IBLP standards.
I am thankful that the Lord brought healing in my life--over a period of years. The freedom we have in Christ is awesome. Please don't give up. Stay on the journey. Our spiritual walks are journeys--we won't "arrive" until the day the Lord calls us home to be with Him.
You speak truth. Thank you LJ.
I really get this feeling of confusion and not knowing who to trust.
I think this is part of why studying Hebrew and in particular ancient Psalms appealed so much to me. Seeing for myself ancient expressions that were not being spun or controlled by any given modern individual caused them to seem so much more real and genuine to me.
I believe that the book "Jesus Creed" presents a good and meaningful basic idea regarding who Jesus was and what he was about. I think that same search is part of why CS Lewis appeals to so many - I think he was good at getting down to the basics in a meaningful way.
I've just recently begun reading some of C.S. Lewis's work for the first time. It's good stuff.
And "Jesus Creed" is now on my book list. Thanks for the recommendation.
It seems to me that everyone's journey to peace will be unique to them and that where we all end up will look different. Some examples: Rob War is finding what she needs from the early church fathers and the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Similarly, Don Rubottom has found Catholic theology very helpful. The Horst family are addressing fear and have their way of approaching scripture. Jeri Lofland has left religion altogether. I've come to have deep appreciation for the bible as a library of historical literature that still has deep resonance with people.
Inevitably, after posts like this one, people are eager to recommend the thing that brought them peace. Also inevitably, the thing that brought me such peace and freedom doesn't quite fit you or rings completely hollow to you. Although sometimes it helps you a little way along your journey.
We recover grace in ways that are as unique as we are.
Maybe some of us ought to try Jesus Christ -- the Person. He is the ONE Mediator between God and man. Just a friendly suggestion.
I think it's pretty clear from reading the comments that a lot of people have. Not everyone is in that place though.
I consider your suggestion the default position on this site. That's why I didn't include a specific example. I definitely could have though.
Jeff,
I think you've hit on something really important here. There are most likely Christians in all of our lives who would read a comment like that and cry, "Relativist!" or something similar. But I think that would be missing the point. We, as a society, have become so preoccupied with the attainment of the ideal. It's not a pursuit limited to any one worldview or belief system. We want to know what the absolute best is - in our relationships, our diets, our technology, and our life choices. There's no breathing room or freedom for us to be works in progress in such a stifled lifestyle - or for God to be who He is and work outside the boundaries within which we often limit Him.
But what if God is bigger than what our man-made traditions dictate? We have the words of Scripture to guide us, but our interpretation of it is only as inerrant as we human beings are. I'm not proposing some sort of ultra-universalist “all beliefs are equal” line of thinking. In fact, it’s the opposite. We’re all at least a bit wrong about something, and as such, we can’t lean on any one tradition. We must be willing to grow in accordance with how God has crafted us and be willing to allow others to grow as God has crafted them. I think part of that is viewing life through a variety of “lenses.” Right now, I attend a fairly conservative (though not extremely so) Protestant church. But I do so recognizing that it alone is insufficient for my spiritual growth. It alone cannot answer every question. It alone cannot be right about everything. I’ve learned much from Protestantism and other traditions within the faith as well, even if I may find something disagreeable within each.
Many good points here, JB.
As I said in my comment to LynnCD, none of us as individuals can claim to have attained in our own understanding and lives to the fullness of the Truth that is Christ in His Church, so we need to be gracious and humble in our conversation with one another. On the other hand, not everything considered a "tradition" in the Church (especially from a Protestant perspective) is "man-made." In fact, "Apostolic Tradition" by Orthodox definition, is the direct revelation of the Truth in Christ to the Apostles passed down through the working of the Holy Spirit in the teaching and practice of the Church (some of which is written down in the Scriptures) and not simply a fallible human tradition. The Church, as a living Organism established by Christ, is according to the NT, the very Body of Christ, according to the Apostle Paul it is "the fullness of Him who fills all in all" and "the pillar and ground of the truth" and according to Christ, she is unconquerable by the gates of Hell forever. From a NT and Orthodox perspective, the Church is THE Mystery ("mystery" being the NT and Orthodox term for what in the Latin West came to be known as a "Sacrament"), i.e., the living embodied expression and incarnation of a spiritual heavenly reality. Technically, from an Orthodox perspective, the entire being of the Church is a Sacramental Mystery, and her sacraments ("mysteries"), insofar as they are faithful embodied expressions of her living being, cannot be limited to two or even seven (historically, the Orthodox embrace of seven formal mysteries/sacraments was in reaction to the Protestant reduction to only two, not because the Orthodox understanding of what constitutes a sacrament (an embodied expression of the mystical reality of Christ in His Church) is identical to that of the Catholic Church.
By contrast to the tendency in the Catholic and Protestant West to want parse the theological truths revealed in the Scriptures and the Church into a myriad of precise technical definitions (the inheritance of the philosophical movement in the West of "Medieval Scholasticism"), the Orthodox approach is more organic, all-inclusive, and expansive (Christ in His Church is "fullness" and cannot be reduced to the sum of parts). What this means is that we cannot properly understand, embrace, or define any one aspect of the Tradition apart from properly understanding its relationship to the Whole. The Whole can never be fully comprehended, but only genuinely experienced (and each of us experiences it insofar as the Holy Spirit has purified and enlarged our hearts to embrace it--an ongoing work in progress).
I have not found anything essential to Orthodox faith and practice to which my conscience or reason objects (though much of it is so expansive, I know I will never finish sounding its depths). I can't say the same for my experience in other sectors of Christendom, though as you do, I found many things of value and spiritual benefit there as well and I will forever be grateful that it was there I was first drawn to Christ and taught the Scriptures. When I became Orthodox, I got to keep all the good stuff the Holy Spirit had convicted my heart was the Truth of Christ and inherited a bottomless ocean of "fullness" to boot!
Good points, Jeff, but to be clear, my dabbling in RC theology is limited thus far to Theology of the Body stuff, which itself is tempered by my resistance to their institutionalization (and multiplication) of sacraments.
I would recommend Theology of the Body resources to Brandy as an anti-dote to her apparent IBLP indoctrination that rejection of birth control is part of some form of legalism. To the contrary, I believe liberty is evidenced in selfless love that is free, faithful, fruitful and full.
Thanks for the clarification, Don. I would hate to misrepresent anyone.
Not offended by what you wrote. Honored to be mentioned in your always honest reflections!
I went to the same church - I have never been surrounded by a more encouraging, loving group of believers since I became a Christian. Truly a family that has helped pray me through some very tough times. I don't understand the confusion (and I was probably there when you walked down the hall from Sunday School)...
I also have very fond memories of CLBC, and have stayed in contact with a number of people from that church to this day. Wonderful group of believers, and I'm so grateful to have had them in my life.
As I understand it, the pastor was leery of Bill Gothard and his Basic Seminar, which was one of numerous reasons our family left and started attending an ATI church when I was around 8.
Thanks for sharing.
The heart of the problem with BG and IBLP (in my day it was IBYC)is that they have taken God's grace (unmerited favor)and have changed it to something else (conditional, earned, "step A, then do "step B, C...)and define grace more as a power rather than an attribute of God. With a faulty view of grace, it is no wonder that everything else pertaining to BG/IBLP has fallen like a house of cards.
Brandy,
Thank you so much for sharing your story and putting it all out there. It takes a lot of courage and I applaud you. I'm so glad that you have found happiness with your family and may you soon find the peace that you seek. Trust in Him.
Brandy,
Thanks for sharing your story. All of us who have run into cult-like legalistic groups (and legalistic factions within broad categories of Christian traditions--whether some Protestant group, Catholic or Orthodox) can relate to your struggle. Legalism, hypocrisy, and/or the abuse of authority can be a danger in any Christian tradition because of sin--no matter how "orthodox" and "catholic" (or Orthodox and Catholic) its pedigree.
The first thing I can say uncategorically is that Jesus Christ alone is worthy of your complete trust. Pray daily and commit your way to Him, and start reading and following the commandments of Christ as best you can, and He will lead you step by step to where you can best grow in your experience and knowledge of Him. Listen more to that "still, small" Voice within your own heart where the Holy Spirit convicts of the truth than you do to arguments external to those nudgings in your own conscience, even those that purport to be "Scriptural." There are many ways to distort the Scriptures, and even the NT assumes we need guidance and teaching to properly understand and interpret the Scriptures (see for instance Acts 8:31, and 2 Peter 3:16). This is one reason also that the Creeds were formed in the first several centuries of Church history. Rival groups formed taking parts of the Christian Scriptures (and often throwing out others) and distorting the Christian message in various ways (e.g., Arius, Marcion, the various Gnostic groups), and the Church had to articulate the truth of the Gospel with which she had been entrusted in such a way as to safeguard it from heresy--to offer the proper framework for understanding the Scriptures. This is how the major Creeds of the Church came to be. Understanding the nature of the teaching in the great Creeds of the Church in the historical context in which they were formed (of which the actual enduring practices of the Church of that era are an essential part) would be a good place to start for having a proper framework for understanding the Scriptures. Any good teaching found in any of the Christian traditions starts (at least implicitly) with an acceptance of that broad framework. The truths communicated in the Creeds are the "majors" to which all other details of the faith need to be subsumed, lest the faith be distorted in some way.
Hi LynnCD,
I agree with you that there is potential for hypocrisy and abuse in all Christian traditions. I also agree with you that it is essential for sincere followers of Jesus to seek to obey the truth and to seek to understand the truth of what the Scriptures mean to teach. The truth is One. There are not many truths--one for you and another for me. The divisions among professing Christians and sincere seekers of Christ are an occasion for lamenting, not rationalizing in ways that relativize the truth revealed in Christ. On the other hand, we are all, as individual believers, in process of discovering the fullness of that one truth, and so it seems to me this also needs to be acknowledged and graciously and humbly accommodated in our conversations with one another. This seems to be an aspect of Jeff Gill's perspective we can all likely appreciate. Can we also recognize and acknowledge that the Lord Jesus is not limited (as we are) by our various traditions' historical sins, errors, and divisions, but can reveal Himself to those who sincerely seek Him, such that they can be genuinely coming to know Him through the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts and consciences regardless of the limitations of the Christian tradition they are in?
I would also like to point out there are real differences between the actual faith and practice of the "one holy apostolic and catholic church" of the patristic classical Christian tradition (whose bishops crafted this quoted phrase in the Nicene Creed) and Medieval Roman Catholicism, modern Roman Catholicism (which is not the same thing as the Medieval version that sparked the Reformation) and all forms of Protestantism--though all these can trace roots and many beliefs and practices to this earlier classical patristic Christian tradition (and it can also be argued all these also depart from those roots in various ways). I never thought about it until it was pointed out to me by others, but early creeds (like the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed) considered standards of Christian "orthodoxy" by most modern conservative Christians today, regardless of broad tradition from which they hail, make Christ's "one holy catholic church" along with Father, Son, Holy Spirit, the bodily Resurrection, and the life to come, etc., an article of belief one must be able to confess to meet the definition of being considered an "orthodox" Christian, yet there is no hint of biblicism in these Creeds. IOW, the faith (and Church) of the Scriptures is evident in these Creeds, but not faith in the letter or text of the Scriptures per se as a stand-alone authority (a.k.a. "Sola Scriptura"). Can we admit it is possible to believe in the "divine inspiration" and "infallible truth" of the the Jewish and Christian Scriptures and diligently study these for wisdom and yet fail to discern the Truth (Who is the key to correctly understanding and applying these) when His living presence is in our midst speaking truth to us (John 5:39)?
Looking at your comments in this thread where you mention Catholicism and Protestantism, but not Eastern Orthodoxy, would it be fair to say Eastern Orthodox Christianity is pretty much off the radar for you? This, of course, would be quite understandable given Church history and EO's relatively small presence in this country. However, in Church history and in other parts of the world, Orthodox Christianity has had a much greater presence and role, and actually in the modern era, the overwhelming majority of Christians suffering and dying for the faith have been or are Orthodox (Orthodox countries having been those mostly under Muslim or Communist rule in recent times).
For those unfamiliar with its history, I would like to point out that though the Orthodox Church has had its share of rogues and sinners (as well as saints), it seems worth pondering that in terms of official Church-sanctioned, Church-initiated policies, the Orthodox Church has never had anything akin to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Papacy, a system of Merits and Indulgences, withholding the reading/hearing of the Scriptures in their own language from the laity, nor (consequently) a Protestant Reformation. There are little schisms that have occurred in Eastern Christendom here and there, and translation of the church services and Scriptures into the modern vernacular has lagged in some places and times because of certain historical pressures and influences (such as Communist state interference in the administration of the Orthodox Church in Russia), but the various regional Orthodox churches are still remarkably unified in formal dogma, faith and practice, especially compared to their counterparts in the West. All "canonical" Orthodox Churches (i.e, those that officially and formally still recognize one another as Orthodox, sharing substantially identical faith and practice), regardless of their ethnicity (Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.) are in Eucharistic communion with one another and recognize one another's saints, bishops, sacraments, etc., and share the same dogmatic understanding of the nature of these. Considering the sins of individual Orthodox clergy and Christians down through the ages, our lack of a central administration (like the Roman Papacy), and our frequent family squabbles, not to mention the ruthless assaults of our enemies spiritual and political, that this is the case seems to me to be quite miraculous and obviously not attributable to any work of human will or ingenuity.
Karen,
I don't believe anyone here is proposing that truth is "relative" in any way. It seems like the general understanding here, if I'm reading the others' comments correctly, is that human beings are vastly different people who are fallible and not omniscient; therefore, it is impossible to have a complete grasp on absolute truth. Because we also possess a proclivity toward injecting our own biases into our understanding of the truth, it is very easy to exclude portions of the truth that make us uncomfortable and surround ourselves with other people who share the same tendencies.
The stories and comments on RG have demonstrated that cult-like organizations like IBLP, by and large, are among the worst offenders in this regard. The tribalism, the devaluing of the individual in favor of the group, the emphasis on uniformity over unity - all of it, put together, marginalizes those who don't fit into the mold of the group "ideal" while limiting the understanding of truth to that which forwards the group's advancement.
I think this is why we see such a variety of responses within the aftermath of being in IBLP. The roads to finding peace in the midst of such emotional turmoil are many because the deficiencies and limitations on actual learning and seeking of the truth in IBLP were many. Each person's path of adjustment, understanding, and working through the associated emotional trauma is going to be very different. Certain communities and institutions may provide solace and peace for one person that would never align with the emotional makeup of another.
I'm often frustrated because I'm one of those kinds of people who wishes that everything could be so clear-cut for everyone. And, of course, certain things are. But dealing with emotions is a tricky thing. I've had to bite my tongue on many occasions and continually remind myself that yes, I'm a work in progress as much as the next person, and my understanding of the world can shift just as much as theirs can as we continue to grow.
Very well stated, J.B. Thank you.
Karen,
I love your contributions and I learn so much. I do think it would be helpful, in light of all the light you have already cast on Orthodoxy for us, if you could inform us exactly what keeps us from sharing in your communion: what would a typical evangelical have to give up or reject in order to enter into EO Communion? Are our baptisms accepted by an Orthodox Church? Do we have the same Bible? Do we have to deny any dependency on Scripture?
While on Scripture, no doubt the Creeds did not have any Biblicism expressed, but on what basis is the Orthodox Canon constructed? How do you know what books make up the Bible? I think I know, but I'm interested in your view. Your explanation was good as far as it goes, but the question arises from your clear explanation that the creeds neglect the Scriptures.
Don, generally, I've found there are two perspectives on the source of authority in the Church that American Christians are familiar with, in regard to the relationship between the Scriptures and the Church/oral Tradition:
1) Roman Catholic--Scripture (the books of the Catholic Bible especially as understood and interpreted within the Church) and Tradition as two separate complementary equally infallible and authoritative sources of Church teaching. (This is known as the "dual source" theory.)
2) Protestant--only the Scriptures (the Protestant books of the Bible) are inspired of God and infallible. They stand as the only infallible authority over the Church and her traditions to reform and correct the Church which, being made up of sinners is fallible, and can err.
The Orthodox share with Catholics many observations about the inadequacies (including its denial within the Scriptures themselves and its lack of support in the early Church Fathers) of Protestant "Sola Scriptura" doctrine as well as its practical untenability (Scripture has to be interpreted with the aid of the Holy Spirit to yield its inspired sense--no text can serve as a stand-alone "authority"). However, the Orthodox perspective is more properly expressed not as dual source (although some Orthodox might seem to espouse such a view), but rather as:
3) "Scripture withinTradition."
IOW, the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the one Apostolic Christian Tradition of teaching within the Church (some of which is simply embodied in the enduring spiritual and liturgical practices of the Church). Tradition in the Orthodox understanding is a living reality--it is most simply defined as the Holy Spirit manifesting Himself within the teaching and practices of the Church (not all practices within the Church throughout history have been deemed by the Church to be capital T Tradition, but some have just had the nature of custom or small t traditions not conflicting with dogma, but not having the weight of dogma either, and some have been deemed to be error and later ruled out by a Church Council). Unlike Protestants' and Catholics' post-Council of Trent, post-Reformation formal, binding declarations of what is deemed to be inspired "Scripture" for each community, Orthodox have never found it necessary to make a formal conciliar pronouncement closing the biblical canon (not that we expect to add any books to those already in use).
In any case, the NT is the same for all Christian traditions and was recognized in its present form by the fifth century (though never formally in its present form by a Council or Synod). The Bible we know came to be because these were the texts used in the services and prayers of the Church and quoted by her most respected teachers (Fathers) over the years. The NT books also came to be recognized in an organic way as having come from an apostolic source (in the case of the NT) and consistent with the apostolic Tradition handed down orally and in the practices of the Church. The OT was recognized as that used by Jesus and the apostolic community as its inspired and holy "Scriptures". Even though all Scripture is inspired by God, not all of its texts have the same weight in terms of teaching--rather, there is a hierarchy within the books of the Scriptures themselves, which determine in part how they are interpreted (e.g., in the NT, the Gospels are of greatest importance and the epistles are interpreted in light of the Gospels and not the other way around. The OT is interpreted in light of the NT, and, of the texts of the OT, Christians have adopted the hierarchy used by the Jewish community, where Torah is central and then the Prophets and so on through the different genres found there (i.e., history books, wisdom literature and hymnal/Psalms--I'm not completely sure of the order of these).
The OT of the early Church which is the collection of texts most often being referenced by the term "the Scriptures" within the NT itself was the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), which contained the "Apocryphal" or "Deuterocanonical" books.
For the Orthodox, only God is infallible. Only the inspired meaning of the Scriptures is infallible (this sense is given by Christ to the Apostles and to the Church through the ongoing work of the conviction of the Holy Spirit--it is not accessible nor always obvious on the level of the letter of the text itself to just any rational human being (1 Corinthians 2). The Orthodox attitude toward the Scriptures is one of great reverence and of obedience. The Orthodox attitude toward individual Christians reading the Scriptures is best summed up by the following quote from an Orthodox sage: "There is only one thing more dangerous than reading the Scriptures for the Christian, and that is, not reading the Scriptures!"
I hear and read and pray more Scripture on a regular basis in the Orthodox Church than I ever did as an Evangelical.
Orthodox read and apply the Scriptures within the interpretive framework given within the Orthodox Church (found largely within her liturgical texts, hymnody and prayers).
Thank you, too, Don. Sorry to have run so long in my answers, btw. (Brevity isn't my strong suit!) Orthodox practice is being slowly rebuilt in formerly Communist countries. You undoubtedly know more about many aspects of the situation in Georgia than I would. My frame of reference is Orthodoxy in America (and only a small slice of it, at that). I do read a lot about others' experiences and stories from the lives of saints (both historic and contemporary) where there are many common themes and patterns.
I think "having a priest" would indeed mean beginning to engage actively again in an Orthodox spiritual life (which includes having a spiritual "father confessor" to hear one's confession, administer the other sacraments as needed, and offer teaching and spiritual counsel, who is usually one's parish priest, but may be a priest-monk in a monastery also). It undoubtedly is, as you supposed, that normative Orthodox corporate practice has been disrupted by Communist persecution. Whether there are services in a local parish may depend upon the availability of the priest (who may need to serve several communities perhaps) as well as the availability of at least one or two members of the congregation who know how to chant the hymns and prayers of the laity, and not just the short responses of the whole congregation. Often the parts in this service that are changeable from Sunday to Sunday are sung by a choir from service books, sheet music, or hymnals not available to the entire congregation, and not by the entire congregation. (It is likely difficult to get access to the various service books, just as it is to get access to Bibles and other Christian literature in these sorts of impoverished situations.)
In my own parish, the entire congregation is the choir (fortunately for me, because I absolutely love to worship in song!), and we have the resources in terms of the music and typesetting talents of our founding priest and available equipment (computers and printers) to produce service books for the entire congregation to use.
Assuming they have access to the appropriate texts (either in books or from memory), anyone in the Orthodox Church can conduct their own prayer service and read the daily Scripture readings. Having a home family altar/prayer corner for daily prayers is the norm of an active Orthodox piety), but the Orthodox Eucharistic Liturgy may only be served if both priest or bishop and at least one member of the laity are present. The latter is about an hour and a half service and is normally almost entirely chanted or sung (there are a few spoken prayers). If the Church was largely destroyed in countries like Georgia, it will take time to train people again in the corporate worship practices of the Church, even if they do have access to the texts.
Where worship is free and local parishes are strong, this training takes place quite naturally through the normal process of acculturation within an Orthodox family and community parish from early childhood. Children are included in the Liturgical life of the Church, participating in age-appropriate ways with the rest of the congregation from infancy (including baptized infants of believers receiving the Eucharist). It's not Orthodox to have a separate "children's church" during the Liturgy, for example, but many Orthodox churches today especially in Western countries do have age-graded Sunday schools, which meet before or after the Liturgy on Sunday morning and other instructional times during the week for adults as well. This is true of my own parish. We're blessed to be in a country where there is freedom of worship. Orthodox faith and practice in many traditionally Orthodox nations have been decimated and distorted in many ways under Muslim and Communist suppression, persecution and domination (but not utterly destroyed thanks to God's grace).
Those of Orthodox heritage have been affected not only by the active interference in and destruction of their Church's institutions (seminaries, monasteries, hierarchy, etc.) under Communist or Muslim rule, but also by all the same negative forces that afflict their counterparts in other Christian traditions: legalism, externalism, materialism, consumerism, secularism, clericalism, nominalism, addictions, occultism/New Age, etc.
The short answer to what keeps other Christians from sharing in the Orthodox communion, is that they are not Orthodox in all of their convictions and practices (and the degree to which this is true varies from Christian tradition to Christian tradition and from Christian to Christian within those traditions)! We don't want you to lie when you come to the Orthodox Cup! It is essential to share a common dogmatic understanding of the faith and the nature of the Eucharist in order to belong to an Orthodox Church and also to be willing to submit oneself to its discipline and order under a local Orthodox bishop. This was true in most Christian traditions until very recent history. On the other hand, micromanagement of your spiritual life (in BG manner), by a priest or bishop is not consistent with Orthodox spirituality, which emphasizes the critical importance of the engagement of our free will for growth in true loving communion with God. Though some might try, this is seen in Orthodox tradition to be a problem and an abuse of spiritual fatherhood and oversight, not its proper nature.
When a Christian from another tradition decides he wants to become Orthodox, aside from working with an Orthodox priest to determine what the teachings of the Orthodox Church and their basis in Scripture really are and being able to sincerely and knowledgeably accept those teachings and practices, he will be received by repudiating any doctrines he has previously embraced which are not compatible with Orthodox faith and practice (for example, for most Western Christian traditions the "filioque" clause in the Nicene Creed, for Nestorian Christians--the Nestorian heresy, etc.), then most Orthodox churches will receive a Christian who has already received water baptism in the Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit by Chrismation (anointing with oil, the "seal" of the Holy Spirit, under a local bishop, who does not need to be present as in Catholic confirmation--the chrism oil the local Bishop has consecrated for this purpose administered by a local priest is his proxy in the Orthodox church). Some Orthodox Churches (the Greek Orthodox churches, I believe) will still receive such Christians by full Orthodox baptism (which is not considered rebaptism because the original baptism was not in the Orthodox Church). Orthodox accept the Orthodox "form" of a baptism performed outside the Orthodox Church, but not the full Orthodoxy of that baptism. To receive by Chrismation is a concession and an "economy" allowed for the sake of the Christian who has already received at least the form of an Orthodox baptism. In this case, Chrismation is considered to complete that which was lacking in his non-Orthodox Trinitarian water baptism. Performing a full Orthodox baptism is the strict normative form of reception of new members to the Church. It is required, obviously, for any new member who has not previously received Trinitarian water baptism. How new members who have been previously baptized are received in a particular regional expression of the Orthodox Church is determined by its leading bishop (who will be following the precedent set by a ruling Council of bishops in the history of his regional jurisdiction of the Church on such questions), and is not subject to individual whim or desire either of a local priest or bishop or of the new member.
I'm not sure what constitutes "dependance on the Scripture" in your mind, but you will certainly have to agree to not rely on your own "private interpretation" of Scripture (i.e., an interpretation of the Scripture that is not compatible with that of the Church). On the other hand, the Scriptures are understood in the Orthodox Church as a vehicle of God's grace, of communion with Him, and the pre-eminant written source, rule and guide for Church teaching (for instance, the Gospels are considered a "verbal icon" of Christ), and you will be encouraged and expected to read, study and pray the Scriptures along with the rest of the members of the Church. You will be reading Scripture for the purpose of communing with God; however, not in order to discover, proof text, and implement 10 steps to a being a "successful" and godly Christian husband, father, employee, etc., nor to discover a blueprint for usurping the Holy Spirit's role in the conscience of your neighbor and convincing him he needs to be your clone to be right with God! :-)
Thank you very much for the fullness of your answer. I do not think I meant dependency on Scripture as my own interpretation.
I met people in the Republic of Georgia (a nation of 90% baptized Orthodox) who used the phrase "he [or she] has a priest" to describe a Christian of serious devotion. Is that a regional notion? I visited some historic churches on a Sunday morning and saw no people worshipping corporately, although I did observe baptisms and weddings occurring. I've read about Orthodox services, standing, large Scripture portions read, but did not know if possibly Georgia, maybe because of past Communist persecution, has a stronger tradition of mentoring by a priest than of corporate worship. I did not hear any referred to as someone who regularly attends Orthodox services, but only as "having a priest". This occurred multiple times from different groups of people.
Don, sorry, but my answer to you here got posted on the wrong part of the thread (see above).
When former Soviet communism collapsed, many western Christians went into the opened iron curtain, and did evangelism.
The orthodox Christians who survived the tortures there witnessed the passion of evangelical, protestant , or western Christian.
The efficiency, the organized logistics, the teamwork just amazed those orthodox Christians who knew none of the modern techniques, but just bowed down to no other power than Christ to the point of sacrificial death.
On Feb. 15, 21 Coptic Orthodox Christians were beheaded by ISIS. 7 of them came from Steven's Children ministry established by an orthodox Christian : Maggie Gobran.
There are indeed big differences between Orthodox and Western Christians, largely because of the cultural and historical background they came from.
Let's boast nothing other than the cross of Christ who already finished the ONLY ONE important thing from God's perspective.
There are no doubt many got saved in the mega churches in the West. I am even more sure the orthordox Christian's martyrdom touches more lives in a much deeper way.
Josh,
I am sure you have seen it, but there is a beautiful Icon from the Coptic Orthodox web site of Los Angeles that honors the 21 by Tony Rezik. It is just beautiful. Reading their names now included in the Coptic Synaxarium is just incredible.
The western Christians, both protestants and Catholics, debate what evil is , and the doctrine of fall, because they are more intellectual or soul oriented.
The Coptic Orthodox Christians (they are more spirit oriented )look directly into Evils' eyes, and told the ISIS executioners "Jesus is Lord, the truth, the way, and life".
These martyrs were given the opportunity to renounce their faith in Christ, and live. None of them yielded, and all died because of their faith in Christ.
Don't get me wrong. I am not speaking of soul or spirit oriented in any negative sense, or are comparing them with each other ( I do not believe in Manichaeism or Gnostics). They are endowed to human beings (body, soul, and spirit)by the Creator. (By the way, Gothard's teaching always put down soul, and elevate the spirit. I believed this is nothing new. He may have read Watchman Nee's writing which are infested with Gnostic ideas).
The East and West Christians belong to the same roots, but later grow their own way (into many branches and leaves). It is a pity that we only see the branches, but not the tree with the root as a whole.
In the NT, apostle Paul has a strong temperament toward intellectual debating (the book of Roman, Galatians, etc), while apostle John seemed to be close to the Lord by his inner being , not by reasoning or thinking, in a mysterious way (the book of John). They are both inspired by the same Spirit, even though they are so differently raised (Paul is a well trained Rabbi-to-be, while John is a fisherman).
Luke 10:25-28
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
Karen, sorry I just now caught your comment addressed to me. I am sorry for the brief response, but the answer is yes to paragraph one. And no, I am not familiar enough with the Eastern Orthodox Church to be able to say much. Regarding paragraph two, I haven't time now but will consider what you said. Thanks.
Meant to include I want to answer more when I have more time, to your thought provoking questions.
Hi, Karen,
You write very well, and when I have time I will look into what you say about Eastern orthodoxy. I am aware of the East/West Schism, I know what the procession/double procession controversy is, and also the issue of icons in worship - at the time of the Schism - not so much how it is practiced today. I am very sorry for the recent massacres of Eastern Christians at the hands of Islamic extremists, and to a lesser extent, feel bad about their takeover of Hagia Sophia, which I would very much like to see some day. I have listened with great enjoyment to a Bishop Hilarion's Christmas Oratorio one year, and will not forget his closing verses from the Apostle John. I did not agree with him singing of Mary as the Manna which came down from heaven. And that is about all I can tell you!
Regarding the early Church and the Scriptures, my only answer is how did they make their arguments for the creeds that faithful Christians all over the world believe in? I am not an expert on the early councils, except to know in some of them a lot of politicking was going on, but at the same time they were very sincerely wrestling with two basic issues - the nature of Christ, and the general confessions of what Christians believe. It appears to me they resorted to the Scriptures to make their arguments, and that we believe the creeds, because we believe the Bible, and have been allowed to compare the creeds to what the Scripture teaches.
How the Scripture of the NT came to be recognized as such is a subject I cannot speak much about, but it fits in here as well.
Thanks for your replies, LynnCD.
The Orthodox Church's language about Mary can indeed be very startling and seem just plain wrong to one reared with Protestant presuppositions and sensibilities, but these things are never said of Mary in the same sense they are said of Christ. Christ is the Creator and Source of all things, the "Beginning and the End," and this sort of language is never used of Mary in the Orthodox Church. All the Church's language about Mary emphasizes the reality, in all its implications, of what God did in and through her and the "participatory" nature of salvation (in its most full and complete sense) as our union with Him, i.e., that He truly became Human in order that we might become "God" through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as St. Athanasius put it in his famous work, On the Incarnation. St. Athanasius is the 3rd century Church Father and bishop known for almost singlehandedly defending the orthodox Christian teaching of Christ as fully God and fully Man (and the Trinitarian nature of God) vs. the heresy of Arianism that held sway in his day. For this, he is known in the Church as one of the "pillars" of orthodoxy. He summarized his understanding of the nature of the Incarnation and our salvation in Christ by saying, "The Son of God became man, so that we might become God." This is another early Christian teaching very startling to modern ears (especially for it's superficial resemblance to New Age teaching). In context, it has a fully biblical meaning, such that we could also say, "He became what we are, so that He might make us what He is." These are just another way of summarizing the teaching in 2 Corinthians 8:9.
Mary is the human vessel through whom the Creator first entered the world to unite Himself to our humanity and thus save it. It is in the same way that when we "wild olive branches" are engrafted into Christ, we also become "true Vine" because we genuinely participate in Christ and "partake of His divine nature" (see 2 Peter 1:4) that Mary is "true Vine", "Manna", (also "the Gate" through which God enters the world, "the Ladder" on which God in Christ descends to us, the "New Jerusalem" in which God dwells, etc.). The same Life and nature that fills the "True Vine" also fills its branches. It is also true to say that everything the Church says about Mary may also be said of the whole Church in her fullness (i.e., in her consummation) as the very Body of Christ.
This NT language is scandalous and blasphemous to Muslims and many Christians who don't understand its full context in the early Church, but what it really points to is the unspeakable humility and condescension of God--that He genuinely and fully became one of us in Jesus Christ such that His Divinity was contained in our humanity. He did this precisely to lift us up from sin and death into a true communion in His life, love, holiness, etc., by the very indwelling of the Holy Spirit within our human nature, thus "divinizing" it. This is what NT "salvation" in its fullest sense is. It is "Christ in you, the hope of glory" as St. Paul put it in Colossians 1:27. We are also invited to become "coworkers" with God (1 Corinthians 3:9) and to reign with Him in glory (2 Timothy 2:12).
This is not something we are born with or capable of within ourselves by nature (as Eastern religion and New Age teaching would have it), not only because we are sinful, but also because we are created beings (by biblical definition, not self-existing nor self-sufficient). Rather, this is something that becomes possible only because of the Incarnation of Christ and His Gift to the Church of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The dogma the Orthodox proclaim is that only Christ is God (holy, love, life, Self-existing etc.) by nature (that is, in and of Himself). We become "God" (i.e., filled with the Divine nature, taking on the full likeness of Christ having His image in us restored and fulfilled) by grace, through the working of God's Spirit within us, given as Gift.
Every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy (Eucharistic service) of the Orthodox Church we sing: "One is holy! One is the Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen." However, God shares His holiness with us through our true communion (union) with Him in Christ, such that we can say the Church is holy, our bodies are holy, etc.. If it is blasphemous and wrong to call Mary "holy," "Manna," "Vine," etc., because we think only Jesus can be these things (which is true in the ultimate sense), then it is also blasphemous to call Jesus' followers "the light of the world" because only Jesus is the Light of the world (John 8:12). If you think that's true, though, you'll have to take it up with Jesus because He's the One who said this (see Matthew 5:14)!
I believe it would be more correct to say in formulating the Creeds, the Church Fathers were guided by the Holy Spirit (often in spite of human politics) and resorted to consulting the Apostolic Tradition of the Church, meaning those teachings handed down by the Apostles within the churches they founded, some of which were oral (e.g., early baptismal confessions, the communion prayers and rites used in the ancient Eucharistic Liturgy of the early Church), and others of which were those teachings which had been written down and which over time and over use within the liturgy of various local churches and in the teaching of her most respected leading bishops ("Fathers") came to be recognized and embraced by the entire Church in all locations as "holy Scriptures" and of Apostolic origin (i.e., written by an Apostle or a close associate of an Apostle). The Fathers of those Councils certainly were deeply immersed in the Scriptures, OT and NT (I think one had to have all the Psalms and Gospels memorized to become a bishop), but they did not consult them nor interpret them according to our modern "historical" hermeneutic or as a self-explaining "authority", but looked to understand them in the sense they had always been understood and received within the Church (which also involved being familiar with Church practices as well as the teachings of earlier bishops and Fathers of sterling reputation, etc.). As I've mentioned elsewhere, we get a glimpse of where a lot of that "spiritual" interpretation (1 Corinthians 2) came from in Luke 24:32, 45.
Brandy,
Your story is different from so many but your fears and confusion are shared by many of us.
I rejoice that God gave you the inspiration to test the Seminar against the Scriptures, to test the man against the truth, and to walk away from bondage.
You said little about your current relationship with your birth family. Are they still in bondage? If not, is there mutual support in deliverance? Is your husband walking this walk with you? I hope so.
Please don't rely exclusively on the Scripture you already have inside you, particularly in light of the poor context in which we acquired it. Continue in the Word. It surprises me every time I attend to it. "I don't remember this verse this way!" It says new AND BETTER things all the time. I suspect it always will.
Thank you for writing this and the suggestions (specifically non KJV and podcast sermons). You've pinpointed exactly how I feel.
Brandy,
I really appreciate your article.
I am somewhat of an outsider on RG since I only attended Basic seminar in pre-ATI days, and I am not as much indoctrinated as the ATI students. But my upbringing still was permeated with a lot of these ideas and I know how they get into your consciousness like thorns working their way under your skin and are difficult to extract. I've had the experience of being chronically afraid to read certain parts of the Bible because those are the verses that got used against me frequently. And I know what it's like to be afraid to trust anyone -- including myself and my own judgment!
There are a lot of things that helped me. It took a good number of years but I am to the point where I can even read the Bible aloud and make it my prayer back to the Lord and be at peace, even rejoicing, in doing it.
Regarding discernment, one scripture passage that helped me a lot was 1 John 2:20-21, which in my preferred version (Recovery Version) reads "And you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it...." I had to realize that it does say in the Bible that I know the truth, and this is because I am regenerated and the Holy Spirit does dwell in me. It's mysterious, but I can rely on the Bible to speak the truth. This brought me a great deal of peace in the kind of situation where, like you said, I know something is off but I can't put it into words; or, conversely, in a situation where I know something in me is responding in a very good way to something.
I use two tests to judge anything -- one, that it agrees absolutely with the Bible, and two, that the inner anointing agrees. And I fully understand the kind of "triggering" and so forth that makes it difficult to discern those things. Eventually it became a reality to me that God is able to get me through and past that.
Also I got to a point around 20 years ago where I had a strong feeling that the Lord was directing me to not go to church. It wasn't an easy decision to make since although I didn't have peace with the church I was going to, I was conditioned and trained to go to church every Sunday since I was born, but eventually I felt I had no way to go on if I didn't stay home. I stayed home for about a year or so, and experienced a great deal of healing during that time. And then the Lord directed me in a different direction where I was meeting regularly with other believers and I did find peace.
I reached a point at a certain time where I deeply realized that God is God; He is able to reveal the absolute truth to me and He is able to heal me to the point where I can receive the absolute truth and be at peace. The very painful background is not the final determiner of what happens to me in the future. God is able, and furthermore He is willing, to overcome those things. I hope this is an encouragement to you.
Grace
This site has fascinated me for awhile. I wasn't raised under ATI, but did attend a seminar at age 17 and was hugely influenced by it. It caused me to embrace my very conservative church and theology, and everything became very black and white to me. I believed that, if you did everything "right," your life would be blessed and you would be protected from harm.
Then life happened. One son became severely mentally ill; a second son became addicted to drugs and died of an overdose; a third struggled from a severe learning disability and social ostracism.
My world and faith were shattered. I walked in an empty wilderness, where there was no faith, there were no answers. Complete devastation.
The only thing I knew for sure was that there was nothing I could or should do to try to make faith come back. Going to church made me want to run out screaming. My Bible stayed in a drawer, firmly shut. What was my religion needed to be completely stripped out of every ounce of my being.
This took over five years. At long last, a seed of something I call Life is starting to grow in my soul. I find that my heart is reaching out to God when I'm not paying attention, and there is a sense of something that feels like prayer.
I mention all this to encourage you. I remember that Jesus said that a seed must fall to the ground and die. That death is empty, cold, difficult. But resting in the process is important.
Hello Seekstruth,
I enjoyed your sweet story. I am so encouraged that you are experiencing Life growing in you. It reminds me of what Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25). Life is a Person! Someone else in another thread on RG said that Truth is a Person. Life is also a Person. When we experience the Lord, we are experiencing the resurrection life growing in us. This is definitely my story. We go through the death experiences, and we can't avoid them even if we do everything "right." But the Lord is able to bring life out of death. I have also experienced this multiple times.
It actually reminds me of Job--which is a story I've pored over--especially when you said the religion had to be stripped out of your being. (Me too -- again and again.) I've actually heard it said that that's exactly what was happening to Job--he thought he was doing everything right, and the Lord allowed all his "rightness," you could say his religion, to be stripped out of him, by all his losses and excruciatingly painful experiences. Eventually he was left looking only at God Himself, and he said "I had heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye has seen You" (Job 42:5) When our religion is stripped out of us, after we have been through the pain of the "death" experiences, then we see our wonderful Lord and Him alone. This is what your story reminds me of.
Thank you for letting me know that I am not alone in my experience! I appreciate the thoughts about Job- I haven't thought about him like that before.
Seekstruth,
I just saw your comment today. I have a sibling who has chronic mental illness and a child on the autism spectrum. There is so much wisdom in your comment. There are so many things we cannot learn by simply analyzing and reading the Scriptures. God must work by His Spirt in our hearts. He will never leave us nor forsake us. Your comment is testimony to that. Life is hard, but God is good--He is "for us" (Romans 8). May He bless and keep you!
Thank you, Karen!
Seeks truth,
Although I am sorry for your suffering, your story encourages me.
I'm encouraged that you're encouraged,
Thank you for telling me!
Hi Brandy,
I used to go to Bill Gothard seminars and collect the "cool" materials. I even went a few years ago before I found out about the "issues" that plagued the organization. My dad and I would attend Basic Youth conferences in the Midwest when I was in high school. I can still remember the 'zone of protection' and if you were not under it all hell could break loose in a literal sense. While I was not home schooled the ideas of Bill G. affected my dads thinking and the Institute was a strong presence in certain circles of evangelicalism. I was fortunate that my dad did not force this ideology on me and was more influenced by a healthy bible believing institute (albeit in the fundamentalist mode). I basically lost contact with this movement and became involved in sound biblical churches and studied the Scriptures on my own and read lots of books. I will share a few things that helped me and please disregard if they are not helpful.
1) As far as versions go you cannot go wrong with either the English Standard Version or the popular New International Version. A new one that I use is called the Common English Bible-scholarly yet immensely readable. Most versions now have access to earlier manuscripts than the KJV. The bible can be hard enough to understand in plain English let alone the archaic KJV.
2) I like to take my time and read a gospel account-say Luke- and just read it leisurely all the way through and get an understanding of what is being communicated by the author. Mark is the shortest and scholars say the earliest account written.
3) The difficulty with finding a church today is that many churches are Gospel-light or many are of a fundamentalist nature. These are loaded words and it would take time to explain these words but suffice it to say that finding a good church can be challenging. I am from an area that has several good churches to choose form which are strongly evangelical and I have been blessed with good christian fellowship. It helps to have good christian friends whom you can visit at church and get a feel for what appeals to you. Besides being gospel orientated it is wise to have a compassionate pastor whom you can connect with and fellow believers who are caring and trustworthy. This takes time. Trying to be a lone wolf christian is detrimental to ones spiritual growth. All this is a journey and as you take baby steps you will feel more secure and confident in your choices. There is hope but I agree that the pathway can be thorny, uncomfortable and at times painful. He will watch over you as you embark on this new adventure. I hope this helps but if not take it as encouragement from a friendly believer who knows what it is like to be spiritually deceived and manipulated-there is hope at the end of the tunnel.
This comment is in response to Joshua's comment of April 14.
Joshua,
I was startled by one particular statement you made in this comment, which is that the writings of Watchman Nee are infested with Gnostic ideas. I don't agree with Gnosticism either, and I read and appreciate Watchman Nee, who is a widely respected Christian writer, and I definitely don't find anything Gnostic in what he writes, and many highly educated Christian readers also do not. In fact Nee himself, in his study of Matthew, speaks against Gnosticism and deplores the fact that it invaded the church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Yet you are saying that his writings are "infested with Gnosticism," and "infested" is a pejorative term. But you don't give any examples of Gnosticism as found in his writings. I just happened to notice this.
In addition, it seems apparent that BG based some of his teachings on some things by Watchman Nee, but if he did, he did not in any way accurately represent Watchman Nee's teaching, and in fact he used it in the opposite way of what Nee intended.
Grace
Grace, you going beyond the bounds of expressing personal opinion and are taking advantage of this platform to push an agenda. This site is primarily about Bill Gothard's teachings and only about other influences to the degree that that they relate to Gothard's teachings. You clearly have a deep appreciation for Watchman Nee. Others have issues with him. It just makes sense that both opinions are going to be allowed here. That is not the defining issue for this blog.
I have a suggestion for you. If you want to help differentiate between Watchman Nee and Bill Gothard, I suggest that you analyze Gothard's writings and teachings for how he shows influence by Nee. I have read a lot for and against Gothard but have never read or heard about any document that considered deeply how Gothard used and misused Nee, especially from someone sympathetic to Nee. That could be a very helpful and singular contribution.
Hi Matthew,
I appreciate the respectful tone of what you are saying. I do think it would be a good idea to do the analysis you are suggesting. I am pretty sure that I would not be the right person to do it. I can't handle reading anything by BG because I am too personally damaged by it and I have too many upsetting memories. I hope someone comes along who is the right person to do it
Regarding what you're saying about pushing an agenda, I have a question in the spirit of honest inquiry, since I don't know the answer: are you a moderator on RG? I would definitely defer to the moderators as to whether I am going beyond the purpose of the site.
Grace M, I am not a moderator, nor can I speak for them. I have been reading on this site for some time and also interacted with the moderators a little. It seems to me the moderators are many times overworked and expect those participating here at RG to "self-regulate." For what it is worth, MathewS has a lot of experience here and is very well respected. My advice is to defer.
Grace,
I personally respect Mr. Nee very much. He was persecuted for his faith in Christ by Chinese Communism, and died in the prison.
There is no doubt his influence on Christians are great, even to this date.
For his teaching that bears Gnostic ideas, I am referring to three books he wrote when young : The Spiritual Man. Indeed it had deep analysis of body , soul, and spirit. The overtone of the books gives a sense of the superiority of spirituality over the soul. After reading, I had the question : is it not his soul that is analyzing all this?
The truth is a Person, not abstract analysis.
It is the Life in Christ that matters.
John 15:5
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing."
Hi Joshua,
Sure, that's a reasonable question, is it his soul that's analyzing, and it's been asked by many people, including me. Please keep in mind that Watchman Nee did not say that we should annihilate our God-created soul. Nee was one of the most intelligent people that ever lived. He had a photographic memory and could read a book and remember what it said page by page. So absolutely he was using his mind (as part of the soul). His point was that our soul should be dominated by our spirit because the spirit is the organ in us that contacts God, so we should use all the faculties of our soul in a proper way according to our proper sense in our spirit.
It doesn't strike me as saying that it's wrong to emphasize spirituality over the soul; isn't spirituality basically our relationship with God? I would say that to emphasize spirituality over the soul is to emphasize God over myself, and that to me seems like what I ought to do, and in addition what meets my deepest need as a human being created by God and bought to be His child by His precious blood.
This is way overgeneralized but I am trying to keep my comment short.
Typo: "It doesn't strike me as saying that it's wrong" should be "It doesn't strike me as wrong". Not sure where that came from.
Dear Grace,
How typical Western Christians we are, just love intellectual debates.
I envy those Eastern Orthodox brothers who may not have this kind of knowledge, but they gave the best testimony for Jesus by their very lives.
Now I understand our differences.
In my opinion, when it comes to relationship between two persons, it is never a spiritual thing. So is our relationship with God.
Did not your father's hugging you physically say a lot about his love for you? His purposefully sparing his time with you, comforting you in words, say a lot about his care for you. Is it not?
Of course , you may say that it is his spirit directing his soul and body to do just that. However, Bible never compartmentalizes a person into that water tight division.
Spirit, Soul , and Body is just as mysterious as Trinity - Three in One.
Mr. Nee , gifted with such analytic capability, may have meant well in his teaching. The students may receive a total different pictures, though. When I remembered all the graphics showing the Spirit, Soul, and Body in IBLP basic seminar manual, I cannot but think of Nee's influence on Gothard.
That said, I would stop responding to this thread. As Matthew alluded to a while ago : We digressed from the original content of Brandy's good article.
Hi Joshua,
We did digress from the content of Brandy's good article. (Sorry, Brandy.) While you were writing this reply I was looking over the one you wrote just before it and thinking to myself that I missed a crucial point, and if I had written my reply more carefully I should have addressed it, so I'll make one more statement to make up my lack. You had said that Truth is a Person, and I say a hearty amen. Of course this person is God, and God is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and God is Love. We must experience God in a sweet and personal way, in a personal relationship, as all these things, and Watchman Nee says (according to his interpretation of the Bible) that the way we experience Him is through our human spirit which contacts His divine Spirit. This is not abstract analysis; it is describing a sweet relationship in life. God is a loving Father and He makes the way for us to contact Him and remain in His presence, as His dear children. All thanks and praise be to Him!
Grace and Joshua,
It was decades ago now, that I read Watchman Nee (while I was in a Pentecostal denomination), and I enjoyed his books tremendously. I read later as an Evangelical, his teachings could be criticized on some levels, but I can't remember details there. One of the critiques, I believe, was the that the Scriptures can be interpreted to speak of man as having three aspects (spirit, soul, body0 or two aspects where soul/spirit are combined to be speaking of the invisible/non-material part of the human being and regarded as two aspects of the same whole "thing". The critique was Nee was overly dogmatic in his tripartite scheme on this issue.
I wouldn't say Eastern Orthodox (either in the past or today) are immune from becoming embroiled in intellectual debates, btw, but it's true our faith doesn't depend on resolving a lot of those intellectual questions the way it can seem to sometimes for other groups of Christians: our dogma and practice have been much more settled over the centuries, and the debates and dust-ups that occur over issues that crop up are more like fleas on the surface of a dog, than something that can threaten to blow the whole dog into pieces (sorry, for the rather earthy image!).
I can't say Orthodox would disagree with Nee where he observes the carnal man is disordered to allow his bodily and sinful "soul-ish" lusts (for approval, admiration, power, etc.) to dominate those of his spirit (the deepest inner heart and seat of the whole person where he meets with God and where the Spirit speaks to him in his conscience and intuitive awareness/discernment). The Gk. term in the NT and in Orthodoxy for this deep seat of the inner person is "nous" which is variously translated "mind" and "heart" in the English Scriptures and described in the patristic literature sometimes as "intellect" (which is misleading since we tend to associate the word "intellect" with merely our capacity for conscious logical and analytical thinking and our IQ--this is most definitely not what is meant by the Fathers). In the "spiritual" (vs. the "carnal") man, the spirit orders the soul and body, rather than the reverse. There is no rejection of soul and body, for it is certainly here in our social relationships and relationship with our appetites that the spiritual is worked out and expressed, such that what we do with others and our body is just as pertinent to our relationship with God as having a right concept of who He is, for example (and actually arguably moreso, since faith is not the same things as ideology). Rather they are restored to their correct order through our union with Christ through the Holy Spirit who speaks to us in our deep heart. Does that makes sense? If this is what Nee teaches, he is quite Orthodox in this respect.
Hi Karen,
I appreciate your response and I would have a lot to say. But I really have to agree with persons who have come on here and said that this is not the best forum for me to say it......I think they are probably correct. I may consider starting my own blog to continue the conversation.
Grace
good luck with starting a blog, I wish you well.
This comment is in reply to Guy and Matthew (and Joshua): I will take your advice and thank you for it. And I apologize if I was too much.
I should also apologize to Joshua -- maybe I overreacted. Certainly I replied too quickly.
Grace
Brandy, I wish I could hug you. I was never in Gothard but was in another sect before you were born called Faith Assembly. It was very, very similar, except that Faith Assembly also preached faith healing, and after several dozen deaths, it fell apart. I relate to everything you're saying--in fact I when I left the sect I said, "It's like having a whole wagon full of jewelry. You have to pick out what's authentic and discard what's not. Seems like it could take a lifetime."
One thing needed is simplicity. Put the Bible away and let Jesus come and heal. In his way and his time. Tell him the whole schmear, and if you're really afraid of him, tell him that too. He will appreciate it.
Brandy I am so comforted by this article. No one understand a my fear of reading the Bible and especially my fear of prayer. I can't wrap my head around how to pray. We had a 5 topic guideline for how to pray and I can't seen to shake it. Then there's the "be careful what you ask for..." fears. The thing is that I know all of those rules were wrong, but that knowledge never seems to reach my feelings. It's literally a miracle I try to pray at all
Like you said, throw-out all the "rules" and lists of prayers and think about this, prayer should be viewed as a conversation with God. That is pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less. And also that God is your loving Father and He wants you to talk to Him. All you have to start out with is this, "Lord, help me to pray, I don't know how and I am scared." That's it, pure and simple. Likewise, if you are struggling to read the Bible, I would start or just do Psalms which are expressions of what is on one's heart. Psalms expresses all sorts of emotions. Start there, I don't think bill used Psalms that much.