“If a woman doesn’t cry out when she’s raped, God holds her equally guilty with her attacker.”
Bill Gothard states this outright in Wisdom Booklet 36; hundreds of people, most of them well-meaning Christians, read and accepted it. I was one of them.
I wrote this series for Recovering Grace to give a glimpse into the long, intensive re-education that conditioned us to accept Gothard’s word as God’s, no matter what that word was.
My previous posts explain how Gothard created a culture in which we had to follow certain rules or suffer serious punishment. How did that not raise blazing red flags among us? We were Christians who knew that the Bible specifically warned us against living according to the law, not grace.
Well, actually, we knew all about salvation through Christ alone, our need for grace, and eschewing legalism. Gothard never avoided those topics.
He just redefined them.
Gothard states in many places that salvation is by faith in Christ, and only Jesus can save us from the eternal consequences of sin. He doesn’t equivocate at all. In Wisdom Booklet 18, Gothard says, “In reality, we are all sinners and only able to achieve righteousness by God’s grace.” (pg. 736, first edition)
The kicker in this sentence is the word “grace.”
Although there are many ways to define grace, a universally accepted meaning is “God’s approval that we don’t have to earn.” Most respected Christian theologians teach this view. In fact, three brands of Christianity that don’t agree on much at all — the Catholic Catechism (Roman Catholic), the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (Anglican) and the Westminster Catechsim (Calvinist) — all agree on this understanding of grace.
We are sinners, but God in his grace reaches out to us and picks us up. We don’t have to fulfill any requirements first before God extends his favor to us.
That’s not Gothard’s definition of grace. Ever since the Basic Seminar, he has said,
“The success of our lives is entirely related to how much grace God gives us. Grace is the desire and power to do God’s will. (Philippians 2: 13)”
As an aspect of grace, “the desire and power to do God’s will” is all right. Using it the all-encompassing basic definition creates a problem. It changes God’s grace from his unearned approval to a divine super-serum that allows us to obey him better.
And this is the part where we talk about “legalism.”
Legalism in Christianity is generally understood to be two things:
1. Keeping certain rules in an attempt to attain salvation;
2. Keeping certain rules in an attempt to maintain rightness with God.
If we understand grace as “God’s favor we don’t earn,” then it doesn’t make sense that we should have to keep rules to get his blessing and avoid his punishment. As the Book of Common Prayer explains, “God gives his grace freely, and enables me to receive it. Everything I do should be in response to God’s love and grace made known in Christ…”
But that view doesn’t fit in with Gothard’s idea of “staying under authority” or risk God’s wrath. In Wisdom Booklet 18, he addresses the charge that he taught legalism.
First of all, he defines legalism as, “A violation of God’s intent for a law by misapplying the law.” (pg. 737, first edition) That’s a classic Gothard definition—twelve words that sound good but make no sense whatsoever without another hundred words to explain them.
After a long discussion of the circumcision controversy in the book of Galatians, Gothard states, “Legalism refers to the false doctrine of trying to earn or maintain salvation by keeping the Law. It does not refer to God’s command for Christians to live holy and Godly lives.” (pg. 739, first edition)
He repeats his claim a few pages later: “As Christians, God desires that we live in harmony with His principles by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we can enjoy the temporal benefits which keeping the Law provides.” (pg. 742, first edition)
In other words, if you’re trying to earn your salvation through keeping the Law (definition #1), that’s wrong. But God still expects us to keep his Law to enjoy “temporal benefits” (definition #2).
Gothard built his case on Matthew 5:17, in which Jesus says, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I come not to destroy, but to fulfill.”
Gothard explained that Jesus fulfilled the Law’s requirements, and through him we, too, are accounted as having perfectly fulfilled the Law. But that didn’t mean the Law was invalidated in any way—God still expected us to live by what he commanded in the Old Testament.
Most of us studying this Wisdom Booklet weren’t theologians; we trusted Gothard to illuminate Scripture for us. He anticipated objections that no one can keep the Law perfectly except Jesus. “The power to keep the principles of the Law is experienced by the grace of God…” (pg. 744, first edition)
Remember grace? “The desire and power to do God’s will.” God gives us grace so we can keep his law.
If anyone said that Christians didn’t have to keep Old Testament Law, or God didn’t specifically command women to avoid “eye traps,” or that he didn’t speak only through authorities, Gothard reminded us:
“The most obvious way to despise a fellow Christian who is seeking to live by a stricter standard is to call him a legalist.” (pg. 738, first edition)
To dare to think of Gothard as a “legalist,” then, was to reveal my own inferior faith and petty disdain.
After 47 pages of trying to follow his logic—while also “studying” God’s laws for harvest schedules, the French Revolution, algebraic equations, and how the Jewish months corresponded to the development of a baby in the womb—well, we just accepted it all.
We struggled to keep all the rules in a desperate attempt to please God—hoping that he would give us more grace to keep all the rules.
But at least we had Mr. Gothard to assure us that it wasn’t legalism.
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES IN THIS SERIES
An ATI Education: Introduction
An ATI Education, Chapter 1: Under the Umbrella
An ATI Education, Chapter 2: Is It Just Me?
An ATI Education, Chapter 3: Thou Shalt Not Trap the Eye
An ATI Education, Chapter 5: We the People Under Authority
An ATI Education, Final Chapter: Guilty Silence
Share this post:
Tweet this Share on Facebook Stumble it Share on Reddit Digg it Add to Delicious! Add to Technorati Add to Google Add to Myspace Subscribe to RSS
Sara Roberts Jones spent six years under the teachings of Bill Gothard, and fifteen years unlearning those teachings. She and her husband homeschool their four children with a strong emphasis on grace and cultivating their individual giftings.
More posts by Sara Jones
I do wish that there was a section of Recovering G ...
October 11, 2022 Rob said: "Just look at the recent article by B ...
October 11, 2022 Indeed, Feser wrote a good blog entry about rash j ...
October 6, 2022 Shining light on the teaching of Bill Gothard is t ...
October 5, 2022 David, why do you still comment here? If you ar ...
October 5, 2022 I don't know anything about 8 callings or dimensio ...
October 4, 2022 In the Patheos link, Josh Parks seemed fussier abo ...
October 4, 2022 https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2019/06 ...
October 3, 2022 Perhaps the wisest words about easy Christianity, ...
September 28, 2022 Yes, Metropolitan Kallistos was from everything I' ...
September 27, 2022 I once saw Kallistos Ware interviewed. He seemed l ...
September 9, 2022 Kevin, came across this brilliant quote from th ...
August 30, 2022 True " I had a discussion once with someone th ...
August 1, 2022 Yes, this applies to many popular "teachers" and m ...
July 22, 2022 I definitely agree. But let's be fair. Bill was an ...
July 20, 2022 Perhaps Bill lived his life trying to follow these ...
July 19, 2022 Four steps on how NOT to read the Bible: 1. fin ...
July 19, 2022 Ex-Students Reveal Abuse at ‘Christian Torture Com ...
July 4, 2022
Gack. It strikes me that Gothard convicts himself of his own definition of legalism by abusing that Mosaic passage. In the context of ancient life, you'd have a small fortified town with no windowpanes where everyone could hear everything someone else did, and the expectation that no one could actually kill you before someone would come to help. I'd also guess that an extreme case--say an invading army decided to rape all the women--would not end up with the victims required to cry out while their husbands, fathers, and sons were slaughtered.
Those "stricter standards" may or may not qualify as legalism under the Biblical definition (trusting in law for salvation), but they sure fall afoul of Colossians 2:23.
Note too that "her not crying out" did not exonerate the man, but it was a standard that protected him from false accusations. Just as Joseph "sought to put her away quietly" such laws were not used to punish but to teach the principles of covenant fidelity before and after betrothal. Funny that Gothard rarely mentioned the "punishment" for fornication by an unbetrothed couple: MARRIAGE. This shows that God's purpose was not to despise sex but to direct it to permanent covenantal, self-giving relationship. Gothard never understood sex as anything but a trap. Looks like it trapped him into legalism.
I agree with Mr. Gothard that Phil. 2:13 does give us a good definition of Grace...
"for it is God who is at work in you..."
Stop there. That's Grace: God at work in me. Period.
And because God is always good, God's work in me is always for my benefit; it is benevolent.
Sometimes, that work results in a desire to do God's will. Sometimes, that work results in a strength to do what God has called us to do.
But sometimes, "God's Work" in my life results in tremendous disappointment... or tragic (to me) loss... or the start of a wonderful new relationship... or simply, my next breath.
It's all God's grace... and remember that the "grace of life" is something that God even gives freely to those who hate him.
Grace is much more than Mr. Gothard's definition, indeed... and it is for that reason that this site is so aptly named, because what we all need is to "recover" the true definition of grace.
David
Agree with everything except "my benefit": it is all for the Father's Glory and the Glory of the Son. If that is not fine with me, I need an attitude adjustment, a la Job, who benefited not a whit from God's gracious allowance of the destruction of all his temporal blessings.
Don, have you ever read St. Irenaeus of Lyons who said, "The glory of God is a man fully alive."? Assuming by "my benefit" David means what is best for our spiritual well-being, then pitting "my benefit" against God's "glory" is a false dichotomy, isn't it?
You are correct, objectively. But we are confronted with a "me first" Christianity in which God has a wonderful plan for MY life, God love ME, Today is the first day of the rest of MY life, yada, yada, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine.
In the past 2 years, one thing that has totally convinced me of Gothard's UN-Christian, UN-Biblical view is reading Job and hearing how reasonable Job's three friends sound from the Gothardist perspective. NOthing they say could not have been said thousands of times by Gothard followers, quid pro quo, you get what you deserve, you reap what you plant, merit, demerit, ad infinitum. What is amazing is Job's "consequences" defy ALL these statements. God says there was none as righteous as he, but yet allowed the worst to come upon him. Jesus said the man's disability was for the glory of God. Whereas, the entire creation, man included, is benefitted by God's glory, an American me-centered view tends to read "benefit" as "me centered". That is the nature of my critique. What is "best" is often not "best for me" from any self oriented perspective. I think as parents, we all understand this intuitively. Now if only we could expand that unselfish orientation to our spousal relationship and our relationship with our Creator, we would no longer worry about "our" benefit at all.
Yes, I can appreciate where you're coming from, Don, and in that context I agree. Job is one of my favorite books of the Bible, too, for putting this natural religion stuff in its place. I may have mentioned in comments before how I came into contact with advocates for the Word of Faith movement when I was in high school. They similarly really perverted the whole meaning of Job to say the opposite of what the book is really teaching. They took the verse where Job says what he "feared" had come upon him (or words to that effect) and claimed that it was because Job lacked adequate faith and fell into fear that all his troubles came upon him! They totally ignored the explicit teaching of the whole book about Job's righteous character! Unbelievable!
Don and Karen, in the earlier Basic Seminars, Bill taught that it was Job's fear that was the sluice gate for the flood of troubles that came upon him. Exactly the same as the WoF teaching Karen heard. In later Basic Seminars, Bill was not as direct in teaching this concept, but he still promoted the idea that we bring troubles on ourselves by fear.
LynnCD, I never heard that, but it is not surprising. B.G. was one of Job's 3 friends, I am very sure.
That's very interesting, Lynn. A couple I knew in high school (he was a counselor at my public high school, who led a Bible study in their home for students and went on to found and lead a WoF church) went to some Gothard seminars and bought into a lot of his teachings before they went on to become heavily involved in WoF teaching. Definitely some strong correlations there.
Hey, Don. I certainly understand what you're saying, but just to clarify, my point was not that grace is "me-centered," but to express the truth that God's grace is always good, because HE is good.
Even when God's grace results in tragic loss, God's purposes for the event are good for me, and that's something I can trust each step of the way.
I hear you. Thanks.
Sarah - Excellent job at bringing out the salient points!
When BG attempts to commingle law and grace, it reminds me of a dog spinning in circles chasing its own tail. It appears that that he is above criticism and can set his own (bogus) "standards" that others are supposed to live up to. Maybe George Orwell was onto something when the interrogator from 1984 said to the effect, "Sometimes two plus two equals four. And sometimes two plus two equals five."
There was such a mix in Gothard's teachings. Most was false, based on works and false definition of grace the desire and power to do God's will. I cringe at that definition. US that what he used when he took advantage of those working under his authority?
Even though grace through the power of the Holy Spirit better effects righteousness & holiness than the law ever did, this superiority of the New Covenant should not be bound under the conditions of the old, nor can it be. What's superior to law shouldn't have the born again believers who this is manifested in groveling under "have-to"s and threats of stoning concerning the inferior standards of the law, LET ALONE for any failure to apply themselves to the higher road in grace. Grace is grace! The covenant of grace is NOT the covenant of law.
Thank-you, Sarah!
"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient". Gothard taught that only legalism was expedient. We found out it was very inexpedient when the false teacher's false promises did not come to pass.
Thank you for continuing to expose the warped, wrong thinking of Bill Gothard. Many of us who were raised in churches that taught correct doctrine and application were lead astray by Bill. It sounded so good to apply principles and have all kinds of wonderful blessings come into your life.
THANK YOU all at Recovering Grace and the support groups for encouragement. You are a blessing to me!!
“If a woman doesn’t cry out when she’s raped, God holds her equally guilty with her attacker.”
BG does not mention what to do if the attacker is holding a gun or knife on her.
A proper appeal?
I think I just chortled. Good one, Don, and possibly truth.
Esbee^^^^
Nor does he mention that the "cry out" passage of Deuteronomy 22:23-29 only poses scenarios of married & engaged women doing the crying out. No children, no un-engaged women.Crying out is not even supposed in this passage except by those who would have the name of a fiance on their lips for which cause to cry out for rescue. Crying out in the case of children or unattached women is simply not given as a possiblity, at all, anywhere in Scripture. An omission which, when compared with the commission of those to scream who had already been wooed by a legitimate suitor, would seem to account for any grooming/seducing by which such attack may have been crafted.
It floors me to think that any proponent of IBLP's law of grace wouldn't even read what the law says but nonetheless accuse others with it regarding such matters.
Thank-you, RG, for being a sane voice in the midst of the proliferating of what the father of lies proliferates.
According to Gothard's logic, an attacker with a roll of Duck Tape can make it consensual.
What about the following scenarios?
1. The attacker deadly force as a threat to keep the victim silent.
2. The attacker chooses a location in which nobody can hear the screams.
3. The attacker uses force to muffle the screams (Duck Tape, hand over mouth, etc).
4. The attacker uses drugs or alcohol to incapacitate the victim.
Something just struck me... think about the context in which this was written. Bill was still dealing with the aftermath of Steve's crimes. This may be more about trying to influence a generation of wronged women not to sue IBLP than any real lack of screaming potential in ATI girls.
"You girls didn't scream, so you wanted it." They are forced to cower in undeserved shame, rather than confront the system that created such harm.
It seems like a lot of Bill's new revelations are protective of himself.
Daniel,
....think about the context in which this was written. Bill was still dealing with the aftermath of Steve's crimes. This may be more about trying to influence a generation of wronged women not to sue IBLP than any real lack of screaming potential in ATI girls.
Insightful!! Is there really a 'method to his madness'?!?!
That makes sense!
This does fit very well with BG's activities, but let's not forget that Inga Cannon at least helped if not wrote alot of the ATI curriculum. Her website homeschooltranscripts.com, under the tab Learn About Us, says "In the home education arena, Mrs. Cannon spent seven years developing the ATI curriculum and five years directing the ministry of the National Center for Home Education under the auspices of the Home School Legal Defense Association." So while Gothard may have wanted certain things covered or made sure they were, somebody else wrote a good portion of this drivel. I can't believe a woman could actually participate and promote this stuff!
Daniel, what you said reminds me of Gothard teaching that cancer is the result of bitterness. I can't remember where or when I read some testimonial, but I'm positive this was a teaching of his. It's pathetic, and reminds me of the story of a key contributor here.
Btw, Daniel, have you read the gut-brain axis book yet?
That is the problem with Bill's health teaching. It reduces broad and complex diseases down to a simplistic cause such usually bitterness or anger. Like I said about arthritis, there are over 100+ form of it and they range from auto-immune type causes to wear and tear/injury causes. This is also true of cancer. Cancer is even broader and can be caused or influenced by environmental factors, genetic factors, diet, exposure to smoking, high levels of stress etc. It is dependent on where the cancer is and how it may have started. Based on Bill's thinking, a three year old child that has leukemia was caused by the 3 year old being bitter? It is such sick, callous reasoning.
"consent" has nothing to do with it. It is a different paradigm from our rape law altogether. In fact, the word does not always indicate forcble rape, but often our former "statutory rape" meaning simply sex with a woman too young (according to the legislature) to consent, i.e. seduction of a minor including various grooming approaches to break down resistance.
Is it possible that this was taught so that no girl could finger Gothard for inappropriate touching without fingering herself? Didn't Gothard's own sister, in effect, accuse one of his intended's of seducing her brother? (she was what 21 and he about 55? Poor helpless babe.)
There is no Christian or Jewish theologian, teacher, pastor, bishop, rabbi that would even teach or twist these verses to mean what Bill Gothard has stated. He is totally "out of step" using Alfred's terms with Judeo-Christian theology and ethos. But, he isn't when compared to Islamic thinking about sexual assault. This isn't Christian or Jewish teaching and views. But in Islam, sexual assault is always the woman's fault and rape victims are stones to death as adulteresses unless the poor woman has 4 males to witness it. How nice. The problem is that we sucked into the arguments of what a couple of OT verse mean which are taken out of context of the whole as well as the cultural understanding of the times. But, that ok with the people running DG that Bill is "out of step" with the rest of Christianity. Bill isn't just "out of step", he has left and joined himself with Islamic Sharia Law and it's views on women, children and sexual assault and all of this to cover his and Steve's own immorality. Victims in sexual assault have never been considered as sinful and immoral. To even suggest this is beyond the beyond and is evil, sinful and sick.
I think you are on to something. Reading Job's 3 friends, I think they, Muslims and Gothard all have a kind of "natural religion", meaning a human constructed view of how we relate to God: rules, merit, sacrifice, duty, submission. It make sense. It is also fruitless.
As a woman recovering from "The Message" (which has very similar laws - which would explain why their homeschool groups are using ATI resources -, to the point where I wonder whether Branham was one of Gothard's early influences), I've this site is a healing space.
However, I'm horrified to see people who (having experienced the most negative forms of Christianity) should know better vilifying another religion.
Islam has as many variants as other religions. Outside theocracies like Saudi Arabia or cazies like ISIS, only a small number of communities choose to take these parts of the quaran at face value.
Unfortunately, Westerners like to invoke Muslims as the scary/predatory savages of our time - apparently it makes us feel better as a society to displace social evils onto an "Other". We feel so much more civilisef if we can ascribe these behaviours to some more 'primitive' race, culture or religion. Go back a hundred years and it would have been Indigenous or African Americans in this (and the following) post.
We don't like to own or mysogynist Judeo-Christian past, but it's well amd truely there. Gothard had lots of scripture to play with (Judges 29 anyone?!). When it comes to rape (and women's rights in general) we love to cite worst case scenarios from around the world - it allows us to pretend equality. If you really want to know where we stand as a society, just have a look at our secular laws -what it takes to get a criminal conviction, and the constant victim-blaming all along the way.
Misogyny is an essential support for patriarchal systems and if we can't own the problems in our own system, if we insist of displacing them, we may as well have stayed under the fundamentalist umbrella because nothing's going to change.
Mildred, I hope you did not take my comments as asserting scary predatory nature of Islam. My only comment was its legalism/ works based righteousness. It cannot be relational as "God is One". In eternity past he was alone and did not "relate". But the Trinity is Three in One. Eternally in relationship. God's children are all called into that circle of love. May all respond, regardless of upbringing.
In Gothard's system we were taught that relationship is conditional: we had to constantly be confessing everything and accepting blame for everything as a pre-condition to our acceptance by God. We had to stay under the umbrella of authority! Sadly, it cannot work, because we cannot even admit every single wrong thought and act! We are rebels saved by Grace alone.
THANK YOU all at Recovering Grace and the support groups for encouragement. You are a blessing to me!!
Amen to that!!
Please delete my comment above and this one.
Please post the first comment I submitted, which is missing here.
Thanks.
David Martin
It seems that the comment I intend to have published is still awaiting moderation. In sorry for the confusion...
David
If I had remained directly under my father's authority as an older teen/young adult, I shudder to think what might have happened to me. He was a violent alcoholic, and I had to be careful whenever I saw him because he was so unpredictable. I did try following Gothard's directions a few times with dad, and the results were laughable because he wasn't coordinating enough to even follow what I was trying to discuss with him. Thankfully, a change of churches brought me better counsel, and I was able to maintain a relationship with careful boundaries. He did get better and we have a closer relationship now (he is in his 80s).
I am thankful that my new church (after leaving my Gothard's-infused Fundamental one) encouraged me to get on with my life. I could respect Dad, but I didn't need to let him destroy me any more than he already had.
Yes! I kept things as short as possible for these articles. But fact is, I don't like giving grace any hard-and-fast definition. I think it's the Eastern Orthodox church that tends to view grace as: God giving us himself, in whatever form is needed. That shifts the focus from grace as a Thing to grace as God.
Hi Sara, I am not Eastern Orthodox, but I definitely agree that it's good to shift the focus to grace as God! We don't need things, we need Him. He is everything and all in all to us, and He has made Himself fully available as grace!
I am interested in the topic of the definition of grace. I have heard that the proper Biblical definition of grace actually goes beyond just the unmerited favor. Of course grace is unmerited by us, we do nothing of ourselves to deserve it, yet God graciously gives grace, so it definitely is unmerited favor. But the verses that mention grace actually say much more than that about what grace is. I did a search of my favorite online Bible version, the Recovery Version, at
online.recoveryversion.org
and found 128 instances of the word "grace" in the New Testament. I picked out two of them to comment on.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality.
Here it is saying that the Word, signifying Christ as the Son of God and the embodiment and expression of God on the earth, is full of grace. This has to be something beyond an unmerited gift to sinners.
A footnote to this verse in the Recovery Version says "Grace is God the Son as our enjoyment." This is a much higher definition of grace. The Word (Christ) is full of grace -- actually grace is the Word Himself coming to us to not only give us something, but actually be something and Someone to us.
Another verse is 1 Cor. 15:10: "But by the grace of God I am what I am; and His grace unto me did not turn out to be in vain, but, on the contrary, I labored more abundantly than all of them, yet not I but the grace of God which is with me."
Again, one of the footnotes on this verse says "Grace, mentioned three times in this verse, is the resurrected Christ becoming the life-giving Spirit (v. 45) to bring the processed Triune God in resurrection into us to be our life and life supply that we may live in resurrection. Thus, grace is the Triune God becoming life and everything to us."
So this is far beyond just the initial grace which comes freely to us for our initial salvation. This is something, or, again, Someone, that continues to operate in us throughout our Christian life on the earth, even operating in us to enable us to labor in the Lord's service as Paul did.
First of all Paul says that the grace of God made him what he is, and then he goes on to say that the grace enabled him to "labor more abundantly," and even actually did the laboring, if you read the verse carefully. That seems to say that grace is Christ Himself abiding in Paul to "be" Paul's laboring.
I think this perspective is very interesting, and it actually transforms my idea of what the Christian life is.
My reply to this comment ended up above.
While I read your comments, I considered that the object of the labors of Grace in Paul's life was not his own blessing but the propagation of the Good News in all the world. God was blessing ('gracing') the world through Paul: "...good works, which God himself prepared in advance for us to do". It is His work for His purposes not our works by His power for our gain.
I draw back from your personification of Grace. But I celebrate your reminding that the One Who never required Mercy was "full of Grace". I think of it more as the "deeper magic" in Chronicles of Narnia that the White Witch was unaware of. It was not a personification of either the King or the Lion, but the instrumentality of deliverance. In forgiving sin it is mercy. In works it is both cause and empowerment. But now I am confusing myself!
"It is His work for His purposes not our works by His power for our gain."
Yes, Don, I agree wholeheartedly! Of course there is nothing that is "gain" to us more than doing "His work for His purposes."
However, if we try to usurp His grace and power for our purposes, this will not end up to our gain. This reminds me of Philippians 3:7, "But what things were gains to me, these I have counted as loss on account of Christ."
Amen!
Don, it occurred to me that the next question is "What is God's work and what are His purposes?" I'm not talking about the question "What is God's will for me as an individual." I mean what is the overarching view presented to us in the Bible as to what God wants to do on earth in and through human beings. You know, why does he extend grace to us? Any thoughts?
A few thoughts: His works are not what "we" would imagine; His works are likely oriented toward "His Glory Alone" (that's my Calvinist training). For Job, it was Job's acquiescence, without an explanation, to God's purposes in his humiliation. Maybe to a degree that was also true for Jesus, to the extent that in His flesh He may have been less than fully conscious of the Eternal Plan ("He acknowledged not knowing "the day or the hour".) For me? It may be merely a deliverance from my own ideas... It may also be some impact or assistance (or lack of hindrance) that I inadvertently have on another, or even a plant or animal, that He uses later. Think of the people who likely fed and sheltered the donkey that talked to Balaam. His works. Not ours.
Grace is an attribute of God. It speaks to His nature. For us, the grace of God is the redemptive love and Truth of God expressed through Jesus Christ -- in both His heart attitude and action. Thus, grace is not merely a theological concept or a legal term. Grace is an expression of God Himself.
Definitely, David, grace is an expression of God Himself. And not only at our initial salvation, but also throughout our Christian life, He is available to us as grace. My experience is that when I sense my shortage in myself and realize that I can't go on without Him, I can call on the Lord by saying "Oh, Lord Jesus" and receive Him as grace at any time. Hebrews 4:16 says "Let us therefore come forward with boldness to the throne of grace that we may receive mercy and find grace for timely help." I absolutely love the footnote on this in the online Recovery Version that I referenced above.
In your discussion about legalism and keeping the law for temporal benefits, how does this differ from the "Third User of the Law" as described by The Gospel Coalition? I find this whole idea very confusing.
Sorry "third use"
Any time it is us using, rather than Him, we are probably off track!
Just checked the Westminster Confession and it talks alot about the moral law being a "rule" for believers. Here is some of the WCF:
"...It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.
Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done."
I'm not sure that is a refutation of Gothard's approach, but I do take the spirit of it reflected in "sweetly". It is probably better to relate any discussion of law (Christ having fulfilled all!) to the role of the Spirit in this age: To convict the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgement. I have no doubt the law is an instrumentality of these purposes. But "our" uses may not more than approximate these things.
For a different perspective on the place of the Law in the life a Christian (which differs from the Reformed one as expressed in the Westminister Confession), check out this article from the pastor of Middletown Bible Church: "WHAT IS THE BELIEVER’S RULE OF LIFE? What Part and Place
does the Law have in Sanctification? Is the Key to Living the Christian Life Found at Mount Sinai or at Mount Calvary?" Link: http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/rulelife.htm
Also, see the late Dr. Alva J. McClain's book, "Law and Grace." (Dr. McClain was the founder and first president of Grace Theological Seminary.)Link: http://www.amazon.com/Law-Grace-Alva-J-McClain/dp/0884690016/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1451333582&sr=1-1&keywords=law+and+grace
"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace." (Romans 6:14)
"But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:6)
"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." (Colossians 2:13-14)
David and Grace,
I think your observations about the nature and meaning of "grace" are spot on. In Eastern Orthodoxy, we recognize grace (and all other facets of God) as inseparable from the Person and Presence of God Himself. Traditionally, in Orthodoxy we don't so much speak in terms of the "attributes" of God (which is to talk about God in terms of abstract categorizations), but rather recognize we encounter God in His "energies", which can be summed up His loving, Self-giving action toward us most fully revealed and expressed in Christ. But these "energies" of God are God Himself as we encounter Him in Christ by the activity of the Holy Spirit in His Church and in our lives.
I read of IBLP's "stricter standards" that they hold rape victims to for supposedly having needed to take command of the situation instigated by their assaulter.
And it reminds me of when Paul was chastising the Corinthians for going around saying: "I am of Paul", or, "I am of Appolos", trying to one-up each other. He also addressed those who had made sure they got in the last word by saying: "I am of Christ". After all, regardless of their dropping the name of the best Person of them all, they were still guilty of the exact same pride.
When those running DG say they have this "stricter standard" for rape victim's "guilt", they are not aligning themselves with anyone in the Bible or any principle in the Bible. It's not a matter of identification, it's a matter of comparison......."strict-ER" = "more strict than _________". But they won't come out and say that their standard is higher than any standard in the Bible. Nonetheless, they're claiming to hold to more righteousness than that of God's Law & the Bible's record of HIS judgements in presiding over that law of the ancient land of Israel. Not to mention how oblivious to new covenant grace it is to insist on legalism that's way beyond law; according to Paul, legalism was holding the law AS-IS over people's heads (whole book of Galations, parts of Acts). And, not to mention Christ's lack of condemnation in ministering to all-&-out hookers even before He allowed Himself to be crucified so as to nail the law to the cross.
I wonder what Paul would have written to the Corinthians if they had among them those going around saying, instead of: "I am of Christ"............."I am better than God."
It just struck me how the teachings were contradicatory: what if he rapist was an authority? Submit or cry out in disobedience?
This was a great article as the discussion has shown. I was struck by the repeated expression, accurately surmised from Gothard's teachings: God "EXPECTS". But didn't Gothard teach us that expectations destroy relationships? If so, all these "expectations" of God surely destroy our relationship with Him. Oh well, we can always play footsie with Bill if we get lonely.
"Achieve" is a key word skipped over our discussion: "In reality, we are all sinners and only able to achieve righteousness by God’s grace”. "Achieve" shows that Gothard was works oriented. He sought and taught for the Christian to "achieve". He used God as the means, but it was man's achievements that were the goal: works of the flesh, not of the spirit, that every ATIA student could boast. Or at least Bill could. Humble Bill. Achievement driven Bill. Successful Bill. He who still promises success to those who follow after him.
Also noted his was actually saying that wrong use of the law is legalism, but I use the law rightly so I'm not using it wrongly so I'm not a legalist. Hey, Bill, being of works is WORSE than mere legalism but the two are actually inextricable from one another.
I want something NOT OF WORKS. That is what I need.
If Mr. Gothard wants to tell us about the temporal benefits of following the law, where is his beard, his kippah, and the like? Tell me what kosher haberdasher he patronizes so he doesn't get a suit out of mixed fibers. If he wants to tell us not to eat pork, what do we make of Acts 10:9-16, Matthew 15:11, Mark 7:19, and the like?
Really, when someone tells me that they have a stricter (higher) standard than the one God set up in His Word, I can only say "exactly how is this possible?"
There you go, wrongly using the law, Bert! If B.G. doesn't teach it, it is not a right use of the law. HE is the definitive and you are questioning his authority and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft so anyone with a beard is a witch!
On the other hand, seeing that God says we can't meet any standard (the Gentile is condemned without the law, the Jew under the law) the entire view of 'higher standard' is only the view of one for whom the cross is a stumbling block. "...lest any man could boast". Merely proclaiming a "higher standard" is boasting. (And it is comparative righteousness as well: II Cor. 10:12)
I think one of the mistakes we make as Christians is turning God's promises into principles, and those principles into rules, which if we don't abide by them we will miss the favor of God. "You didn't honor your parents? You're going to die at a young age." "You didn't seek God today? He's not going to add all things unto you." But we gain favor through His Son and by being His sons and daughters. Grace isn't for obedience to gain favor, grace is that favor, the light of His countenance shining down on us. Unmerited, undeserved, unworked for. Those promises are for hope that God keeps His word, not for fear that if you don't do A,B, & C He'll zap you with a lightning bolt, or withhold His grace until you obey. He's not that kind of Father.
This has been so helpful to me. I thought parents and ex students might be helped as well.
https://libertyforcaptives.com/2016/04/04/breaking-the-chains-of-legalistic-parenting/
Theological context aside, "a woman who does not cry out" is probably in shock,in fear for her life, or is being told by her rapist that "if she makes a sound he will kill her/her parents".
He is actively creating a situation that puts a child or person in this situation in possibly greater danger. In other cases, the victim may be unconscious or groomed to be sexually submissive by their abuser.
And since his teachings make the father the absolute God-head over the child, what if the father is the rapist? The boy or girl will have been taught not to dare disobey or even talk back, much less scream.
I think this is interesting in light of the metoo zeitgeist, and the military reformations of how assaults are handled. The military uses a youtube video where tea is used as a metaphor for sex. Let's say someone offers you tea and you accept. Maybe you even have a cup willingly. But at some point, you don't care for the taste or decide you don't want tea after all, would a normal tea-server proceed to forcibly pour unwanted tea down your throat?
I simply don't agree with this point: "If a woman doesn’t cry out when she’s raped, God holds her equally guilty with her attacker." The reason is; it is not necessarily about screaming out. God looks at the heart or the intention of the person in question before he judges:
"I, the LORD, probe into people’s minds. I examine people’s hearts. I deal with each person according to how he has behaved. I give them what they deserve based on what they have done" Jeremiah 17:10 NET
In addition, the Bible has made it clear that our works can not save us. It is only the grace of God that can give Salvation through Christ Jesus - Titus 3:6
I had a conversation about this with a friend just last night. (This friend comes from a Gothard background). The problem that arises here arises because this argument seems to be taken from Levitical law.
The passage in question is Deuteronomy 22:23-39. The passage lays down the law about sexual assault in three cases. In the first case, the woman who does not cry out is indeed considered guilty and stoned. But it is not the case in either of the other two, regardless of whether she cries or not.
We have to ask ourselves why this one case is different and warrants such a burden of guilt on the woman. The text likely answers that for us. These three cases deal with certain situations. In the first, it is a betrothed woman who goes into the city. In the second, it is a betrothed woman in the field working, and in the last, the woman is not betrothed but in the field working.
In these three cases, the phrase "force her" appears only once, and it is in the second case -the betrothed woman in the field. The more general phrase "lie with her" is used in the other two. That isn't an accident either. The Hebrew words are different. They mean different things, which is why the translation reflects that.
So what is happening in this first instance which would render the nonvocal woman worthy of death? Well many commentators have weighed in on it and many believe this is not rape but adultery. The woman does not cry out because she has sought it, and being betrothed, it is a serious deal.
There is likely an element of culture here that we do not properly understand. I suspect it has to do with Jewish marriage rites. A betrothed woman could have already gone through the wedding ceremony but not yet be physically joined or living with her spouse.
Remember, Joseph did not want to make a public example of Mary. He wanted to put her away privately.
This is likely a connection to this Levitical law.
In any case, the law is far far more complex than Gothard ever taught. It is probably yet another instance of him seeing something obscure in Scripture, taking it out if context, and teaching it as some important doctrine.
This more than just cause for alarm. He has wielded Scripture as a child who found his father's gun.
"It is probably yet another instance of him seeing something obscure in Scripture, taking it out if context, and teaching it as some important doctrine."
Yes it is. This was his MO.
"He has wielded Scripture as a child who found his father's gun."
Well put. In his hands, Scripture became a weapon to do harm.
You know, I love these posts. I've been reading them for a long time (6+ years now).
I completely agree with this, but I confess I was a little upset when I got to the end.
I was hoping this would be a good answer for Gothard's teaching listed above, about the woman who doesn't cry out in rape being held equally responsible as the attacker.
I was really hoping I could see someone respond to this claim, as I personally have many friends that make it regularly in the circles within which I run.
Don't misunderstand me. This inner examination of Gothard's definition of grace is GREAT. I love this refutation. It is good and thoroughly necessary.
But can we get a response to that opening teaching? I could benefit from it. Or does one exist and I just haven't seen it yet? If possible, does an answer from a conservative or Fundamentalist source exist? That would go even farther in the groups I run in.
Thanks and God bless