Data Mining the Bible

I will use this title and term to express what I think is the primary approach that Bill Gothard takes to the interpretation of Scripture. His approach is something akin to the contemporary concept of “data mining,” that is, scouring a data base [read here “Bible”] in an effort to find patterns or information that no one else knows because it is outside their expectations. I borrowed this definition from a website that is talking about modern data mining, but the definition is quite appropriate to the approach that Gothard uses in his method of Biblical interpretation. When people mine data, they already have an idea of what they want to know. In other words, they are looking for data that will support their preconceived notion(s). Mind you, this approach is not entirely new but in Gothard we have a particularly egregious example of that approach. Those familiar with Biblical exposition and hermeneutics call this process “eisegesis,” the idea that the interpreter brings his own meaning to scripture rather than the interpreter drawing the meaning out from the scripture text.

An example of this is the familiar Premillennial Dispensational treatment of several Biblical texts in an effort to support their existing theology. For instance, the Dispensationalists find in 1 Thessalonians, chapter four, their premillennial secret rapture, not because it is in the text, but because the text seems on the surface, at least in their minds, to support their idiosyncratic eschatological view. That text clearly is teaching about the fact that those who die in Jesus are not lost, but will be with Jesus when He comes again. Any schema that teaches that the passage teaches a premillenial, pretribulation and secret rapture is an exquisite example of data mining applied to the Bible.

Even more specious is their treatment of Revelation 4:1, where the words of the voice from heaven bade John to “Come up hither.” To the dispensationalist interpreter, this verse -- or more exactly this portion of the verse -- teaches the premillennial, pretribulational secret rapture of the church. To the objective observer such an interpretation seems utterly fantastic and seems to be the product of a far too fruitful imagination.

Indeed, this kind of handling of the Biblical text could, some would say, pretty much support any crazy notion that just about anyone would put forward. This would be the method, for instance, of a David Korsesh, Marshall Applewhite or other cultists, who used the Biblical text repeatedly to support their devilish “doctrines.” Such is the result - and in my own view the purpose - of data mining the Bible. But good sense must prevail, and both perspective and specific rules of Biblical interpretation must be adhered to by those who would interpret the Bible if there is to be any semblance of sanity to their interpretations.

Gothard’s version of Biblical data mining

When one comes to the literature of Gothardism, one of the first things that hits you is the impression that nearly every Biblical text that is cited is interpreted or applied wrongly! Even a first year seminarian would be appalled at the poor exegesis of the Biblical text and most would immediately cast aside the work, assuming it was a completely inferior work and not to be relied upon. Would that such would have happened to the millions of people who were duped by Gothard over the years! But, alas, it was not so. It took the revelation of multiple scandals to finally diminish Gothard’s influence, though it continues even today in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people whose lives have been forever altered by the poisonous fruit of data mining of the Biblical text. Having now worked directly with families that follow Gothard’s way, I have learned all too well that as Jesus told his disciples when they could not cast out a demon, “This kind comes out only through much prayer and fasting.” The adherents of Gothardism have become so indoctrinated and inured to Gothard’s literature and propaganda that they seem almost ready to die for it! This is one reason that the specter of cultism is raised in my mind. And they not only slavishly follow his views, but also imbibe his interpretive method of data mining the Biblical text. They find a text, compare it with what they think is right or suits their need and then establish their entire belief system on a misinterpreted text. We shall see this repeatedly in our treatment of Gothard’s perverse system of Biblical data mining.

Data Mining for Authority

Anyone familiar even in the least with Gothardism knows that authority is a major and central concept of Gothardism. Much of their talk and even more of their behavior is regulated by Gothard’s teaching about authority. In his introduction to the section on Authority and Responsibility in the Basic Seminar Manual [page 19], he states: “The size of our God is greatly determined by our ability to see how He is able to work through those in authority over us.” This statement is critical in understanding Gothard’s interpretive approach, for it is akin to a kind of literary “Freudian slip.” From that slip, we are privy to his presupposition, his preconceived notion of what he is going to “prove” from Scripture. Read the statement again and ask yourself whether or not the statement is true, first, and, second, whether or not it is Biblical. I suggest that it fails on both counts. It is clearly a mere creation of his own mind, and a revealing nugget as to the kind of thinking that goes on in his mind, especially as it regards his understanding about authority. As an aside, I might say at this point, that according to a couple of books that I have which critique Gothard’s ministry, Mr. Gothard is in clear violation of this his own principle, refusing to defer to any authority at all, but simply dismissing those whom he ought to be deferring. He bows to no authority on earth, as far as anyone can see, neither in his own organizational structure nor in his relationship to the church of God. He appears to be purely autocratic in his dealings.

It is difficult to describe in a few words his treatment of the Biblical text as it relates to his understanding of authority, so we will let his own examples do the job.


Christ and authority [according to Gothard]

On the very next page, page 20, Gothard sets forth what he calls three “basic principles” for authority. At the top of the page, Gothard comments on the topic: “When Paul warned that ‘Whosoever resisteth [he uses the KJV almost exclusively] the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” [Romans 13:2] Then he cryptically finishes the statement with the words, “…he was referring to many more factors than we realize.”

“Many more factors than we realize,” eh? Ah. It seems that his data mining of the Bible has revealed to him Biblical teachings and principles that have not yet yielded to the devoted efforts of the thousands of diligent theologians and Bible interpreters over the last 2000 years. I get the strong impression that we are about to skate out on to some pretty thin ice, Biblically speaking. And, voila, we are not disappointed long.

One of the basic principles which he promulgates on page 20, having to do with authority, is “To Grow In Wisdom and Character.” Under this heading, the following paragraph is written”

The only recorded incident in the life of Christ between the ages of two and thirty was a discussion with his parents which involved authority. This occurred when He was twelve. Should he follow his spiritual calling and be about His Father’s business (Luke 2:49), or should he become subject to his parents and leave his ministry at the temple? He did the latter, and the following verse reports, “and Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

As I read this quote from Gothard, I am reminded of the text in Revelation 8:1, describing the opening of the seventh seal of the scroll: “And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.”

When I first read this quote, I was literally stunned speechless as to the implications of what had just been said by Gothard. It took reading the quote several times and re-reading the scriptures regarding the incident that Gothard cited from the Bible several times over. Then I came back to the quote, tried reading it again and again to come to some conclusion as to whether or not I was insane or was Gothard actually declaring that Jesus, as a youth, was guilty of the sin of rebellion! In the incident, Jesus stayed behind the family caravan that was returning to Galilee. He did not tell nor seek permission of His earthly parents to remain behind. And his was no small “offense,” as the family had to search for three days before finding him at the temple, listening to the doctors and asking them questions. The reader of the Bible can fairly feel the frustration in the words of his parents: “Son, why have you dealt with us in such a manner? Behold, your father and I have sought you sorrowing.” Christ’s answer if revealing.

“How is it that you sought me? Wist you not that I must be about my Father’s business?”

The term “wist” means “know.” Jesus is saying, in essence, “Did you not know that I must be about my Father’s business?” It was a mild rebuke to his parents, reminding them of who He was and what the angel had said about him and his mission on earth. But we know from the following verse that they did not understand what he was saying to them.

In fact, I think that Jesus’ reference to “my Father’s business” clearly would be a direct violation of Gothard’s “umbrella of authority” concept in which he is supposed to be submissive to the one given authority over him, meaning in Gothard’s system Joseph, his earthly male parent. Jesus seems almost to contradict this supposed authority directly, informing them that he is relating to another authority altogether! One would have thought that Gothard would have given pause to all this before asserting and then teaching that Jesus somehow was conflicted about authority and decided to give up his earthly ministry to submit to the authority of his earthly father!

This treatment of this biblical story is so fractured by Gothard that it is difficult to know where to begin. Clearly, this is a presupposition, a preconceived notion about some fuzzy “authority” system that is looking for a text to land on. This is classic eisegesis, the reading of the interpreter’s ideas into the text rather than deriving the meaning of the text from the Biblical text. For Gothard, he believes that his data mining of the Bible has yielded results. For the thoughtful reader and interpreter of the Scriptures, this is loathsome and dangerous stuff! And sadly, we are just beginning; this kind of Biblical muckraking comes in copious amounts and with staccato frequency in Gothard’s writings. We will be unable to treat even a majority of the examples of what we have termed “diabolical interpretation” of the Bible.

What Gothard seems to be oblivious to is the primary implication or conclusion that obtains from his interpretation: that Jesus was guilty of the sin of rebellion as defined by Gothard. There is no other possible conclusion that can rightfully be reached in light of Gothard’s statement above. He has concluded that Jesus was a sinner, rebelling against his “umbrella of authority” which was to “protect” him. This is perverse and awful Bible interpretation, and ought to render any further examination of Gothard’s writings unnecessary in light of the serious heretical viewpoint that is here promulgated by him. I believe that another person has personally approached Gothard about this point, but in the view of that critic, Gothard seemed perplexed at what the critic was saying and offered no explanation. I suspect that many of Gothard’s statements are the same, that is, made in an unguarded fashion without due consideration of the theological implications of such statements. To me, this is a fatal blow that permits me to put Gothard in the heretical classification. As such, he ought to be exposed and shunned by Christians everywhere. We will nonetheless add more weight to this classification based on his own writings.

When I return to give the next example, you will note that it actually comes from the same page from which we took our first. We will see that in order to understand the Biblical texts which Gothard cites, one must first own Gothard’s presuppositions and preconceived ideas. Only in so doing can we arrive at such fantastic “interpretations” of the Bible.