How about a non-religious item?
We are in the middle of a primary election season in our country, and stuff is flying around like a wind storm. Some of those things relate to our state, Michigan. And some of that stuff is very smelly stuff indeed.
One such odorous claim is that Michigan is, according to one national GOP candidate, a "one-state recession." Mind you, we have our problems, what with unemployment being above 7 percent and prospects for new jobs being dismal [ask anyone who has been trying to find work here]. But there are also some very positive things going on here, too, such as state-level leadership in Lansing.
Lest the readers and hearers of these presidential candidates be fooled that Michigan is about to go under, let them read the recent article in the Michigan Daily, entitled "State has surprise $350 million surplus." I wonder how many other states can make this claim. And that comes on the heels of a dismal fiscal state of affairs here in Michigan where previous administrations [read "Engler" here] had incurred a $1.7 billion [That’s BILLIONS, friends] deficit.
Governor Grandholm has successfully grappled with the serious fiscal problems of this state in an exemplary manner, in my view. Yes, it has taken some courage and has required some very difficult decisions, but she has demonstrated the courage and fortitude to take on the special interests that had benefited from the profligate largess of the previous administration. The amazing thing is written in the article:
"The surplus is for the 2006-07 fiscal year, a period in which a deficit of more than $1 billion was filled by delaying payments to state universities and community colleges, dipping into funds set aside for job training and substance abuse treatment and selling off the state’s future tobacco settlement. Taxes were not raised to deal with the shortfall."
What? A Democrat, fixing the budget by fiscal prudence? Shades of Bill Clinton!
Indeed.
The article goes on:
"The surplus is not part of this year’s budget agreement, under which taxes were raised by $1.3 billion and spending was cut or restricted by more than $400 million to help wipe out a $1.75 billion state budget deficit and place the state on a sounder financial footing."
Indeed!
I admit that there are remaining serious economic issues in our state. But fiscal irresponsibility and profligate spending of the past administrations are not now among those problems. Yes, we need to begin the really hard work of developing jobs and restructuring the bases for the new Michigan economy, but we can be thankful that we have the sound fiscal policies of the Grandholm administration to lean upon to leverage our efforts to restore our state to its former economic condition and productivity.
What I fear most is that, God forbid, De Vos might become governor one day, and like his close friend George Bush, be inclined to wipe out any surplus by a gigantic giveaway to his corporate friends. The people of Michigan must resolve to prevent this almost certain eventuality if De Vos is ever elected as governor.
And, by the way, giving more money to Detroit auto makers is NOT the answer! What they need to do is to give us a quality car and we will buy them out of trouble. So far, it hasn’t happened.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Of carts and horses
Okay, it has been a while since I have posted to my blog. In fact, it has been so long that I have forgotten exactly how to do it! But I will muddle through somehow, with a little help from my friends.
What I want to talk about is the current political race. I am not so interested in candidates, but rather in the role of religion/Christianity in the race. There is a way in which I could care less about the candidates and the political process altogether. But when some candidates start using their religion and particularly Christianity as a marketing ploy and campaign tactic, I get not a little incensed. It would appear that religion and/or Christianity is little more than fodder for the cannons of political warfare, to be used here and there for effect, but which will actually go up in smoke when its nefarious job is over.
Such a cynical use and abuse of religion and/or Christianity [the two are NOT the same] is repulsive and in fact brings reproach on genuine Christian faith. Two political endorsements that illustrate this cynicism caught my eye, as the political races relate to religion. First, a dyed-in-the-wool religious fundamentalist [in the bad sense] reactionary institution, Bob Jones University, has endorsed Romney. [Surely the reader must know by now that Christians can only be Republican, right? :)] This endorsement is nothing less than stunning. That a so-called conservative premillenial, dispensational institution which believes in the Antichrist would turn and actually endorse the spirit of antichrist is mind-boggling. But that is exactly what has happened with that endorsement. Mormons do not believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world in the way that evangelical Christians do! Huckabee [I do not support him, if you want to know] was right on target when he asked, “Don’t they teach that Jesus and Satan are brothers?”
It was actually kind of humorous to me, frankly. Either Huckabee knew full well what he was saying or he was the worst studied pastor in the world. His question is nothing less than true. That is one of the lesser errors of Mormonism, however, though a very serious one indeed. Mormonism is polytheistic and denies the Trinitarian nature of God. Such a doctrine puts them completely outside the stream of Christianity and makes them a non-Christian sect, if not a cult [though many consider Mormonism just that, and Mormonism appears on many listings of cults on the Internet]. But even that would be just fine for a candidate, for I do not believe there should be any religious litmus test for running for the office of president; it is and ought to be open for Mormons. Let the Christians defeat them at the polls, not by smearing them with religious rhetoric and the politics of personal destruction that seems to have become part and parcel of the right wing Christian political movement. But for a so-called conservative evangelical protestant institution to endorse a polytheistic and heretical religionist is simply mind-boggling. In so doing, Bob Jones University repudiates just about every Christian tenet which they claim to believe.
The second endorsement that boggles the mind is that of Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Guliani. That fits, eh? An evangelical Christian endorsing the non-evangelical, non-practicing, womanizing, adulterous Catholic with mob connections and business interests with the enemies of the United States! What it does, really, is call into question the integrity of Robertson and all the things he has preached and raved about for decades now. All those years of so-called preaching were thrown aside for the expediency of a political endorsement, which obviously was a play for some renewed political power that Robertson had lost over the years. – and that by being a complete nutty character! That being said, I suppose I should really not register such surprise, eh?
Also, a concern that I have is the way in which the misrepresentation of genuine Christianity by the right wing so-called evangelical Christians has given opportunity of every atheist and unbeliever to rail against the bitterness and hatred expressed by the “Christian” right. Daily I read about 15 newspapers and constantly read the letters and articles written by atheists [the New York Times, in my opinion, could be termed the Atheistic paper of America on the basis of the dominance of the atheists on its opinion pages]. The atheistic venom is constant and, sadly, often far more accurate about the counterfeit “Christianity” of the Christian right political movement than we like to admit. It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would believe, for instance that the pop psychologist James Dobson is a genuine Christian, for his views are so liberal [yes, you heard me right. He is conservative on social issues but liberal in reference to theology and religion] that there is little reason to believe that he is a regenerate believer. The same can be said of Tony Perkins, the leader of some kind of political lobby for evangelicals. These doctrinaire and bigoted partisan Republicans are driven by power needs, not by the Word of God. Anyone who claims to have been regenerated by God ought to repudiate these sleazy characters and return to the Word of God for their guidance. These are partisan political operatives, not ministers of the Gospel or likely not even Christians at all. Let’s face it: the homosexual Haggart was and is not a regenerate Christian; Jimmy Bakker was and is not a regenerate Christian; Benny Hinn is no regenerate Christian. Who believes that Charles Colson is a regenerate believer? These are all men who relish and do obeisance on the altar of power. Of all the fakers, perhaps because of his position, George Bush is the most recognizable likely unregenerate pseudo-Christian, a victim of Pentecostal decisional regeneration, as are most of the others [except the out and out pagans, who could care less about God except that god and religion make for a powerful marketing tool].
I have purposely been using the word “regenerate” to designate a true Christian convert. I have done so because the phrase “born again,” though certainly Biblical language, has been so misunderstood and tainted by the evangelical community that it no longer has its Biblical meaning. To them, being “born again” is an act of their own wills, a decision they have taken to “receive Christ into their hearts.” But true new birth is not an act of man’s will, a fact that is made crystal clear by the Word of God:
“So then it is not of him who wills or of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” Romans 9:16.
“…who were born [those who believe, that is], not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
“But God, …even when we were dead in trespasses and sins, has quickened us together with Christ (by grace you are saved).”
What I am suggesting may seem revolutionary to some, but is absolutely elementary and rudimentary to Biblical Christianity. I am suggesting that the very notion of the new birth as understood in evangelical America is so far gone from the Biblical teaching that one can almost – almost – judge that anyone who claims to have been born again has misunderstood what it means to be “born of God” to the extent that they are not likely genuine believers who have been regenerated or born of God in the sense of Titus 3: 4-5:
“But when the kindness of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace, we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
Most all of those representing themselves as evangelical Christians are in fact those who are putting their trust in their decision to receive Christ for their salvation instead of having been saved by the “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” They clearly have gotten the cart before the horse, and are sadly mistaken. Therefore, when they mix perverted politics with their unbelief, we get a poisonous mixture of perverted politics and perverted religion. That is the condition of the religious right in America. They in fact trust themselves [their own free will, to be more exact] for their salvation, and not the Lord Jesus Christ. In their jaundiced view of salvation, God just did what He owed them for being willing to accept Him. This is nothing less than salvation by works, which any self-respecting evangelical would reject out of hand if they knew at all what they were talking about. But most don’t.
Modern evangelicalism is a big mess. The 20th century was a dismal time for American Christianity. C.H. Spurgeon warned in the latter part of the 19th century of a coming “downgrade” in religion. We in the 20th century have witnessed the progress and ultimate end of that downgrade; the beggaring of religion. What passes for evangelicalism today is a sad shell of pretension, I dare say. Genuine faith can be found today, but one must, as the saying goes, sort through a lot of garbage to find it.
But sorting through the garbage is very difficult itself, since there is a profound ignorance of spiritual things in today’s world. If I talk of spiritual things, the natural minded fellow thinks I am talking about voodoo or something. To the modern carnal mind, for instance, something like the virgin birth seems a fairy tale. The reason is that they know nothing about our sin nature and depravity and the need for a spotless, sinless sacrifice to satisfy God’s justice and to make atonement for sin. If they had any notion of that, the virgin birth would not only become meaningful, but absolutely essential, for anyone born as the seed of Adam is unqualified to be Savior or the Lamb of God. When seen in true light, the story is not a fairy tale, but the actual account of man’s fall and need of a Savior, God’s justice and righteousness, reconciliation, and God’s gracious provision of a Savior for all whom by faith believe the Gospel. What to the carnal mind is silly nonsense is to the enlightened believer the very essence of love, faith and eternal life.
Why should we be surprised at this? The Bible tells us very clearly that this will be the very response we will get from an unregenerate mind. Here is what the Bible says of the carnal [meaning natural, unregenerate, un-renewed, un-quickened] mind as it considers the facts of Gospel of Christ:
“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
There it is in stark relief; the natural mind, unregenerated by the Spirit of Christ, thinks the things of God and of Christ and of the Bible are “foolishness.” Further, the same text asserts that the natural, unregenerate mind “cannot” know spiritual things, for such spiritual things are “spiritually discerned.” Put in plain language, many of the people claiming to be Christians are in fact in the condition of a carnal mind and simply cannot discern spiritual truth. Think though they might, study though they might, there is no way under the sun that they can arrive at a spiritual thought because such things are spiritually discerned, ergo, one must first be made spiritual before one can discern spiritual things. Jesus said it in another way: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see [or enter into] the kingdom of God.”
What Jesus was NOT talking about was a decision of the human will to “receive Jesus into your heart.” What He was telling Nicodemus was that it is God Himself who determines who will receive the regenerating work of the Spirit [the new birth]. The Apostle Paul put it this way:
“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’ As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau I have hated.”
Jesus was even blunter with his words:
“Do no murmur among yourselves. No man can come to me except the Father who sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
The great majority of all people today claiming to know Christ as Savior have it entirely backwards, it seems. They have the cart before the horse. They are putting their will and their acts of obedience before God’s acts of saving, thus in essence saving themselves, with God being just the compliant gift giver of salvation to those who are wise enough and good enough to seek him. The bottom line is, if this be true, that they themselves have saved themselves by an act of their will to receive Christ. In fact, theologians have coined a name for this error; decisional regeneration. It is they who give God permission to save them, for as one free will preacher I heard said, “God can’t save you without your permission. God would never force you to be saved against your will.”
Well, there is a way in which that is true and a way in which it is totally false. If by that one mean that it is human will that finally determines who is saved, then it is totally false. If you mean by that that God changes the will of man in such a saving way that the man wants and desires Jesus Christ, then that is very true. Man is never saved against his will; God just makes him willing. Again, the bottom line is that it is God who saves; it is God who enables man to repent and believe, and not man himself. Indeed, the very faith through which man appropriates salvation is by grace, a gift from God.
There is a sobering truth, though, that every person who believes that he is saved or a believer because he or she “accepted Christ” ought to realize. It is a Scriptural truth that blows the top off the claims of many Christians. “There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God.” Yet the very essence of many people’s claim to be Christian is that they were seeking God! That ought to give all those who confess to be Christians pause, and cause them to reconsider their true spiritual state, and to “make sure your election and calling.”
In summary, I really don’t care about the political races in themselves. But I do care how our precious Christian faith is distorted and abused and made to serve as marketing material for the sake of political campaigns. It is high time to put these folks to the true test of the Word of God. Let’s start asking the hard questions.
Coming later: Can there be true morality outside the Christian faith like some secularists and atheists say?
What I want to talk about is the current political race. I am not so interested in candidates, but rather in the role of religion/Christianity in the race. There is a way in which I could care less about the candidates and the political process altogether. But when some candidates start using their religion and particularly Christianity as a marketing ploy and campaign tactic, I get not a little incensed. It would appear that religion and/or Christianity is little more than fodder for the cannons of political warfare, to be used here and there for effect, but which will actually go up in smoke when its nefarious job is over.
Such a cynical use and abuse of religion and/or Christianity [the two are NOT the same] is repulsive and in fact brings reproach on genuine Christian faith. Two political endorsements that illustrate this cynicism caught my eye, as the political races relate to religion. First, a dyed-in-the-wool religious fundamentalist [in the bad sense] reactionary institution, Bob Jones University, has endorsed Romney. [Surely the reader must know by now that Christians can only be Republican, right? :)] This endorsement is nothing less than stunning. That a so-called conservative premillenial, dispensational institution which believes in the Antichrist would turn and actually endorse the spirit of antichrist is mind-boggling. But that is exactly what has happened with that endorsement. Mormons do not believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world in the way that evangelical Christians do! Huckabee [I do not support him, if you want to know] was right on target when he asked, “Don’t they teach that Jesus and Satan are brothers?”
It was actually kind of humorous to me, frankly. Either Huckabee knew full well what he was saying or he was the worst studied pastor in the world. His question is nothing less than true. That is one of the lesser errors of Mormonism, however, though a very serious one indeed. Mormonism is polytheistic and denies the Trinitarian nature of God. Such a doctrine puts them completely outside the stream of Christianity and makes them a non-Christian sect, if not a cult [though many consider Mormonism just that, and Mormonism appears on many listings of cults on the Internet]. But even that would be just fine for a candidate, for I do not believe there should be any religious litmus test for running for the office of president; it is and ought to be open for Mormons. Let the Christians defeat them at the polls, not by smearing them with religious rhetoric and the politics of personal destruction that seems to have become part and parcel of the right wing Christian political movement. But for a so-called conservative evangelical protestant institution to endorse a polytheistic and heretical religionist is simply mind-boggling. In so doing, Bob Jones University repudiates just about every Christian tenet which they claim to believe.
The second endorsement that boggles the mind is that of Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Guliani. That fits, eh? An evangelical Christian endorsing the non-evangelical, non-practicing, womanizing, adulterous Catholic with mob connections and business interests with the enemies of the United States! What it does, really, is call into question the integrity of Robertson and all the things he has preached and raved about for decades now. All those years of so-called preaching were thrown aside for the expediency of a political endorsement, which obviously was a play for some renewed political power that Robertson had lost over the years. – and that by being a complete nutty character! That being said, I suppose I should really not register such surprise, eh?
Also, a concern that I have is the way in which the misrepresentation of genuine Christianity by the right wing so-called evangelical Christians has given opportunity of every atheist and unbeliever to rail against the bitterness and hatred expressed by the “Christian” right. Daily I read about 15 newspapers and constantly read the letters and articles written by atheists [the New York Times, in my opinion, could be termed the Atheistic paper of America on the basis of the dominance of the atheists on its opinion pages]. The atheistic venom is constant and, sadly, often far more accurate about the counterfeit “Christianity” of the Christian right political movement than we like to admit. It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would believe, for instance that the pop psychologist James Dobson is a genuine Christian, for his views are so liberal [yes, you heard me right. He is conservative on social issues but liberal in reference to theology and religion] that there is little reason to believe that he is a regenerate believer. The same can be said of Tony Perkins, the leader of some kind of political lobby for evangelicals. These doctrinaire and bigoted partisan Republicans are driven by power needs, not by the Word of God. Anyone who claims to have been regenerated by God ought to repudiate these sleazy characters and return to the Word of God for their guidance. These are partisan political operatives, not ministers of the Gospel or likely not even Christians at all. Let’s face it: the homosexual Haggart was and is not a regenerate Christian; Jimmy Bakker was and is not a regenerate Christian; Benny Hinn is no regenerate Christian. Who believes that Charles Colson is a regenerate believer? These are all men who relish and do obeisance on the altar of power. Of all the fakers, perhaps because of his position, George Bush is the most recognizable likely unregenerate pseudo-Christian, a victim of Pentecostal decisional regeneration, as are most of the others [except the out and out pagans, who could care less about God except that god and religion make for a powerful marketing tool].
I have purposely been using the word “regenerate” to designate a true Christian convert. I have done so because the phrase “born again,” though certainly Biblical language, has been so misunderstood and tainted by the evangelical community that it no longer has its Biblical meaning. To them, being “born again” is an act of their own wills, a decision they have taken to “receive Christ into their hearts.” But true new birth is not an act of man’s will, a fact that is made crystal clear by the Word of God:
“So then it is not of him who wills or of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” Romans 9:16.
“…who were born [those who believe, that is], not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
“But God, …even when we were dead in trespasses and sins, has quickened us together with Christ (by grace you are saved).”
What I am suggesting may seem revolutionary to some, but is absolutely elementary and rudimentary to Biblical Christianity. I am suggesting that the very notion of the new birth as understood in evangelical America is so far gone from the Biblical teaching that one can almost – almost – judge that anyone who claims to have been born again has misunderstood what it means to be “born of God” to the extent that they are not likely genuine believers who have been regenerated or born of God in the sense of Titus 3: 4-5:
“But when the kindness of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace, we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
Most all of those representing themselves as evangelical Christians are in fact those who are putting their trust in their decision to receive Christ for their salvation instead of having been saved by the “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” They clearly have gotten the cart before the horse, and are sadly mistaken. Therefore, when they mix perverted politics with their unbelief, we get a poisonous mixture of perverted politics and perverted religion. That is the condition of the religious right in America. They in fact trust themselves [their own free will, to be more exact] for their salvation, and not the Lord Jesus Christ. In their jaundiced view of salvation, God just did what He owed them for being willing to accept Him. This is nothing less than salvation by works, which any self-respecting evangelical would reject out of hand if they knew at all what they were talking about. But most don’t.
Modern evangelicalism is a big mess. The 20th century was a dismal time for American Christianity. C.H. Spurgeon warned in the latter part of the 19th century of a coming “downgrade” in religion. We in the 20th century have witnessed the progress and ultimate end of that downgrade; the beggaring of religion. What passes for evangelicalism today is a sad shell of pretension, I dare say. Genuine faith can be found today, but one must, as the saying goes, sort through a lot of garbage to find it.
But sorting through the garbage is very difficult itself, since there is a profound ignorance of spiritual things in today’s world. If I talk of spiritual things, the natural minded fellow thinks I am talking about voodoo or something. To the modern carnal mind, for instance, something like the virgin birth seems a fairy tale. The reason is that they know nothing about our sin nature and depravity and the need for a spotless, sinless sacrifice to satisfy God’s justice and to make atonement for sin. If they had any notion of that, the virgin birth would not only become meaningful, but absolutely essential, for anyone born as the seed of Adam is unqualified to be Savior or the Lamb of God. When seen in true light, the story is not a fairy tale, but the actual account of man’s fall and need of a Savior, God’s justice and righteousness, reconciliation, and God’s gracious provision of a Savior for all whom by faith believe the Gospel. What to the carnal mind is silly nonsense is to the enlightened believer the very essence of love, faith and eternal life.
Why should we be surprised at this? The Bible tells us very clearly that this will be the very response we will get from an unregenerate mind. Here is what the Bible says of the carnal [meaning natural, unregenerate, un-renewed, un-quickened] mind as it considers the facts of Gospel of Christ:
“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
There it is in stark relief; the natural mind, unregenerated by the Spirit of Christ, thinks the things of God and of Christ and of the Bible are “foolishness.” Further, the same text asserts that the natural, unregenerate mind “cannot” know spiritual things, for such spiritual things are “spiritually discerned.” Put in plain language, many of the people claiming to be Christians are in fact in the condition of a carnal mind and simply cannot discern spiritual truth. Think though they might, study though they might, there is no way under the sun that they can arrive at a spiritual thought because such things are spiritually discerned, ergo, one must first be made spiritual before one can discern spiritual things. Jesus said it in another way: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see [or enter into] the kingdom of God.”
What Jesus was NOT talking about was a decision of the human will to “receive Jesus into your heart.” What He was telling Nicodemus was that it is God Himself who determines who will receive the regenerating work of the Spirit [the new birth]. The Apostle Paul put it this way:
“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’ As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau I have hated.”
Jesus was even blunter with his words:
“Do no murmur among yourselves. No man can come to me except the Father who sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
The great majority of all people today claiming to know Christ as Savior have it entirely backwards, it seems. They have the cart before the horse. They are putting their will and their acts of obedience before God’s acts of saving, thus in essence saving themselves, with God being just the compliant gift giver of salvation to those who are wise enough and good enough to seek him. The bottom line is, if this be true, that they themselves have saved themselves by an act of their will to receive Christ. In fact, theologians have coined a name for this error; decisional regeneration. It is they who give God permission to save them, for as one free will preacher I heard said, “God can’t save you without your permission. God would never force you to be saved against your will.”
Well, there is a way in which that is true and a way in which it is totally false. If by that one mean that it is human will that finally determines who is saved, then it is totally false. If you mean by that that God changes the will of man in such a saving way that the man wants and desires Jesus Christ, then that is very true. Man is never saved against his will; God just makes him willing. Again, the bottom line is that it is God who saves; it is God who enables man to repent and believe, and not man himself. Indeed, the very faith through which man appropriates salvation is by grace, a gift from God.
There is a sobering truth, though, that every person who believes that he is saved or a believer because he or she “accepted Christ” ought to realize. It is a Scriptural truth that blows the top off the claims of many Christians. “There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God.” Yet the very essence of many people’s claim to be Christian is that they were seeking God! That ought to give all those who confess to be Christians pause, and cause them to reconsider their true spiritual state, and to “make sure your election and calling.”
In summary, I really don’t care about the political races in themselves. But I do care how our precious Christian faith is distorted and abused and made to serve as marketing material for the sake of political campaigns. It is high time to put these folks to the true test of the Word of God. Let’s start asking the hard questions.
Coming later: Can there be true morality outside the Christian faith like some secularists and atheists say?
I'm baaaaaack! -Redux
Wow, what a journey it has been! It is with gratefulness that I return here to post again. This has been one difficult year for me, suffering another heart attack and spending more time than I like in the hospital, medical facilities, rehab programs, and the like.
But God has been merciful to this sinner, and so I return rejoicing at His great grace to me. I have decided to take up posting to my own blog here and to our church website at www.spurgeonheritage.org. I had thought that I might go back to the Theology List and contribute, but for the time being I will rest content to do some stuff here on the blog.
For my friends I will review a little of what has been happening in my life. This is not one of those annual letters that people send out at the Christmas season, but just a bit of summary of why I have been somewhat absent from the world for a time.
Wintertime is very difficult for me, with my heart condition and all. So each winter we face the winter weather with some fear and trepidation, recognizing that over the last several years I have experienced strokes and heart attacks during the months of December, January and February.
In the fall of 2006, my health was already falling off and I was struggling to keep up with my duties and responsibilities. I was limited in what I could do physically and chose to concentrate on ministry and preaching, leaving all my writing and other activities [like bowling, golfing, fishing, etc] to be resumed later, if God willed.
My doctor decided to send me back to cardiac rehab, even though I had “graduated” earlier. So I began working to restore some health to my heart. It was during this time [March-April, 2007] that I was having much physical distress and heart pains. My doctor was doing what he thought was right for me, and ordered a sleep lab, after which I was diagnosed with severe sleep apnea. We had problems getting the report from the sleep lab and thus could not get the C-PAP apparatus as soon as would have been desirable.
In fact, before we could get it, I took a trip down to Illinois to visit my grandsons, and to spend a few days with them. On the very day we set out to go, I had an appointment with my cardiologist. As I was sitting on the examination table, I reported to the nurse that I was having chest and back pains and was fearful that I was having a heart attack right there in his office. She quickly went out and reported to the doctor, but he came back in and made light of my concerns. So I left and went to Illinois. I fought serious pains the entire time while there and was unable to sleep but for short stretches of time, measured in minutes rather than hours. And I kept feeling worse and worse as the time went on.
We returned to Holland on Saturday and we had our regular services on Sunday. I could hardly stand and was enduring almost constant pain. On Monday morning, 9:30, I was scheduled to work out at cardiac rehab there at the hospital. When I arrived, I was in serious pain and was quite irritable. The head nurse there [Cheryl is her name, and she is an angel to me] knew intuitively that I was not my usual jovial, joking, smart-alec self, so she would not allow me to exercise and took me down to the ER. There I was diagnosed as having suffered a heart attack some hours before. I personally suspect it was back in the cardiologist’s office, actually.
Well, I seemed to recover some, but this one left me far weaker than what I had experienced in the past. The doctor told me that one of my bypasses had blocked off, causing the attack. He indicated that there did not seem to be anything that he could do, and that there were “no targets for revascularization.” In simple terms, he was saying that it was impossible to do any more bypasses. His advice and medical plan for me was that I should complete an advance directive of DNR [that’s Do Not Resuscitate, if you are unfamiliar with the nomenclature]. Nice medical plan, eh? In plain language, he was saying that if the guy has another heart attack, let the old boy die!
Mind you, I am not at all afraid of dying. Indeed, as the Apostle Paul put it, “to die is gain.” But I was not at all convinced that I should give up the ghost that easily or without at least a second opinion. So I sought a second opinion from Prairie Cardiovascular Center in Springfield, IL, who had done my original bypass surgery. They were confident that the DNR “plan” of action [or inaction, more accurately] was unwarranted and that they felt there were other interventions that were not so dire. Long story short, I underwent two procedures to unblock some old arteries, but both procedures were unsuccessful. The cardiologist at Prairie was quite disappointed in himself and seemed far more discouraged than I. But he still felt that there was hope and that there were other interventions that might be warranted. With that thought, I returned home to Holland, MI.
Since that time, I have once again graduated from Phase 2 cardiac rehab. But as the summer wore on and winter time approached, I became again concerned that things were not going well. This time, I self-referred myself to cardiac rehab, phase three, and am still busy at that. There has been some good progress, and I am feeling fairly well at this time, though I am certainly not back to “normal.” I am back to bowling and fishing, but other than those activities I am pretty limited.
So, here I am, back again, hoping that I can recover and still contribute something to this life. So far I have not had to curtail much of my ministry, and have only missed a few Wednesday evening sessions and not a single Sunday service, no matter how serious my problems have been. For this I am very thankful to God for His mercy to me.
As if this were not enough, my dear wife Bev underwent hip replacement after several years of debilitating pain and discomfort in that hip. She is home recovering quickly and we are hopeful that both of us will resume something akin to normal life soon.
I wish to thank those of you who prayed for us during our travail. We would covet your continued prayers, actually. We have many, many friends across the nation and even around the world, and we are thankful for their shared fellowship in Jesus Christ. Their love and prayers have made our tribulation more tolerable and even joyful.
It is good to be back. Drop us a line if you can and visit our church website, which I am about to update soon.
But God has been merciful to this sinner, and so I return rejoicing at His great grace to me. I have decided to take up posting to my own blog here and to our church website at www.spurgeonheritage.org. I had thought that I might go back to the Theology List and contribute, but for the time being I will rest content to do some stuff here on the blog.
For my friends I will review a little of what has been happening in my life. This is not one of those annual letters that people send out at the Christmas season, but just a bit of summary of why I have been somewhat absent from the world for a time.
Wintertime is very difficult for me, with my heart condition and all. So each winter we face the winter weather with some fear and trepidation, recognizing that over the last several years I have experienced strokes and heart attacks during the months of December, January and February.
In the fall of 2006, my health was already falling off and I was struggling to keep up with my duties and responsibilities. I was limited in what I could do physically and chose to concentrate on ministry and preaching, leaving all my writing and other activities [like bowling, golfing, fishing, etc] to be resumed later, if God willed.
My doctor decided to send me back to cardiac rehab, even though I had “graduated” earlier. So I began working to restore some health to my heart. It was during this time [March-April, 2007] that I was having much physical distress and heart pains. My doctor was doing what he thought was right for me, and ordered a sleep lab, after which I was diagnosed with severe sleep apnea. We had problems getting the report from the sleep lab and thus could not get the C-PAP apparatus as soon as would have been desirable.
In fact, before we could get it, I took a trip down to Illinois to visit my grandsons, and to spend a few days with them. On the very day we set out to go, I had an appointment with my cardiologist. As I was sitting on the examination table, I reported to the nurse that I was having chest and back pains and was fearful that I was having a heart attack right there in his office. She quickly went out and reported to the doctor, but he came back in and made light of my concerns. So I left and went to Illinois. I fought serious pains the entire time while there and was unable to sleep but for short stretches of time, measured in minutes rather than hours. And I kept feeling worse and worse as the time went on.
We returned to Holland on Saturday and we had our regular services on Sunday. I could hardly stand and was enduring almost constant pain. On Monday morning, 9:30, I was scheduled to work out at cardiac rehab there at the hospital. When I arrived, I was in serious pain and was quite irritable. The head nurse there [Cheryl is her name, and she is an angel to me] knew intuitively that I was not my usual jovial, joking, smart-alec self, so she would not allow me to exercise and took me down to the ER. There I was diagnosed as having suffered a heart attack some hours before. I personally suspect it was back in the cardiologist’s office, actually.
Well, I seemed to recover some, but this one left me far weaker than what I had experienced in the past. The doctor told me that one of my bypasses had blocked off, causing the attack. He indicated that there did not seem to be anything that he could do, and that there were “no targets for revascularization.” In simple terms, he was saying that it was impossible to do any more bypasses. His advice and medical plan for me was that I should complete an advance directive of DNR [that’s Do Not Resuscitate, if you are unfamiliar with the nomenclature]. Nice medical plan, eh? In plain language, he was saying that if the guy has another heart attack, let the old boy die!
Mind you, I am not at all afraid of dying. Indeed, as the Apostle Paul put it, “to die is gain.” But I was not at all convinced that I should give up the ghost that easily or without at least a second opinion. So I sought a second opinion from Prairie Cardiovascular Center in Springfield, IL, who had done my original bypass surgery. They were confident that the DNR “plan” of action [or inaction, more accurately] was unwarranted and that they felt there were other interventions that were not so dire. Long story short, I underwent two procedures to unblock some old arteries, but both procedures were unsuccessful. The cardiologist at Prairie was quite disappointed in himself and seemed far more discouraged than I. But he still felt that there was hope and that there were other interventions that might be warranted. With that thought, I returned home to Holland, MI.
Since that time, I have once again graduated from Phase 2 cardiac rehab. But as the summer wore on and winter time approached, I became again concerned that things were not going well. This time, I self-referred myself to cardiac rehab, phase three, and am still busy at that. There has been some good progress, and I am feeling fairly well at this time, though I am certainly not back to “normal.” I am back to bowling and fishing, but other than those activities I am pretty limited.
So, here I am, back again, hoping that I can recover and still contribute something to this life. So far I have not had to curtail much of my ministry, and have only missed a few Wednesday evening sessions and not a single Sunday service, no matter how serious my problems have been. For this I am very thankful to God for His mercy to me.
As if this were not enough, my dear wife Bev underwent hip replacement after several years of debilitating pain and discomfort in that hip. She is home recovering quickly and we are hopeful that both of us will resume something akin to normal life soon.
I wish to thank those of you who prayed for us during our travail. We would covet your continued prayers, actually. We have many, many friends across the nation and even around the world, and we are thankful for their shared fellowship in Jesus Christ. Their love and prayers have made our tribulation more tolerable and even joyful.
It is good to be back. Drop us a line if you can and visit our church website, which I am about to update soon.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Free Will
Lately the topic of freedom of will has arisen among the saints here at Spurgeon Heritage Church. In my own mind, that is a good thing, for it requires all of us to once again go to the only place that speaks authoritatively about human free will: the Bible, the very Word of God.
Our church holds to the doctrine of the total depravity of man, sometimes also called the total inability of the will of man to choose the spiritual good necessary for salvation. For this series of articles, we will use the more traditional term after first defining what we mean by it when we are discussing the noetic effects of sin.
Before I launch into this discussion, I would like to comment personally on why I do so. First, I am a bit reluctant as a writer in theological areas, as my view is that just about all that can or need be said about such topics has already been said, and that by authors who are far more capable than I. I could do but only a few minutes of surfing on the Internet and come up with links to a huge list of articles and authors who have written on the topic of free will, and all of them are likely far more capable than I of explaining and examining this topic. So then, what is my justification for writing this here on my blog?
Well, you be the judge as to whether I am justified or not, but my own thinking is that the only reason for doing so is to customize it to the people for whose benefit I attempt to write. It is the people that are in my life for whom I write. I know them personally and I know their general ability to deal with such topics. Some are quick to understand; others need a more generous learning curve. I hope I am able to take the wisdom of other’s scholarship and translate the information into language and examples that our own people can understand and accept as valid. The only thing that I do claim as anything unique to me is the use of the argument regarding mankind’s “want to.” Some years ago I began discussing the issue of total depravity by reference to the fact that our “want to” is broken [in our natural state, though restored by regeneration]. For example, I might say that we are free to choose what we “want to,” but that the options from which we make our choices can only be of a certain sort because our “want to” is broken. Our “want to” is that constitutional part of man that is precedent to our volitions and presents options to the will. This “want to” part of man’s constitutional makeup is corrupted by sin from the effects of the fall of man through the sin of Adam. I will discuss this further in the series in more detail, but this suffices for a general example of my own kind of language employed in a discussion of this subject.
The meaning of terms
As in any discussion, we must first define our terms if we are to make any headway in our understanding of a subject. This is crucial not only on this subject, but just about anything that we discuss or debate. Sadly, the notion of free will is so variously understood that it cannot be assumed for even a moment that two people mean the same by the phrase. In other words, one person’s free will is to another person total anarchy, a completely psychotic state. I believe, for instance, that one form of radical free will that is promulgated today is nothing short of an illogical contradiction which reaches the level of insanity, that is, if anyone really believed that view of free will, they would be what we commonly define as insane. Surely I must explain that seemingly crazy view of free will, and I intend to do so. But for now it suffices to demonstrate that one man’s definition of free will is another man’s definition of insanity. How can those two person’s talk to each other about free will if such is the state of affairs? Not very intelligently, I would say, unless we come to some mutual understanding of what each of us means. So it becomes absolutely necessary to define our terms if we are to progress in our understanding.
Hermeneutics
Our church, probably a little differently from many others, studies the major points of conservative Biblical hermeneutics, that is, the scholarly study of how to interpret the Bible. Here again it is necessary to have some framework for proceeding, lest each person appeal to his own authority for his principles of Biblical interpretation. Diligent students of the Word here at Spurgeon Heritage Church keep in their Bible a bookmark with the title “The Principles of Biblical Interpretation.” On that bookmark are printed 11 principles of Biblical interpretation that we feel are critical to “rightly dividing the Word of truth.” I list them all here for the reader’s consideration, but intend only to highlight a few that I think most important to understanding the subject of our discussion, free will.
The priority of the original languages
The accommodation of revelation
Progressive revelation
Historical propriety
The principle of ignorance [which we frequently employ!]
Differentiating interpretation from application
The checking principle
The principle of induction
Preference for the clearest interpretation
The principle of the unity of Scriptures
The Analogy of faith
These principles are not original, but adapted from a wonderful little volume that I bought long ago in seminary back in 1968. The title of the volume is “Protestant Biblical Interpretation” by Bernard Ramm [W.A. Wilde Company, 1956]. I recommend that if you can find and obtain this fine little book, do so without hesitation.
The principle that I have discovered over the years that are central to an proper understanding of free will are three in number, though by extension nearly all are involved. But let’s define these three principles so that all understand what we are saying as we begin our discussion of free will.
The principle of induction
We here at Spurgeon Heritage Church are Bible-believing Baptists. That means that we believe the Bible is the very Word of God and is infallible, inerrant and the sole authority for our faith and practice. Our faith is one founded upon the Rock of God’s divine revelation and we will not accept any other authority, especially man’s autonomous reason, as being a basis for our beliefs. If we are going to believe anything about free will, we believe we must resort to the Bible for our understanding of it.
But many people “resort” to the Bible for their beliefs, and at times it would seem that the Bible has no specific meaning on what it speaks to, which makes it but a tool to support any view whatsoever. Every single whacko claims the Bible as their authority, including such notable “biblicists” as David Koresh of the Branch Davidians and Jim Jones of the now infamous Jonestown mass suicide. Both of these cultists claimed the Bible as their authority. Sadly, a mere cursory knowledge of Biblical hermeneutics would have allowed the people who were duped to know and recognize that those men were among the most perverse interpreters of Scripture that have come along since Satan himself, who mangled the Biblical text in the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness [Luke 4]. Another such modern perverse interpreter of Scripture that comes to mind is Bill Gothard, whose myriad of followers have frighteningly similar traits as those of the two cultists mentioned above. Gothard interprets the Bible in much the same was as those cultists did. They all then sanitize their perverse interpretations by calling themselves “biblicists,” which would be laughable if it were not so transparently pathetic.
In all three of these examples of faulty Biblical interpretation, one central principle of interpretation that was [and is, in the case of Gothard] constantly violated with impunity is the principle of induction. The principle of induction, plainly stated, is that our interpretation of Scripture must discover the meaning of a passage, not attribute one to it. [ibid, Ramm, pg. 119] Nearly all heretics and cultists in history have been guilty of taking their already-owned predilections, prejudices and presuppositions and imposing them on the Biblical text [eisegesis] instead of bringing meaning out of the Biblical text [exegesis].
The analogy of faith
The second hermeneutical principle most commonly violated in the discussion of free will is the principle of the analogy of faith. This principle can best be defined as that principle that says that “scripture is interpreted by scripture,” or “scripture is its own interpreter.” This was the principle that was central to Martin Luther in the Protestant Reformation, in that the Catholic Church had assumed all authority to interpret the Bible and only she [the Catholic Church] had the authority to make the obscure scripture clear. The Reformers countered this unholy usurpation of authority by insisting that guidance for understanding obscure scriptures must come from other scriptures where the doctrine was discussed with more clarity. We take this same position in this series of studies on this doctrine, the doctrine of free will.
The unity of scripture
The third most commonly abused, neglected and violated principle of biblical hermeneutics is that principle called the unity of scripture. This principle is closely related to the analogy of scripture principle, but somewhat different. This principle maintains that the meaning of scripture is one of unity, and that when more than one meaning is imposed on Scripture, chaos ensues and the meaning of Scripture is obscured. This principle provides some restraint from the uninhibited resort to improper spiritualizing, allegorizing and the excessive use of typology in the interpretation of the Biblical text. This problem has been going on in the faith from the very first centuries of God’s revelation. I would be remiss if I did not explain something here, though. While adhering to this principle, I do not deny that there is figurative language in the Bible. Nor am I decrying typology as a valid way of understanding the Bible. And I do not deny that there may be multiple fulfillments in predictive prophesy. Indeed, these are things I employ myself in my understanding and teaching of the Holy Scriptures. But the point is that I believe there is a firm connection between type and anti-type, between prediction and fulfillment, so that the fulfillments are extensions and expansions of the original text and not some new and novel meanings. Fanciful typology such as taking the mere color of Rahab’s scarlet cord as a type of redemption is a violation of this principle. All those who know me personally know my own view of Arthur Pink’s writings on the Pentateuch. I believe that Pink was all too often guilty of unbridled typology which sometimes clearly violated this principle of Biblical interpretation. It seems to me that Pink saw a too-convenient and too-clear connection between type and anti-type so that, for instance, almost any reference to wood for him created a clear and unequivocal connection with the crucifixion. He would have been well advised to employ a little more control on his imagination, in my view. That is why some of his writings have found an obscure and lower place in my library. The principle of the unity of scripture helps us regulate this excessive typology.
Employing the principle of the unity of Scripture, I maintain that the Scripture does not in one place teach free will and another place determinism. If there are seeming differences, we are obligated to seek to harmonize those texts by resort to the skills of Biblical hermeneutics within a framework of sound interpretive principles.
My definition of free will
Finally, I finish this introductory post with my own definition of free will, and at the same time set forth the framework for my own view so that those who might desire to take up the cudgel with me on this matter can begin their research and preparation for their counteroffensive. Here again, I offer no new ground, but that which has been hammered out over the centuries by minds much superior to mine. I thus resort to a document that is well known among those of us who identify ourselves as Calvinistic Baptists, sovereign grace Baptists, particular Baptists and Reformed Baptists. That document is the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. The 1689, as many of us call it, has a definition that is identical to the Westminster Confession of faith of the Presbyterians. Why they are the same is a matter of discussion for another time, but I believe that the definition is a very good one and provides the clarity that is needed to launch this discussion. Though we Calvinistic Baptists are often accused of denying free will, the 1689 Confession has a chapter, Chapter 9, entitled “Of Free Will.” Here are the five paragraphs of that chapter:
God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
Man, in his state of innocence, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.
Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
When God converts a sinner and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good, yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he does not perfectly, nor only will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.
This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.
That should do it for the first installment. The next step will be to define free will as generally understood in our culture today and especially as it is understood and defined by our theological opponents, most notably our Arminian and Semi-Pelagian friends. That step will be a little more difficult, as there is no monolithic understanding among the various proponents of that view. If I have, then, any credentials, they would be, one, that I myself was an avid Arminian free-willer, having been indoctrinated into that view by my first church experience in a fundamentalist Baptist church, complete with Arminian soteriology and Dispensational eschatology. The second would be that I have studied this issue and engaged in this debate now for more than 40 years and modestly consider myself as at least somewhat scholarly in preparation for this discussion.
Next: Free will in our modern Christian community
Thursday, September 28, 2006
I'm baaaaaack!
It has been a long time since I have posted anything to my blog. The story is too long to recount at this point, but a lot of things have happened which have hindered me from doing all the things I would like to do. I write this note not so much to offer anything new -- at least at this point in time -- but to let you know that I am alive and well and ready to engage the battle. There are many things that are going on right now in our culture and in our world that deserve comment, but I will demure for the time being and just announce my return to the blogosphere.
I am getting ready for our downtown theological discussion gathering tonight. A number of us meet on the plaza to discuss the Gospel, Christ and all things related. It has been a particularly good summer for the group, and I hope the enthusiasm continues through the Fall and Winter months.
On a personal note, a crew is at this moment working outside on the lawn to install a sprinkler system. After all these years of dragging hoses, my dear wife will now have an automatic sprinkler system for her lawn and flower beds, which seem to become more expansive every year. We are thankful to our Lord for this luxury.
I am getting ready for our downtown theological discussion gathering tonight. A number of us meet on the plaza to discuss the Gospel, Christ and all things related. It has been a particularly good summer for the group, and I hope the enthusiasm continues through the Fall and Winter months.
On a personal note, a crew is at this moment working outside on the lawn to install a sprinkler system. After all these years of dragging hoses, my dear wife will now have an automatic sprinkler system for her lawn and flower beds, which seem to become more expansive every year. We are thankful to our Lord for this luxury.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Occam's what!?
Occam’s what? What has shaving to do with theology?
Much in every way. But let me explain a little what I am talking about.
It happened the other day when I was in my doctor’s office to discuss a problem I was having with high blood pressure, post-op, after I had had a heart catheterization, the results of which were quite good, thanks be unto God. But some adjustment problems were persistent and I was waking up every morning at about 3:45 AM with high blood pressure and elevated blood sugar levels. I was in to consult with my doctor about what measures to take to cope with this exasperating problem.
I should explain something about my doctor. Dr. Peter Vance here in Holland is a Christian man whose vocation as an internist has not caused him to cast off his Christianity. He is a man of faith who is at the same time a fine diagnostician. This is the first time in my life that I have enjoyed a mutual Christian relationship with my doctor, and I can tell you it is quite gratifying to be able to pray with your doctor as well as bat around medical jargon. He is a delightful man of Reformed faith, which is forgivable error, in my book <big grin>.
After we had discussed the problem at some length, and speculated about various causes of the problem, and after I had expressed my own thoughts as to what was causing the problem, Dr. Vance said, “Well, there was this ancient monk named Occam…” Before he could finish his sentence, I finished it for him: “Oh, sure. You’re talking about the principle called “Occam’s Razor.” Surprised, he asked, “Do you know about Occam’s Razor?” Of course, I said, I employ it now and again in two areas; Biblical hermeneutics and theological discussion.
I could see that he was stunned that I had stolen his thunder, as they say. It was a cute moment, really, for doctors have a tendency to think that patients are kind of dull people who know little about such things. But the reason I am telling this story is that it was clear in that moment what the doctor had concluded about my complaint. Employing that principle of parsimony, he was about to tell me that I was most likely right about the medicines running out of potency about that time in the morning since that seemed to be the most parsimonious conclusion and not nearly so complicated as the other causes [organic disorders, etc.] about which we had speculated. In other words, we had a moment of mutual clarity based on a philosophical tenet about which we were both aware. Had he been aware of my knowledge of the principle, he could have merely said the two words, “Occam’s Razor,” and I would have understood completely what he was meaning.
I thought I would discuss the principle called “Occam’s Razor” here for the benefit of my readers, especially by way of an example in which I have employed the principle in biblical hermeneutics [biblical interpretation]. It is likely, I think, that many of my readers have actually employed this principle as a logical response to problems though not really knowing the principle in any formal way. It is just logical, and most of my readers are mostly logical [with a few exceptions, whose names shall go unspoken - you know who you are. :-)
To explore the benefits of the principle of Occam’s Razor to biblical interpretation, let us consider a common controversial interpretation of a passage of Scripture, namely Genesis 6: 1- 2: “Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.”
The primary issue with this text is the identity of those called here “the sons of God.” There are three primary interpretations of this text, each of which can be defended in some measure linguistically, but all of which also have problems. Thus, we need a principle to guide us in our understanding and interpretation of this text. Occam’s Razor may be able to assist us in this matter.
Let’s look at the most common interpretations of the identity of these “sons of God.” First, there is the traditional Christian interpretation that these “sons of God” are Sethites. Another view sees them as angelic beings who cohabit with human women. A third is that these sons of God are tyrannical successors to Lamech who gathered harems. This view was proposed by Jewish rabbis of the second century A.D.
Let’s rule out for our purposes the last, for there is little ancient support for this explanation, though an argument can be mounted for it. Also, its main strength is that it might help explain what was meant with the words “of all whom they chose,” but of less help as to the identity of the “sons of God.”
So, of the two remaining interpretations, which one best suits the principle of Occam’s Razor? Which one requires the most inferences and assumptions and postulates the most hypotheses? Even by the mere definition of Occam’s Razor, the reader may know by now what my conclusion is as to the interpretation of this text, but let’s discuss it for a moment to make our point.
If one assumes that these “sons of God” are angels, there arise a number of problems. For instance, how is it that angels are like human beings and can or do have sexual relations with human women? This is hardly in keeping with the common evangelical understanding that angels are spiritual beings who may take the form of humans for God’s purpose of revelation. But hardly anyone imagines that angels lived on the earth and cohabited with women in a marriage relationship - it is simply out of scriptural character and too fantastic to posit such a situation. One must make a whole series of assumptions and inferences that are supported by little or no Biblical or scientific support. Identifying these sons of God as angelic beings is not a parsimonious interpretation, but one that requires a string of assumptions and inferences. What to do? William of Occam rides to the rescue.
Yes, it is true that the interpretation that these sons of God are Sethites has its problems, too. For instance, it is far more parsimonious to interpret the sons of God as Sethites, but it does not explain why the “daughters of men” must refer specifically to Cainite women. We point this out to avoid the appearance that the matter is so clear as to be unequivocal. No, the interpretation is difficult even in the best of circumstances. But the bottom line is that we can postulate the clearest interpretation by reference to Occam’s Razor and come away with a sound and rational explanation of the text.
First, the interpretation of the sons of God as Sethites seems quite clearly to be the most contextually appropriate interpretation. Genesis chapter five has just recounted the settlement of mankind on the earth through the line of Seth in particular. This is then compatible with normal hermeneutical principles of both distant and near context. Given this interpretation, the sons of God are the godly descendants of Seth as contrasted with the cursed descendants of Cain. This makes good sense and seems believable enough, whereas the interpretation of the sons of God as angelic beings continues to have serious problems and little Biblical and theological support. Are they fallen angels, or good angels? How is it that angels can conduct physical relationships [sexual relations] and social relations [marriage] with human women? How is it that such beings could procreate and what would the children of such unions be like?
It seems clear then that the principle of parsimony favors the interpretation that these sons of God are those descendents of godly Seth as contrasted with cursed Cain. Again, that does not answer every single issue in the text, but it most certainly offers the best explanation and keeps us from the fantastic assumptions about angels that we have just mentioned. Indeed, now the interpretation of these sons of God as angels seems even perverse and weird - which I think it is, personally. Thus, the principle of Occam’s Razor prevails in this instance, providing the most satisfying and simple explanation of the meaning of the Biblical text.
So, put this bit of information in your pocket for future use as you encounter both problems in your life and problems with the interpretation of the Biblical text.
You go, William of Occam!
Much in every way. But let me explain a little what I am talking about.
It happened the other day when I was in my doctor’s office to discuss a problem I was having with high blood pressure, post-op, after I had had a heart catheterization, the results of which were quite good, thanks be unto God. But some adjustment problems were persistent and I was waking up every morning at about 3:45 AM with high blood pressure and elevated blood sugar levels. I was in to consult with my doctor about what measures to take to cope with this exasperating problem.
I should explain something about my doctor. Dr. Peter Vance here in Holland is a Christian man whose vocation as an internist has not caused him to cast off his Christianity. He is a man of faith who is at the same time a fine diagnostician. This is the first time in my life that I have enjoyed a mutual Christian relationship with my doctor, and I can tell you it is quite gratifying to be able to pray with your doctor as well as bat around medical jargon. He is a delightful man of Reformed faith, which is forgivable error, in my book <big grin>.
After we had discussed the problem at some length, and speculated about various causes of the problem, and after I had expressed my own thoughts as to what was causing the problem, Dr. Vance said, “Well, there was this ancient monk named Occam…” Before he could finish his sentence, I finished it for him: “Oh, sure. You’re talking about the principle called “Occam’s Razor.” Surprised, he asked, “Do you know about Occam’s Razor?” Of course, I said, I employ it now and again in two areas; Biblical hermeneutics and theological discussion.
I could see that he was stunned that I had stolen his thunder, as they say. It was a cute moment, really, for doctors have a tendency to think that patients are kind of dull people who know little about such things. But the reason I am telling this story is that it was clear in that moment what the doctor had concluded about my complaint. Employing that principle of parsimony, he was about to tell me that I was most likely right about the medicines running out of potency about that time in the morning since that seemed to be the most parsimonious conclusion and not nearly so complicated as the other causes [organic disorders, etc.] about which we had speculated. In other words, we had a moment of mutual clarity based on a philosophical tenet about which we were both aware. Had he been aware of my knowledge of the principle, he could have merely said the two words, “Occam’s Razor,” and I would have understood completely what he was meaning.
I thought I would discuss the principle called “Occam’s Razor” here for the benefit of my readers, especially by way of an example in which I have employed the principle in biblical hermeneutics [biblical interpretation]. It is likely, I think, that many of my readers have actually employed this principle as a logical response to problems though not really knowing the principle in any formal way. It is just logical, and most of my readers are mostly logical [with a few exceptions, whose names shall go unspoken - you know who you are. :-)
To explore the benefits of the principle of Occam’s Razor to biblical interpretation, let us consider a common controversial interpretation of a passage of Scripture, namely Genesis 6: 1- 2: “Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.”
The primary issue with this text is the identity of those called here “the sons of God.” There are three primary interpretations of this text, each of which can be defended in some measure linguistically, but all of which also have problems. Thus, we need a principle to guide us in our understanding and interpretation of this text. Occam’s Razor may be able to assist us in this matter.
Let’s look at the most common interpretations of the identity of these “sons of God.” First, there is the traditional Christian interpretation that these “sons of God” are Sethites. Another view sees them as angelic beings who cohabit with human women. A third is that these sons of God are tyrannical successors to Lamech who gathered harems. This view was proposed by Jewish rabbis of the second century A.D.
Let’s rule out for our purposes the last, for there is little ancient support for this explanation, though an argument can be mounted for it. Also, its main strength is that it might help explain what was meant with the words “of all whom they chose,” but of less help as to the identity of the “sons of God.”
So, of the two remaining interpretations, which one best suits the principle of Occam’s Razor? Which one requires the most inferences and assumptions and postulates the most hypotheses? Even by the mere definition of Occam’s Razor, the reader may know by now what my conclusion is as to the interpretation of this text, but let’s discuss it for a moment to make our point.
If one assumes that these “sons of God” are angels, there arise a number of problems. For instance, how is it that angels are like human beings and can or do have sexual relations with human women? This is hardly in keeping with the common evangelical understanding that angels are spiritual beings who may take the form of humans for God’s purpose of revelation. But hardly anyone imagines that angels lived on the earth and cohabited with women in a marriage relationship - it is simply out of scriptural character and too fantastic to posit such a situation. One must make a whole series of assumptions and inferences that are supported by little or no Biblical or scientific support. Identifying these sons of God as angelic beings is not a parsimonious interpretation, but one that requires a string of assumptions and inferences. What to do? William of Occam rides to the rescue.
Yes, it is true that the interpretation that these sons of God are Sethites has its problems, too. For instance, it is far more parsimonious to interpret the sons of God as Sethites, but it does not explain why the “daughters of men” must refer specifically to Cainite women. We point this out to avoid the appearance that the matter is so clear as to be unequivocal. No, the interpretation is difficult even in the best of circumstances. But the bottom line is that we can postulate the clearest interpretation by reference to Occam’s Razor and come away with a sound and rational explanation of the text.
First, the interpretation of the sons of God as Sethites seems quite clearly to be the most contextually appropriate interpretation. Genesis chapter five has just recounted the settlement of mankind on the earth through the line of Seth in particular. This is then compatible with normal hermeneutical principles of both distant and near context. Given this interpretation, the sons of God are the godly descendants of Seth as contrasted with the cursed descendants of Cain. This makes good sense and seems believable enough, whereas the interpretation of the sons of God as angelic beings continues to have serious problems and little Biblical and theological support. Are they fallen angels, or good angels? How is it that angels can conduct physical relationships [sexual relations] and social relations [marriage] with human women? How is it that such beings could procreate and what would the children of such unions be like?
It seems clear then that the principle of parsimony favors the interpretation that these sons of God are those descendents of godly Seth as contrasted with cursed Cain. Again, that does not answer every single issue in the text, but it most certainly offers the best explanation and keeps us from the fantastic assumptions about angels that we have just mentioned. Indeed, now the interpretation of these sons of God as angels seems even perverse and weird - which I think it is, personally. Thus, the principle of Occam’s Razor prevails in this instance, providing the most satisfying and simple explanation of the meaning of the Biblical text.
So, put this bit of information in your pocket for future use as you encounter both problems in your life and problems with the interpretation of the Biblical text.
You go, William of Occam!
Monday, March 27, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Back again - Finally!
Greetings to all my readers. I have been "away" for a time, not really able to contribute much to my blog, but occupied with other matters of ministry. Significantly, though, that time was not without its benefits on the topic that I have been treating here - Gothardism.
In fact, I have been working directly and personally with a Gothardite family which is experiencing difficulty in family relationships. I have spent hours speaking to the father of the family with a son, 18 years of age. Thus, my knowledge of the effects of Gothardism on real people has grown immensely, and the news if not good at all. I will try to describe my analysis of my experiences in future posts, but suffice it to say that I now consider Gothardism as expressed by the families with which I am familiar to be nothing less than a "Christian" cult. The followers of Bill Gothard are as much indoctrinated into their cult as were the followers of Jim Jones or David Koresh. That is strong stuff, I admit, but in fact pretty much true, sadly. Thus far, Gothard has not gathered his followers into a commune and asked them to imbibe poisonous Cool-aid literally, but the doctrines that he has inculcated in them is probably just as deadly, spiritually speaking.
But I now must return to my former approach of examining Gothard's use of the Scriptures, which I believe is the great revealer of the error of that system. This is not surprising, as errors in the faith have mostly always arisen from those who perverted the Scriptures. Thankfully, sound scholarship, especially that study we call hermeneutics, provides the foundation for an accurate - and revealing - assessment of Gothard's writings. As I indicated in an earlier post, I have had the fortune to pick up a full packet of Gothard's writings, from the "Big Red Book" right down to the lessons on health-related issues [which is a totally amazing thing in itself!]. We will cite his writings as we return to our treatment of his interpretive practices - or perhaps lack thereof may be more accurate to say. Reading Gothard's materials is nothing less than disturbing to those who study the Bible with even a smidgen of thoughtfulness. I continue to be struck by the fact that years have gone by and very few have had the fortitude to critique Gothard's cultish movement. Perhaps the reason for that is that the pastors and others who ought to have been guiding the sheep in discerning the error of this cult were themselves involved in the seminars! For them, I suppose it would be embarrassing for them to admit that they were duped themselves. I will leave such judgments to the Lord, as we know from the Scriptures that special obligations are laid upon the shepherds. I recall vividly Dr. George Norris' admonitions to us young preacher boys at seminary as he with gravity and soberness applied the 33rd and 34th chapters of Ezekiel to the minister of the Word of God. Those Scriptures have remained with me to this very day when I sit down to work on sermons, lessons and articles for the people of God whom God has assigned me.
For those of you who know me, you should know that I have purposely curtailed my activities on the Theology email discussion list. I intend to rather express my views here on my blog where my posts are not an automatic invitation for a group of Arminians/semi-Pelagians to overwhelm with massive email "bombs" and the like. I don't mind engaging them in such forums as the List, but there is a time when a more pacific environment must be sought out for the thorough treatment of an issue.
I thank my readers for their patience while I was occupied with other ministerial tasks. I will once again seek to be more productive here on my blog, but you must realize that it is a secondary or even tertiary priority in my ministry, so if daily pastoral ministry takes me away again, I hope you will understand. God is blessing us here with new members, baptisms, and opportunities to proclaim the Gospel to many.
Back with you soon.
In fact, I have been working directly and personally with a Gothardite family which is experiencing difficulty in family relationships. I have spent hours speaking to the father of the family with a son, 18 years of age. Thus, my knowledge of the effects of Gothardism on real people has grown immensely, and the news if not good at all. I will try to describe my analysis of my experiences in future posts, but suffice it to say that I now consider Gothardism as expressed by the families with which I am familiar to be nothing less than a "Christian" cult. The followers of Bill Gothard are as much indoctrinated into their cult as were the followers of Jim Jones or David Koresh. That is strong stuff, I admit, but in fact pretty much true, sadly. Thus far, Gothard has not gathered his followers into a commune and asked them to imbibe poisonous Cool-aid literally, but the doctrines that he has inculcated in them is probably just as deadly, spiritually speaking.
But I now must return to my former approach of examining Gothard's use of the Scriptures, which I believe is the great revealer of the error of that system. This is not surprising, as errors in the faith have mostly always arisen from those who perverted the Scriptures. Thankfully, sound scholarship, especially that study we call hermeneutics, provides the foundation for an accurate - and revealing - assessment of Gothard's writings. As I indicated in an earlier post, I have had the fortune to pick up a full packet of Gothard's writings, from the "Big Red Book" right down to the lessons on health-related issues [which is a totally amazing thing in itself!]. We will cite his writings as we return to our treatment of his interpretive practices - or perhaps lack thereof may be more accurate to say. Reading Gothard's materials is nothing less than disturbing to those who study the Bible with even a smidgen of thoughtfulness. I continue to be struck by the fact that years have gone by and very few have had the fortitude to critique Gothard's cultish movement. Perhaps the reason for that is that the pastors and others who ought to have been guiding the sheep in discerning the error of this cult were themselves involved in the seminars! For them, I suppose it would be embarrassing for them to admit that they were duped themselves. I will leave such judgments to the Lord, as we know from the Scriptures that special obligations are laid upon the shepherds. I recall vividly Dr. George Norris' admonitions to us young preacher boys at seminary as he with gravity and soberness applied the 33rd and 34th chapters of Ezekiel to the minister of the Word of God. Those Scriptures have remained with me to this very day when I sit down to work on sermons, lessons and articles for the people of God whom God has assigned me.
For those of you who know me, you should know that I have purposely curtailed my activities on the Theology email discussion list. I intend to rather express my views here on my blog where my posts are not an automatic invitation for a group of Arminians/semi-Pelagians to overwhelm with massive email "bombs" and the like. I don't mind engaging them in such forums as the List, but there is a time when a more pacific environment must be sought out for the thorough treatment of an issue.
I thank my readers for their patience while I was occupied with other ministerial tasks. I will once again seek to be more productive here on my blog, but you must realize that it is a secondary or even tertiary priority in my ministry, so if daily pastoral ministry takes me away again, I hope you will understand. God is blessing us here with new members, baptisms, and opportunities to proclaim the Gospel to many.
Back with you soon.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
The Corrosive Tentacles of Gothardism Widespread
One thing that I told myself and my people was that I was only going to spend a minimal amount of time on the topic of Gothardism. For me it is very unpleasant to have to read the materials and read the reports of so many who have been damaged and harmed by that error. I had hoped that by now I could have left off that topic and moved on to other more meaningful issues. But, alas, it is like an irritating rash that won't go away.
Now a dear family that we know and love is being directly affected by Gothardism. One of the daughters in this family is seeking a relationship with a young man who has been reared in a strict Gothard home and now the issues are coming to the forefront. The young man seems very mature and sees the error of some of his parents Gothardism. But the young man's family is rigid and unrelenting regarding "courting," and this threatens to derail an apparently godly relationship between these two youths. I am aware of at least another similar circumstance in my own milieu, and there are likely many others.
Indeed, while we were talking to the mother of the girl in a local restaurant the other day, a man in the booth next to us was eavesdropping on our conversation, in which I was going over some of my concerns about Gothardism. My view of Gothardism is not favorable, to say the least, but my criticism was not a mere rant but taken primarily from the perspective that Gothard does horrible things with Biblical interpretation to justify and rationalize his sometimes bizarre views. After that man had finished his breakfast, he stopped at our booth to tell us that he was a Gothardite and that he felt it necessary to stop by and defend Gothard's name. I expressed my strong view that Gothard's teachings were unorthodox and not Biblical; the man did not seem to want to engage the conversation further.
Out of that experience I concluded a couple of things. First, the teachings of Bill Gothard are widespread among evangelical people. This is a bit surprising to me, as I have said in another article, because his teachings so obviously and blatantly differ with orthodox evangelical faith that I would have thought that few would follow such error. But apparently I am wrong about that. I was reminded that even the churches of Revelation were stained by false teachers and false prophets, so why should I find it so strange in this day of dwindling religion among the masses? Indeed. But one thing that interests me is that Gothardism is not primarily a church phenomenon. The adherents of that way of thinking do not always learn Gothardism from the church. In fact, many churches have been split and even destroyed by zealots of Gothardism insisting that the church order itself according to the tenets of Gothardism.
Secondly, it is apparent that the adherents of Gothardism are bold and brash to defend their system. My wife said, "I wonder if that man would have been so bold to defend Jesus Christ?" Good question. They seem to thrive on controversy and hold tenaciously to their ideas even if one shows them the error of that way. The combination of ready acceptance among the weak in faith and the zealousness of converts to that way is especially troubling and dangerous. This is what the Bible means by the "blind leading the blind." This is nothing short of a cultish kind of system, following a man so blindly and with such devotion that they will imbibe open heresy and theological error to do so.
So, we are taking the advice of Jesus Christ as He dictated to John the letters to the churches of Asia. To the church of Pergamos He had words of condemnation because they tolerated the error of Balaam and foolishly tolerated the teachings of the Nicolaitans, which Jesus said to the church, "... which I also hate." He called that church to repentance, lest He come quickly and fight against them with the "sword of My mouth."
To the church of Thyatira, Jesus had John write that He hated the things of "that woman Jezebel," which they seemed to tolerate. Jesus warned them sharply to repent and turn from allowing false teaching in their midst.
In the same vein, I sense a strong need to oppose this false teaching called Gothardism. My own sense is that it is a pox on the church in today's world, just as those churches in Revelation had many problems and false doctrines with which to deal. But the battle will not be easy; the adherents of that view are excitable zealots who crave power. This is especially true of the men of Gothardism, who in my own experience thus far are frankly weak men who have no intrinsic personal power or influence and thus are ready to welcome any constituted power given to them by Gothard, as is done with the Gothardism notion of the "umbrella of authority," an entirely unbiblical concept which grants to the fathers of Gothardite families [and to Gothard himself, of course] near total authority and power over the members of the family. And like Gothard, they are unable, it seems, to handle confrontation by knowledgable men outside their own "umbrella of authority." This notion, along with many other of Gothard's views, is utterly un-Christian, really, and ought to be rejected outright and the proponents of such unbiblical views sternly scolded.
On a personal note, I cannot help mentioning that I think that Gothardism is almost always, when it is brought to my attention, a problem associated, one way or another, with homeschooling. That view, of course, will irritate many genuinely serious homeschooling families, but I cannot help but make the correlation. I will leave the details and analysis of that nexus to a future article for the time being. Could it be that the inherent isolation and segregation of homeschooling makes those families more vulnerable to errors like Gothardism? Something to think about.
I continue to read the box of Gothard's materials that I was able to obtain and will, I promise you, return to the series of articles that I began some time ago. It is a very busy time of ministry for me, and a kind of marvelous revival is breaking out among us. The blog is low on my list of priorities, so those who are waiting may have to be patient with me.
Now a dear family that we know and love is being directly affected by Gothardism. One of the daughters in this family is seeking a relationship with a young man who has been reared in a strict Gothard home and now the issues are coming to the forefront. The young man seems very mature and sees the error of some of his parents Gothardism. But the young man's family is rigid and unrelenting regarding "courting," and this threatens to derail an apparently godly relationship between these two youths. I am aware of at least another similar circumstance in my own milieu, and there are likely many others.
Indeed, while we were talking to the mother of the girl in a local restaurant the other day, a man in the booth next to us was eavesdropping on our conversation, in which I was going over some of my concerns about Gothardism. My view of Gothardism is not favorable, to say the least, but my criticism was not a mere rant but taken primarily from the perspective that Gothard does horrible things with Biblical interpretation to justify and rationalize his sometimes bizarre views. After that man had finished his breakfast, he stopped at our booth to tell us that he was a Gothardite and that he felt it necessary to stop by and defend Gothard's name. I expressed my strong view that Gothard's teachings were unorthodox and not Biblical; the man did not seem to want to engage the conversation further.
Out of that experience I concluded a couple of things. First, the teachings of Bill Gothard are widespread among evangelical people. This is a bit surprising to me, as I have said in another article, because his teachings so obviously and blatantly differ with orthodox evangelical faith that I would have thought that few would follow such error. But apparently I am wrong about that. I was reminded that even the churches of Revelation were stained by false teachers and false prophets, so why should I find it so strange in this day of dwindling religion among the masses? Indeed. But one thing that interests me is that Gothardism is not primarily a church phenomenon. The adherents of that way of thinking do not always learn Gothardism from the church. In fact, many churches have been split and even destroyed by zealots of Gothardism insisting that the church order itself according to the tenets of Gothardism.
Secondly, it is apparent that the adherents of Gothardism are bold and brash to defend their system. My wife said, "I wonder if that man would have been so bold to defend Jesus Christ?" Good question. They seem to thrive on controversy and hold tenaciously to their ideas even if one shows them the error of that way. The combination of ready acceptance among the weak in faith and the zealousness of converts to that way is especially troubling and dangerous. This is what the Bible means by the "blind leading the blind." This is nothing short of a cultish kind of system, following a man so blindly and with such devotion that they will imbibe open heresy and theological error to do so.
So, we are taking the advice of Jesus Christ as He dictated to John the letters to the churches of Asia. To the church of Pergamos He had words of condemnation because they tolerated the error of Balaam and foolishly tolerated the teachings of the Nicolaitans, which Jesus said to the church, "... which I also hate." He called that church to repentance, lest He come quickly and fight against them with the "sword of My mouth."
To the church of Thyatira, Jesus had John write that He hated the things of "that woman Jezebel," which they seemed to tolerate. Jesus warned them sharply to repent and turn from allowing false teaching in their midst.
In the same vein, I sense a strong need to oppose this false teaching called Gothardism. My own sense is that it is a pox on the church in today's world, just as those churches in Revelation had many problems and false doctrines with which to deal. But the battle will not be easy; the adherents of that view are excitable zealots who crave power. This is especially true of the men of Gothardism, who in my own experience thus far are frankly weak men who have no intrinsic personal power or influence and thus are ready to welcome any constituted power given to them by Gothard, as is done with the Gothardism notion of the "umbrella of authority," an entirely unbiblical concept which grants to the fathers of Gothardite families [and to Gothard himself, of course] near total authority and power over the members of the family. And like Gothard, they are unable, it seems, to handle confrontation by knowledgable men outside their own "umbrella of authority." This notion, along with many other of Gothard's views, is utterly un-Christian, really, and ought to be rejected outright and the proponents of such unbiblical views sternly scolded.
On a personal note, I cannot help mentioning that I think that Gothardism is almost always, when it is brought to my attention, a problem associated, one way or another, with homeschooling. That view, of course, will irritate many genuinely serious homeschooling families, but I cannot help but make the correlation. I will leave the details and analysis of that nexus to a future article for the time being. Could it be that the inherent isolation and segregation of homeschooling makes those families more vulnerable to errors like Gothardism? Something to think about.
I continue to read the box of Gothard's materials that I was able to obtain and will, I promise you, return to the series of articles that I began some time ago. It is a very busy time of ministry for me, and a kind of marvelous revival is breaking out among us. The blog is low on my list of priorities, so those who are waiting may have to be patient with me.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
