Thursday, January 26, 2006
Update on Articles about Gothard
By now I had hoped to have yet another installment for my series of articles about Gothardism, but time and life's demands have not allowed me to do so. Nonetheless, I will be back with another article as I promised. And I may have more stuff to cite, since I have been very fortunate to have recently come into possession of a wealth of Gothard's writings and stuff offered on eBay. Mind you, I am not saying that the material itself is worth much, but to get my hands on the seminar books and literature is a feat in itself, as Gothard is somewhat stingy with the dissemination of his literature, a fact that I chided him about in an earlier article. So now I have a box full of material to cite and critique - and my very own Red Book! Gerin Woodbury, a deacon in our church, has already previewed the stuff, and informs me that it is awful stuff to read. I knew that already, of course, but it is good to have the words from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I want to thank Cyber Mom [Di Woodbury] for her expertise in searching the Web for those materials. She may not be omniscient, but, beware, she seems to see all! Maybe she is working for NSA or something, and has access to a spy satellite. Thanks, Di and Gerin, for your fine work and support.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
The Most Well Known Bible Verse in the World
I am sure that when you read that title, you likely thought immediately of John 3:16 or Psalm 23. Psalm 23 was once the most memorized passage of Scripture, for sure. But over the centuries, that habit has fallen by the wayside, it seems. But do not think that the use of the Bible has waned much, for the Scripture that we mean in this article is neither of these. The verse we mean is Matt. 7:1: “Judge not lest you be judged.” In my experience, this verse is the most well known and used by people across the world. Why do you say that, you ask? Ah, because even millions of non-believers use this one! In fact, it is the favorite verse to cast in the Christian’s teeth, if you will, and is used by not only Christian believers but mostly by those who are not believers at all, when they think that believers are being judgmental of their wicked lives and behaviors. There is no sin so wicked that when they are called to task on it, they immediately and with the proverbial knee-jerk reaction, quote this verse to chastise the Christian for any criticism of their sinful behaviors. “Judge not lest you be judged,” they say, to excuse their sins of sexual perversion, promiscuity, licentiousness, greed, hatred, fleshly indulgences, and the like -- the list is endless.
What disturbs me most of all, though, is that believers themselves, failing to use proper discernment and proper Biblical interpretation, are far too quick to agree with their unbelieving friends and acquaintances. So they bow their heads in shame and come to believe that they are in fact the hypocrites that the unbelievers say they are. The irony is that the wicked sinner is casting Matt. 7:1 in our teeth while at the very same time violating that same scripture by doing the very thing that it condemns: judging the Christian as a hypocrite. That kind of contradiction does not surprise me in the least, for in my worldview, the unbeliever is in fact irrational and contradictory in the very way they think and reason. The lost sinner in a most real way suffers from a variety of insanity, and has turned reason on its head, really. But that is another article for later. For now, I want to try to clarify the way in which this text is sorely misused and misunderstood so that the reader of the Bible is not mislead by so much ignorance. We shall do a brief exegesis of that passage [for Matt. 7:1 is part of a larger passage, not just a “proof text” for unbelievers]. How silly it seems to me to have unbelievers using Scripture as their source of authority when they actually reject the God and Savior who authored the Bible and spoke Matt. 7:1 Himself!
Context, Context, Context.
This is a maxim that every student of the Bible learns early on in their study of the Holy Scriptures. It is but one of a larger number of hermeneutical [interpretive] principles employed in proper interpretation of the Bible. Indeed, even profane and secular literature must be understood with reference to standards of interpretation, and the Bible is no less so. It is to do violence to the text to rip it out of its context and interpret it in one’s own idiosyncratic way. It is to understand the text in its context that will yield the right interpretation. Also, this principle of interpretation must be used in unison with the principle of the analogy of Scripture, which put colloquially is the principle that scripture interprets scripture or that scripture is its own interpreter. Though there are quite a number of other standards and criteria for sound and proper interpretation, these two are most important in the use [misuse?] of Matt. 7:1. Let us take a look.
First, we must understand the distant and the near context of Christ’s words in Matt. 7:1. Even a brief look at chapters five through seven will reveal that this discourse is part of what is commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount, which Christ delivered shortly after beginning his public ministry. It was directed at his disciples, not the multitudes:
“And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain; and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying”-- [Matt. 5:1]
In other words, it would seem that he purposely sought a retreat of sorts in the hill country where he would teach those who were fully committed to following him. I do not believe that we can force the meaning of the word disciple as meaning those who were true Christians, but rather those of the multitude who were fully committed to following him. But suffice it to say here that he was speaking to those who were of the persuasion to follow him and believe his words. I can tell you, many of those who cast this verse in our teeth are not of that sort!
Now, we must determine and set the near context. Jesus had just concluded a passage in which he condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees [Matt. 6: 1-18] and taught them of the way that we are to think and act in the Kingdom of God (Matt. 6: 19-34). So, Matt. 7:5, just four verses from our text of Matt. 7:1 cries out, “Thou hypocrite …”, showing that this text is still part of the larger context of Christ’s teaching about hypocrisy in his discourse.
So, What Does He Mean, Then?
First, what he doesn’t mean.
Well, it is for certain, right off the bat, that this verse does not forbid any judging of any kind, which is what the common user of this text is trying to make it say. The text simply will not allow such an interpretation. In fact, the moral distinctions that are made in the same discourse demand and require that decisive judgments be made. Jesus himself demonstrates this when he calls some hypocrites [I suspect that the Pharisees were his intended target, but also to all such persons who are judgmental, by natural extension] dogs and pigs [Matt. 7:6]! He also warns against false prophets in Matt. 7: 15-20, which by its very nature requires judgments to be made about the truth or falsity of their teaching -- and their behavior (“by their fruits you shall know them”).
Additionally, Jesus elsewhere specifically and explicitly calls upon believers to make judgments:
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” [John 7:24]
Closely related to that text is 1 Cor. 5:3-5, where Paul is instructing (chastising?) the Corinthians for their neglect in judging sinfulness in their ranks.
“For verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that has do done this deed, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a person unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
So, it would seem that the Apostle Paul, inspired writer of more than half of the New Testament, is quite willing to judge a person who has sinned, even if he had not so much as met the person! How that does seem to contradict the profane use of Matt. 7:1! Not only is he ready to judge the person and “deliver such a one unto Satan,” but he severely chides the Corinthians for not doing this themselves sooner. At another place, Paul again shows the proper place and attitude of godly judgment:
“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another Gospel: which is not another; but there be some of that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” [Galatians 1:6-8]
It would seem that the unbelievers and others who cast Matt. 7:1 in our teeth when we condemn sin or falsehood are not reading the same Book as we. But that is not all; there are many more examples. We will list but a couple more.
“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.” Phil. 3:2
Here Paul the Apostle is still ready to call some dogs and evil workers. Pardon me, but I think that might be a judgment about their character and motives! It takes some judgment to characterize false teachers and evil doers as dogs. And lest you think that Paul is not aiming his judgment at particular folks, you should know that almost every commentator would agree that Paul was aiming his remarks and charges at a group of Jews that followed after Paul from place to place to try to undo his work. He was judging the Jews who were teaching that Christians must be circumcised just like Jews.
One more:
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God; because many false prophets are gone into the world.” [1 John 4:1]
Again, John, along with Paul, mandates that judgments be made about what teachers and preachers say and teach, using discerning judgments, but surely decisive judgments, too. Many other texts could be cited, but I think I have made my point - and my case, I trust.
Now, what it does mean.
What Jesus is teaching in Matt. 7:1 is that Christians are not to be judgmental and censorious. Making proper and decisive judgments is a far cry from being censoriously judgmental. The Greek word KRINO [“judge”] used in Matt. 7:1 has the same force at Romans 14: 12-13:
“For it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knew shall bow to me and every tongue confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.”
See? It has to do with first judging yourself, and seeing yourself in the proper light. That tends to make a person less judgmental. Also, we must answer to God for our judgments, for “with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.” In other words, make righteous judgments based on sound Biblical teaching, and not censorious, judgmental judgments. What Jesus is teaching is that making judgmental, censorious judgments is not being forgiving and loving, but is showing one’s own arrogance and impenitence, and is therefore shut out from the forgiveness of God. That should give everyone who would cast Matt. 7:1 in our teeth pause, for in reality, they are committing the very evil which the text condemns and warns against, and even to the point that they lock themselves out of the forgiveness of God with such tactics.
D.A. Carson, in his comments on this verse and quoting John Stott, seems to capture the case accurately:
“Here the command to judge not is not a requirement to be blind, but rather a plea to be generous. Jesus does not tell us to cease to be men (by suspending our critical powers which help distinguish us from animals) but to renounce the presumptuous ambition to be God (by setting ourselves up as judges).” [Quote is from Stott, and quoted in Carson, D.A. Commentary on Matthew, vol. 1, page 184]
I would hope that our brief exegesis and explanation of the proper interpretation of this text would extinguish the improper use of the text by not only believers but unbelievers. But, alas, it is not likely to be the case! It seems that we shall forever be refuting the misunderstanding and the misapplication of this verse, which is really a very wonderful verse, properly understood and applied to the Christian life. It is designed to prevent us from being reactive to any and every foible in others. But it in no way prohibits or disallows proper godly discerning judgment. Indeed, without that, we are hopelessly lost in carrying out the mandate of our faith - to live godly lives that bring honor to Jesus Christ our Lord.
What disturbs me most of all, though, is that believers themselves, failing to use proper discernment and proper Biblical interpretation, are far too quick to agree with their unbelieving friends and acquaintances. So they bow their heads in shame and come to believe that they are in fact the hypocrites that the unbelievers say they are. The irony is that the wicked sinner is casting Matt. 7:1 in our teeth while at the very same time violating that same scripture by doing the very thing that it condemns: judging the Christian as a hypocrite. That kind of contradiction does not surprise me in the least, for in my worldview, the unbeliever is in fact irrational and contradictory in the very way they think and reason. The lost sinner in a most real way suffers from a variety of insanity, and has turned reason on its head, really. But that is another article for later. For now, I want to try to clarify the way in which this text is sorely misused and misunderstood so that the reader of the Bible is not mislead by so much ignorance. We shall do a brief exegesis of that passage [for Matt. 7:1 is part of a larger passage, not just a “proof text” for unbelievers]. How silly it seems to me to have unbelievers using Scripture as their source of authority when they actually reject the God and Savior who authored the Bible and spoke Matt. 7:1 Himself!
Context, Context, Context.
This is a maxim that every student of the Bible learns early on in their study of the Holy Scriptures. It is but one of a larger number of hermeneutical [interpretive] principles employed in proper interpretation of the Bible. Indeed, even profane and secular literature must be understood with reference to standards of interpretation, and the Bible is no less so. It is to do violence to the text to rip it out of its context and interpret it in one’s own idiosyncratic way. It is to understand the text in its context that will yield the right interpretation. Also, this principle of interpretation must be used in unison with the principle of the analogy of Scripture, which put colloquially is the principle that scripture interprets scripture or that scripture is its own interpreter. Though there are quite a number of other standards and criteria for sound and proper interpretation, these two are most important in the use [misuse?] of Matt. 7:1. Let us take a look.
First, we must understand the distant and the near context of Christ’s words in Matt. 7:1. Even a brief look at chapters five through seven will reveal that this discourse is part of what is commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount, which Christ delivered shortly after beginning his public ministry. It was directed at his disciples, not the multitudes:
“And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain; and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying”-- [Matt. 5:1]
In other words, it would seem that he purposely sought a retreat of sorts in the hill country where he would teach those who were fully committed to following him. I do not believe that we can force the meaning of the word disciple as meaning those who were true Christians, but rather those of the multitude who were fully committed to following him. But suffice it to say here that he was speaking to those who were of the persuasion to follow him and believe his words. I can tell you, many of those who cast this verse in our teeth are not of that sort!
Now, we must determine and set the near context. Jesus had just concluded a passage in which he condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees [Matt. 6: 1-18] and taught them of the way that we are to think and act in the Kingdom of God (Matt. 6: 19-34). So, Matt. 7:5, just four verses from our text of Matt. 7:1 cries out, “Thou hypocrite …”, showing that this text is still part of the larger context of Christ’s teaching about hypocrisy in his discourse.
So, What Does He Mean, Then?
First, what he doesn’t mean.
Well, it is for certain, right off the bat, that this verse does not forbid any judging of any kind, which is what the common user of this text is trying to make it say. The text simply will not allow such an interpretation. In fact, the moral distinctions that are made in the same discourse demand and require that decisive judgments be made. Jesus himself demonstrates this when he calls some hypocrites [I suspect that the Pharisees were his intended target, but also to all such persons who are judgmental, by natural extension] dogs and pigs [Matt. 7:6]! He also warns against false prophets in Matt. 7: 15-20, which by its very nature requires judgments to be made about the truth or falsity of their teaching -- and their behavior (“by their fruits you shall know them”).
Additionally, Jesus elsewhere specifically and explicitly calls upon believers to make judgments:
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” [John 7:24]
Closely related to that text is 1 Cor. 5:3-5, where Paul is instructing (chastising?) the Corinthians for their neglect in judging sinfulness in their ranks.
“For verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that has do done this deed, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a person unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
So, it would seem that the Apostle Paul, inspired writer of more than half of the New Testament, is quite willing to judge a person who has sinned, even if he had not so much as met the person! How that does seem to contradict the profane use of Matt. 7:1! Not only is he ready to judge the person and “deliver such a one unto Satan,” but he severely chides the Corinthians for not doing this themselves sooner. At another place, Paul again shows the proper place and attitude of godly judgment:
“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another Gospel: which is not another; but there be some of that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” [Galatians 1:6-8]
It would seem that the unbelievers and others who cast Matt. 7:1 in our teeth when we condemn sin or falsehood are not reading the same Book as we. But that is not all; there are many more examples. We will list but a couple more.
“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.” Phil. 3:2
Here Paul the Apostle is still ready to call some dogs and evil workers. Pardon me, but I think that might be a judgment about their character and motives! It takes some judgment to characterize false teachers and evil doers as dogs. And lest you think that Paul is not aiming his judgment at particular folks, you should know that almost every commentator would agree that Paul was aiming his remarks and charges at a group of Jews that followed after Paul from place to place to try to undo his work. He was judging the Jews who were teaching that Christians must be circumcised just like Jews.
One more:
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God; because many false prophets are gone into the world.” [1 John 4:1]
Again, John, along with Paul, mandates that judgments be made about what teachers and preachers say and teach, using discerning judgments, but surely decisive judgments, too. Many other texts could be cited, but I think I have made my point - and my case, I trust.
Now, what it does mean.
What Jesus is teaching in Matt. 7:1 is that Christians are not to be judgmental and censorious. Making proper and decisive judgments is a far cry from being censoriously judgmental. The Greek word KRINO [“judge”] used in Matt. 7:1 has the same force at Romans 14: 12-13:
“For it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knew shall bow to me and every tongue confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.”
See? It has to do with first judging yourself, and seeing yourself in the proper light. That tends to make a person less judgmental. Also, we must answer to God for our judgments, for “with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.” In other words, make righteous judgments based on sound Biblical teaching, and not censorious, judgmental judgments. What Jesus is teaching is that making judgmental, censorious judgments is not being forgiving and loving, but is showing one’s own arrogance and impenitence, and is therefore shut out from the forgiveness of God. That should give everyone who would cast Matt. 7:1 in our teeth pause, for in reality, they are committing the very evil which the text condemns and warns against, and even to the point that they lock themselves out of the forgiveness of God with such tactics.
D.A. Carson, in his comments on this verse and quoting John Stott, seems to capture the case accurately:
“Here the command to judge not is not a requirement to be blind, but rather a plea to be generous. Jesus does not tell us to cease to be men (by suspending our critical powers which help distinguish us from animals) but to renounce the presumptuous ambition to be God (by setting ourselves up as judges).” [Quote is from Stott, and quoted in Carson, D.A. Commentary on Matthew, vol. 1, page 184]
I would hope that our brief exegesis and explanation of the proper interpretation of this text would extinguish the improper use of the text by not only believers but unbelievers. But, alas, it is not likely to be the case! It seems that we shall forever be refuting the misunderstanding and the misapplication of this verse, which is really a very wonderful verse, properly understood and applied to the Christian life. It is designed to prevent us from being reactive to any and every foible in others. But it in no way prohibits or disallows proper godly discerning judgment. Indeed, without that, we are hopelessly lost in carrying out the mandate of our faith - to live godly lives that bring honor to Jesus Christ our Lord.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Gothardism: Biblical Exegesis or Peddling the Gospel for a Profit?
Devil: “If you are the son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written:
‘He shall give His angels charge over you,”
and,
‘In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ”
Jesus: “It is also written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’ ”
This interaction between Satan and Jesus shortly after Christ’s baptism is precisely instructive in understanding the way in which Satan used Holy Scriptures and how our Lord also used them. I believe that this encounter also gives us clear insight into how Bill Gothard does Biblical interpretation, and sadly it is not in the manner in which Christ did, so that leaves the reader to surmise which tact that Gothard takes.
Indeed, as we mentioned in our previous article, the basis for just about all of Gothardism’s “various and strange doctrines” [Heb. 13:9] is his interpretation of the Word of God. When one thinks about it, this should not surprise us, for the Bible as the Word of God is a critical and indispensable doctrine of evangelicalism and if one is going to deal with the evangelical community, one must at least do some deference to the Word of God, the Bible. Even cultists like Jim Jones, David Korsesh, though entirely antithetical to the faith of Christ, almost necessarily use Scriptures to craft each of their idiosyncratic views of reality. And what surprise? None, for that is exactly what Satan was doing in his encounter with Jesus Christ in the wilderness when Jesus Christ was subjected to testing by the greatest of deceivers, yet without sin.
It is the opinion of this writer that Bill Gothard’s treatment of Holy Writ is quite similar, if not identical, to the way in which Satan employed the Word of God in his encounter with Jesus. Lest the reader think I am stretching the case, let me remind the reader that the Devil was quoting Psalm 91: 11, 12, and doing so in such a way that even the conservative Baptist scholar D.A. Carson says:
“Satan quoted Psalm. 91: 11-12, from the LXX, omitting the words ‘to guard you in all your ways.’ The omission itself does not prove he handled the Scriptures deceitfully.. since the quotation is well within the range of common NT citation patterns.” [D.A. Carson, Expositor's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 1, page 113]
In other words, Satan was not using the Scriptures any more wrongly than your local Baptist preacher might. His deceit lay somewhere else. Carson continues:
“Satan’s deceit lay in misapplying his quotation into a temptation that easily traps the devout mind by apparently warranting what might otherwise be thought sinful.” [ibid; emphases mine]
Bingo. Carson has with these words caught Bill Gothard barehanded. His writings reveal that it is this ploy that has been used repeatedly over the years to dupe otherwise intelligent evangelicals to believe and practice unbiblical things. It will be my goal to make this deceit [I know that is a strong word, but that is what I think it is, just as in the case of Satan] apparent to the evangelical community that has not shown much discernment in this matter over the last 30 or 40 years.
The ease in which evangelicals were/are duped into following such obvious unbiblical practices is still to me a stunning phenomenon, for Gothard’s misuse of the Word of God is so obvious and blatant that most of our church members would have immediately hoisted red flags of warning just hearing them spoken or seeing them written. But diabolical interpretation [I will coin this phrase solely for the purpose of this series of articles to denote the method of Bible “exegesis” employed commonly by Bill Gothard] is extremely alluring, having the appearance of orthodoxy and yet inside it is full of putrefying things. On one level, I want to excuse the millions of evangelicals who were duped into following Gothard on the basis of what I have just said: diabolical interpretation is seductive and alluring to the unwary and unskilled person. On the other hand, I want to severely chastise and accuse the leaders of those millions of sheep for malfeasance of their calling, for they are called to protect and care for the sheep, not to subject them to the abuse of false prophets, just because those false prophets quote a little Scripture and sell a few books or seminars. Their neglect and failure cries out for some kind of justice, really, but I will leave that to our Lord, who I believe has a very severe judgment reserved for the shepherds of the sheep. May God and Jesus Christ rebuke them in accordance to their works. As for me, I will respond to that which presents itself to my own life and ministry with the attitude expressed by the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 10:3-6:
“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.”
Now, before I begin to detail the diabolical interpretation employed by Gothard, I want to make a second point. Reviewing a huge amount of literature already, and taxing my speed-reading abilities to the max, I find an attitude among the critics of Gothard that is, in my view, seems gracious and fair but is entirely wrong and false; that is, the notion that we must somehow cull out the good from what Gothard teaches and discard the bad. Some critics were almost apologetic in their critique, wanting to appear fair and impartial in their criticism. As I read this over and over again, I began to wonder why the inordinate attention to this issue? Of course our critique of heresy must not be cruel, mean-spirited or inhumane, but we also are not to have all that much latitude with heresy, either. As I read more, I then was able to surmise that this had been a huge issue in the earlier years, as when a man had written a book about Gothard. The book, written by Wilfred Bockelman, “Gothard, The Man and His Ministry; an Evaluation,” was published and delivered to a number of books stores but soon encountered a backlash from Gothardites all over the country. It seems that the book was in fact fairly favorable to Gothard and his ministry, but it contained a section that called into question the very issue with which we are dealing with here: Gothard’s questionable exegesis/interpretation of Scripture. The history of that event is a sad one indeed, as the book was pretty much censored by the evangelical community, the books stores actually sending boxes of the book back to the publishing house unopened, all apparently based on a reaction to even the smallest and even scholarly criticism of any aspect of Gothard and/or his ministry.
Also, in personal dealings with other critics, Gothard has invoked Matthew 18: 15-17 to quell any public criticism, using his familiar diabolical interpretation in the very process, by wresting his own viewpoint out of a passage of Scripture that has nothing to do with the instant case of his public abuse of the Bible and of the church of God. Many have been cowed by his intimidation and fallen victim to accepting his mistaken view of criticism of fellow believers. Frankly, I am not sure any of this applies, for I am not nearly so liberal as most critics, and confess that I am not at all sure that Gothard is a regenerate man at all; indeed, his teachings almost persuade me that he is not. Nonetheless, I will leave that question also unanswered here, though my own suspicions are obvious.
Homey don’t play dat!
But I do not buy his diabolical ploy to quell any and all criticism. Honest ministry and scholarship yields itself to the test of criticism and review by others. This is a reality that Gothard appears not to believe, for his approach to his ministry is secretive and illusive. He says that “If someone wants to know what we teach, let them come to the seminars.” No thanks. Rather, submit your teachings to public examination and then I will have some reasonable knowledge to decide if I would desire to attend your seminars -- or not, perhaps. When a person holds themselves out as the voice of God [Gothard does], and presents himself as an authority in matters of the faith, he is by definition subject to review, assessment and critique. I would suggest that he buck up and stop complaining about those who wish to pick a bone with him. It depends, of course, as to whether his critics have a leg to stand on. If not, then they themselves are as guilty of deception and poor manners as is Gothard himself. But if there are thoughtful and accurate criticisms of Gothardism, let them all be considered, I say. The Gospel is of no private interpretation, the Word of God says. Even the Apostle Paul, a divinely inspired writer, was subjected to the thoughtful and careful critique of the believers at Berea, so that today be known as a Berean is to be recognized as one who is thoughtful and careful in evaluating teachers and all those who hold themselves out as men of God.
But I go further in my view. I think that it is actually improper to talk of “taking the bad with the good,” or that Gothard’s ideas contain some small element of truth and therefore we ought to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That might be an acceptable aphorism, rightly applied to some situations. But when applied to the issue of Biblical interpretation and application, it is a deadly deception. Indeed, though Satan was accurately quoting Scripture, his intent was devious and deceitful. At the end of that encounter, Jesus retorted:
“Away with you, Satan!”
Apparently Jesus did not share the same largess that Gothard’s critics seem to have. Corrupt teaching cannot be salvaged by an appeal to some small good that seems to be contained somewhere therein. That would be the same as to suggest that the admonition of “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die,” would be something to salvage from a pagan philosophy because it contains something of the Word of God! Well, I say as the Apostle Paul was apt to say it: “God forbid!” If a man is a false prophet, we are not to pay attention to anything he says, and we are to discard and avoid his teaching altogether. Anything less is, in my own opinion, an invitation to confusion, abuse and spiritual destruction. The question, of course, is whether or not Gothard is a false teacher. I maintain that he is, and that his diabolical interpretation of the Word of God proves that he employs the same method of handling the Scriptures as did Satan in his encounter with Christ. A serious charge indeed, but as they say, if the shoe fits --
Next article: Diabolical Biblical interpretation: Opinion made into Scripture
‘He shall give His angels charge over you,”
and,
‘In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ”
Jesus: “It is also written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’ ”
This interaction between Satan and Jesus shortly after Christ’s baptism is precisely instructive in understanding the way in which Satan used Holy Scriptures and how our Lord also used them. I believe that this encounter also gives us clear insight into how Bill Gothard does Biblical interpretation, and sadly it is not in the manner in which Christ did, so that leaves the reader to surmise which tact that Gothard takes.
Indeed, as we mentioned in our previous article, the basis for just about all of Gothardism’s “various and strange doctrines” [Heb. 13:9] is his interpretation of the Word of God. When one thinks about it, this should not surprise us, for the Bible as the Word of God is a critical and indispensable doctrine of evangelicalism and if one is going to deal with the evangelical community, one must at least do some deference to the Word of God, the Bible. Even cultists like Jim Jones, David Korsesh, though entirely antithetical to the faith of Christ, almost necessarily use Scriptures to craft each of their idiosyncratic views of reality. And what surprise? None, for that is exactly what Satan was doing in his encounter with Jesus Christ in the wilderness when Jesus Christ was subjected to testing by the greatest of deceivers, yet without sin.
It is the opinion of this writer that Bill Gothard’s treatment of Holy Writ is quite similar, if not identical, to the way in which Satan employed the Word of God in his encounter with Jesus. Lest the reader think I am stretching the case, let me remind the reader that the Devil was quoting Psalm 91: 11, 12, and doing so in such a way that even the conservative Baptist scholar D.A. Carson says:
“Satan quoted Psalm. 91: 11-12, from the LXX, omitting the words ‘to guard you in all your ways.’ The omission itself does not prove he handled the Scriptures deceitfully.. since the quotation is well within the range of common NT citation patterns.” [D.A. Carson, Expositor's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 1, page 113]
In other words, Satan was not using the Scriptures any more wrongly than your local Baptist preacher might. His deceit lay somewhere else. Carson continues:
“Satan’s deceit lay in misapplying his quotation into a temptation that easily traps the devout mind by apparently warranting what might otherwise be thought sinful.” [ibid; emphases mine]
Bingo. Carson has with these words caught Bill Gothard barehanded. His writings reveal that it is this ploy that has been used repeatedly over the years to dupe otherwise intelligent evangelicals to believe and practice unbiblical things. It will be my goal to make this deceit [I know that is a strong word, but that is what I think it is, just as in the case of Satan] apparent to the evangelical community that has not shown much discernment in this matter over the last 30 or 40 years.
The ease in which evangelicals were/are duped into following such obvious unbiblical practices is still to me a stunning phenomenon, for Gothard’s misuse of the Word of God is so obvious and blatant that most of our church members would have immediately hoisted red flags of warning just hearing them spoken or seeing them written. But diabolical interpretation [I will coin this phrase solely for the purpose of this series of articles to denote the method of Bible “exegesis” employed commonly by Bill Gothard] is extremely alluring, having the appearance of orthodoxy and yet inside it is full of putrefying things. On one level, I want to excuse the millions of evangelicals who were duped into following Gothard on the basis of what I have just said: diabolical interpretation is seductive and alluring to the unwary and unskilled person. On the other hand, I want to severely chastise and accuse the leaders of those millions of sheep for malfeasance of their calling, for they are called to protect and care for the sheep, not to subject them to the abuse of false prophets, just because those false prophets quote a little Scripture and sell a few books or seminars. Their neglect and failure cries out for some kind of justice, really, but I will leave that to our Lord, who I believe has a very severe judgment reserved for the shepherds of the sheep. May God and Jesus Christ rebuke them in accordance to their works. As for me, I will respond to that which presents itself to my own life and ministry with the attitude expressed by the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 10:3-6:
“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.”
Now, before I begin to detail the diabolical interpretation employed by Gothard, I want to make a second point. Reviewing a huge amount of literature already, and taxing my speed-reading abilities to the max, I find an attitude among the critics of Gothard that is, in my view, seems gracious and fair but is entirely wrong and false; that is, the notion that we must somehow cull out the good from what Gothard teaches and discard the bad. Some critics were almost apologetic in their critique, wanting to appear fair and impartial in their criticism. As I read this over and over again, I began to wonder why the inordinate attention to this issue? Of course our critique of heresy must not be cruel, mean-spirited or inhumane, but we also are not to have all that much latitude with heresy, either. As I read more, I then was able to surmise that this had been a huge issue in the earlier years, as when a man had written a book about Gothard. The book, written by Wilfred Bockelman, “Gothard, The Man and His Ministry; an Evaluation,” was published and delivered to a number of books stores but soon encountered a backlash from Gothardites all over the country. It seems that the book was in fact fairly favorable to Gothard and his ministry, but it contained a section that called into question the very issue with which we are dealing with here: Gothard’s questionable exegesis/interpretation of Scripture. The history of that event is a sad one indeed, as the book was pretty much censored by the evangelical community, the books stores actually sending boxes of the book back to the publishing house unopened, all apparently based on a reaction to even the smallest and even scholarly criticism of any aspect of Gothard and/or his ministry.
Also, in personal dealings with other critics, Gothard has invoked Matthew 18: 15-17 to quell any public criticism, using his familiar diabolical interpretation in the very process, by wresting his own viewpoint out of a passage of Scripture that has nothing to do with the instant case of his public abuse of the Bible and of the church of God. Many have been cowed by his intimidation and fallen victim to accepting his mistaken view of criticism of fellow believers. Frankly, I am not sure any of this applies, for I am not nearly so liberal as most critics, and confess that I am not at all sure that Gothard is a regenerate man at all; indeed, his teachings almost persuade me that he is not. Nonetheless, I will leave that question also unanswered here, though my own suspicions are obvious.
Homey don’t play dat!
But I do not buy his diabolical ploy to quell any and all criticism. Honest ministry and scholarship yields itself to the test of criticism and review by others. This is a reality that Gothard appears not to believe, for his approach to his ministry is secretive and illusive. He says that “If someone wants to know what we teach, let them come to the seminars.” No thanks. Rather, submit your teachings to public examination and then I will have some reasonable knowledge to decide if I would desire to attend your seminars -- or not, perhaps. When a person holds themselves out as the voice of God [Gothard does], and presents himself as an authority in matters of the faith, he is by definition subject to review, assessment and critique. I would suggest that he buck up and stop complaining about those who wish to pick a bone with him. It depends, of course, as to whether his critics have a leg to stand on. If not, then they themselves are as guilty of deception and poor manners as is Gothard himself. But if there are thoughtful and accurate criticisms of Gothardism, let them all be considered, I say. The Gospel is of no private interpretation, the Word of God says. Even the Apostle Paul, a divinely inspired writer, was subjected to the thoughtful and careful critique of the believers at Berea, so that today be known as a Berean is to be recognized as one who is thoughtful and careful in evaluating teachers and all those who hold themselves out as men of God.
But I go further in my view. I think that it is actually improper to talk of “taking the bad with the good,” or that Gothard’s ideas contain some small element of truth and therefore we ought to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That might be an acceptable aphorism, rightly applied to some situations. But when applied to the issue of Biblical interpretation and application, it is a deadly deception. Indeed, though Satan was accurately quoting Scripture, his intent was devious and deceitful. At the end of that encounter, Jesus retorted:
“Away with you, Satan!”
Apparently Jesus did not share the same largess that Gothard’s critics seem to have. Corrupt teaching cannot be salvaged by an appeal to some small good that seems to be contained somewhere therein. That would be the same as to suggest that the admonition of “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die,” would be something to salvage from a pagan philosophy because it contains something of the Word of God! Well, I say as the Apostle Paul was apt to say it: “God forbid!” If a man is a false prophet, we are not to pay attention to anything he says, and we are to discard and avoid his teaching altogether. Anything less is, in my own opinion, an invitation to confusion, abuse and spiritual destruction. The question, of course, is whether or not Gothard is a false teacher. I maintain that he is, and that his diabolical interpretation of the Word of God proves that he employs the same method of handling the Scriptures as did Satan in his encounter with Christ. A serious charge indeed, but as they say, if the shoe fits --
Next article: Diabolical Biblical interpretation: Opinion made into Scripture
Monday, January 09, 2006
Gothardism: A Pox On Our House
Introduction and Background
I first must make apology to those of you who have expressed interest in my article on Gothardism. I had hoped to have completed it by now but the holidays have messed up my writing schedule quite a bit. I have just not had the motivation to write much during this season.
But now that the holidays are history, I will turn my attention to some of these things that I have wanted to address for some time. I will take Gothardism first.
A few words of background may help the readers understand my own perspective. As for myself, I somehow, by God’s providence, missed out on the whole Gothardism phenomenon. For whatever reason, I knew little or nothing about Gothard and his impact on the evangelical community throughout the 1970 and even until the present time. As I have told my friends, I had heard the name but I had always thought that they were somehow talking about the Gaithers of Gospel singing fame! Duh.
When I began my pastorate here in Holland, Michigan, two new families joined us a few months after we had commenced our ministry here. Those two families have become pillars in our Calvinistic Baptist church, but at the time were leaving a fundamental Baptist church where Gothardism had become entrenched. Somehow these two families had escaped the poisonous effects of this strange “evangelical” cult, though even today they will admit to some remaining corruption of that virus that remains in their heads. But thank God they have been delivered from that awful system and are now strong testimony to the gracious effects of sound Biblical doctrine, and especially the doctrines of God’s grace.
From these families I have learned much about Gothardism, for Gothardism remains a wretched infestation in their extended families. Indeed, the issues around Gothardism have served to separate the families somewhat, a reality that I think is quite Biblical, as in the teaching of Matthew 10:34ff: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” I am glad that God led them to leave such a system of anti-theology. Gothardism is a poisonous pox on our house, as I expressed in the title of this article. We must excise this disease that has infected many lives much like the sting of a poisonous viper, which was and is driven by ignorance and rebellion against God as Romans chapter one describes. I believe that Gothardism is nothing less than a cult, even if it has the surface appearance of evangelical orthodoxy. Indeed, one of its most dangerous characteristic is its sheep’s clothing. We will examine this charge in a series of articles here.
My primary interest up front is the theological characteristics of Gothardism. I will skip over some very real and major issues such as the totally unbiblical nature of Gothard’s “ministry,” his unethical [immoral?] behavior regarding his dealings with organizational members, his cult-like claims to “rhema” revelations from God, his organization's admitted and now public sexual proclivities, his ungodly attitudes towards civil laws and his unethical and immoral practice of pseudo-medicine. All of these things are frankly driven by what he believes, that is, by his theology - or more exactly, his lack thereof. If we are to discern the character of false teachers, the first and primary source of data is their treatment of the Holy Scriptures and their basic understanding of God [theology]. To set the stage for my remarks, I can say that I believe that even a cursory examination of the theology of Gothardism reveals an unholy and ungodly system of influence upon millions of professors of Christ that should be rejected out of hand by any knowledgeable believer.
You will notice that I have used the phrase “professors of Christ” and not “believers.” I do so without apology. As a Baptist pastor with decades of ministerial and pastor experience, I have come to accept the reality in the modern Baptist church that a goodly portion of those who are sitting in the pews of our Baptist churches are not in fact regenerated [born again] believers. They have been convinced by the rotten stain of decisionism made popular by Charles Finney and popularized in our own time by evangelists like Billy Graham, et al. Long story short, a sort of Sandelmanianism, Pelagian-semi Pelagian synergism has had a destructive effect on Baptist ranks, resulting in even Baptist churches full of worldly professors and very few true believers. This has created a carefully cultivated seed-plot ready for the planting of false seed. This to me is the best explanation of the apparent success of Gothardism. Those who do not have the Spirit of God are unable to distinguish the difference between Gothardism and true Christianity, so such people are susceptible to “murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage… These be they that separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.”
It is apparent that Gothardism has been successful, if numbers are of any import [and what fundamental Baptist would not believe that numbers are of primary importance, eh?]. Apparently, during the 1970 and 80s, Bill Gothard took a portion of evangelicalism by storm, though not entirely, as my own testimony above shows. The “movement” claims to have as many as 2.5 million “alumni.” That is an astounding figure, making it one of the most pervasive influences on modern evangelicalism, rivaling the influence of the “Purpose Driven Church” infection that is still extant in evangelicalism to this very day [but quickly dying in effect, even if the book sales are not].
Fortunately, Gothardism has come upon hard times, and not a moment too soon. Like a poisonous snake bite, it takes a few minutes for the venom to spread through the blood stream. But now the destructive character of Gothard’s system is making itself obvious through broken families, broken and destroyed churches, ruined marriages and, if a friend of mine is right, even to the suicide of some who were corrupted by Gothardism in the home. How is it that so many good Christians could be duped into following such a destructive system? Where is the “mind of Christ” that the believer has (1 Cor. 2:16) by which to discern spiritual truth? Where is spiritual discernment?
Sadly, I think that one answer to this question is the sad state to which the church has sunken in our day. No longer is there a Berean mind that has a healthy Biblical skepticism like the people of Berea in the Apostle Paul’s day. They put even that great Apostle to the test of the Word of God, to see if these things be so. That ought to be the starting point of all Christian life, that is, a healthy Biblical skepticism which measures all things by the infallible measure of Holy Writ. But alas, such is a distant memory, I am afraid. Today’s professor is all too easily led by hype and marketing ploys, the result of their being “conformed to this world.” There is little interest in questioning the validity of anyone, especially if he has sold some books on Amazon.com! The undiscerning modern mind seems not to be interested in whether a thing is true or not as long as it is widely popular. The world seems to be instantly “carried about with divers and strange doctrines,” “blown about by every wind of doctrine.”
So, with that introduction, I will begin the series of articles with a look at the theological characteristics of Gothardism. My sources of information are both direct, including families and friends that have been directly involved with Gothardism, Gothard’s official web site, Internet sources of people who have been involved with Gothard as well as indirect sources, such as the Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., based in Lombard, Illinois, just a sort distance down the road from Gothard’s headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois. Of particular note is the fairly recent book (2003) by Don and Joy Veinot from the Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., entitled A Matter of Basic Principles. Additionally, there are literally thousands of people out on the Internet ready to share their experiences with Gothardism first hand. Given this wealth of information, it is simply stunning to me that anyone in their right mind would actually choose to follow this system at all.
Next article: Exegesis, or simply peddling the Gospel for a profit?
I first must make apology to those of you who have expressed interest in my article on Gothardism. I had hoped to have completed it by now but the holidays have messed up my writing schedule quite a bit. I have just not had the motivation to write much during this season.
But now that the holidays are history, I will turn my attention to some of these things that I have wanted to address for some time. I will take Gothardism first.
A few words of background may help the readers understand my own perspective. As for myself, I somehow, by God’s providence, missed out on the whole Gothardism phenomenon. For whatever reason, I knew little or nothing about Gothard and his impact on the evangelical community throughout the 1970 and even until the present time. As I have told my friends, I had heard the name but I had always thought that they were somehow talking about the Gaithers of Gospel singing fame! Duh.
When I began my pastorate here in Holland, Michigan, two new families joined us a few months after we had commenced our ministry here. Those two families have become pillars in our Calvinistic Baptist church, but at the time were leaving a fundamental Baptist church where Gothardism had become entrenched. Somehow these two families had escaped the poisonous effects of this strange “evangelical” cult, though even today they will admit to some remaining corruption of that virus that remains in their heads. But thank God they have been delivered from that awful system and are now strong testimony to the gracious effects of sound Biblical doctrine, and especially the doctrines of God’s grace.
From these families I have learned much about Gothardism, for Gothardism remains a wretched infestation in their extended families. Indeed, the issues around Gothardism have served to separate the families somewhat, a reality that I think is quite Biblical, as in the teaching of Matthew 10:34ff: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” I am glad that God led them to leave such a system of anti-theology. Gothardism is a poisonous pox on our house, as I expressed in the title of this article. We must excise this disease that has infected many lives much like the sting of a poisonous viper, which was and is driven by ignorance and rebellion against God as Romans chapter one describes. I believe that Gothardism is nothing less than a cult, even if it has the surface appearance of evangelical orthodoxy. Indeed, one of its most dangerous characteristic is its sheep’s clothing. We will examine this charge in a series of articles here.
My primary interest up front is the theological characteristics of Gothardism. I will skip over some very real and major issues such as the totally unbiblical nature of Gothard’s “ministry,” his unethical [immoral?] behavior regarding his dealings with organizational members, his cult-like claims to “rhema” revelations from God, his organization's admitted and now public sexual proclivities, his ungodly attitudes towards civil laws and his unethical and immoral practice of pseudo-medicine. All of these things are frankly driven by what he believes, that is, by his theology - or more exactly, his lack thereof. If we are to discern the character of false teachers, the first and primary source of data is their treatment of the Holy Scriptures and their basic understanding of God [theology]. To set the stage for my remarks, I can say that I believe that even a cursory examination of the theology of Gothardism reveals an unholy and ungodly system of influence upon millions of professors of Christ that should be rejected out of hand by any knowledgeable believer.
You will notice that I have used the phrase “professors of Christ” and not “believers.” I do so without apology. As a Baptist pastor with decades of ministerial and pastor experience, I have come to accept the reality in the modern Baptist church that a goodly portion of those who are sitting in the pews of our Baptist churches are not in fact regenerated [born again] believers. They have been convinced by the rotten stain of decisionism made popular by Charles Finney and popularized in our own time by evangelists like Billy Graham, et al. Long story short, a sort of Sandelmanianism, Pelagian-semi Pelagian synergism has had a destructive effect on Baptist ranks, resulting in even Baptist churches full of worldly professors and very few true believers. This has created a carefully cultivated seed-plot ready for the planting of false seed. This to me is the best explanation of the apparent success of Gothardism. Those who do not have the Spirit of God are unable to distinguish the difference between Gothardism and true Christianity, so such people are susceptible to “murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage… These be they that separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.”
It is apparent that Gothardism has been successful, if numbers are of any import [and what fundamental Baptist would not believe that numbers are of primary importance, eh?]. Apparently, during the 1970 and 80s, Bill Gothard took a portion of evangelicalism by storm, though not entirely, as my own testimony above shows. The “movement” claims to have as many as 2.5 million “alumni.” That is an astounding figure, making it one of the most pervasive influences on modern evangelicalism, rivaling the influence of the “Purpose Driven Church” infection that is still extant in evangelicalism to this very day [but quickly dying in effect, even if the book sales are not].
Fortunately, Gothardism has come upon hard times, and not a moment too soon. Like a poisonous snake bite, it takes a few minutes for the venom to spread through the blood stream. But now the destructive character of Gothard’s system is making itself obvious through broken families, broken and destroyed churches, ruined marriages and, if a friend of mine is right, even to the suicide of some who were corrupted by Gothardism in the home. How is it that so many good Christians could be duped into following such a destructive system? Where is the “mind of Christ” that the believer has (1 Cor. 2:16) by which to discern spiritual truth? Where is spiritual discernment?
Sadly, I think that one answer to this question is the sad state to which the church has sunken in our day. No longer is there a Berean mind that has a healthy Biblical skepticism like the people of Berea in the Apostle Paul’s day. They put even that great Apostle to the test of the Word of God, to see if these things be so. That ought to be the starting point of all Christian life, that is, a healthy Biblical skepticism which measures all things by the infallible measure of Holy Writ. But alas, such is a distant memory, I am afraid. Today’s professor is all too easily led by hype and marketing ploys, the result of their being “conformed to this world.” There is little interest in questioning the validity of anyone, especially if he has sold some books on Amazon.com! The undiscerning modern mind seems not to be interested in whether a thing is true or not as long as it is widely popular. The world seems to be instantly “carried about with divers and strange doctrines,” “blown about by every wind of doctrine.”
So, with that introduction, I will begin the series of articles with a look at the theological characteristics of Gothardism. My sources of information are both direct, including families and friends that have been directly involved with Gothardism, Gothard’s official web site, Internet sources of people who have been involved with Gothard as well as indirect sources, such as the Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., based in Lombard, Illinois, just a sort distance down the road from Gothard’s headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois. Of particular note is the fairly recent book (2003) by Don and Joy Veinot from the Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., entitled A Matter of Basic Principles. Additionally, there are literally thousands of people out on the Internet ready to share their experiences with Gothardism first hand. Given this wealth of information, it is simply stunning to me that anyone in their right mind would actually choose to follow this system at all.
Next article: Exegesis, or simply peddling the Gospel for a profit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
