|
Bill
Gothard’s Evangelical Talmud,
Part
2: Chain of Authority
by Ron Henzel
In Part
One of this series, we traced the
history of the rise of Bill Gothard’s Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts
(IBYC), the fact that it grew during a very tumultuous time in American
history (especially for the youth of this country), and that thousands
of parents and church leaders sent their young people to these seminars
without adequately evaluating their content. But this does not mean that
voices of concern were not raised. In this installment, we will listen
to what one concerned Christian was saying, and examine Gothard’s specific
teachings from his beginnings in the 1960s through the end of the ’70s.
For the first
20 years or so of Bill Gothard’s seminar ministry (from around 1964
to 1984) his teachings received little public scrutiny. A notable exception
was Wilfred Bockelman’s book, Gothard — The Man and His Ministry: An
Evaluation (Milford, MI: Quill Publications, 1976). As far as we know,
this has been the only book-length treatment of Gothard’s ministry ever
to be marketed to the general Christian public. (There have been some other
substantial published works, but they have had a very limited circulation.)
While Bockelman worked hard to be evenhanded, and found positive things
to say, he also had some serious theological disagreements with Gothard,
especially on the subject of God’s grace.
Nonetheless
Bockelman’s book does not appear to have had much impact on the evangelical
community. One reason for this might have been that his publisher was not
exactly a major force in the evangelical community, and the book probably
suffered from poor distribution. Another factor might have been the immense
popularity that Gothard was enjoying in the mid-’70s, especially among
parents and grandparents, and so anyone criticizing him would have naturally
been viewed with suspicion.
But another
thing to consider was Gothard’s unique strategy for marketing his own books
and materials: you could only get them by attending his seminars.
Gothard sold nothing over the counter at Christian bookstores or anywhere
else. His was the original “This Offer Not Available In Stores” approach,
except that operators were not standing by. You had to get in your
car and go to one of his public seminars.
As Bockelman
wrote:
And
if you think you’d like to slip away an extra copy
to a friend who could really use one, forget it. This book [the seminar
notebook] is intended only for the use of those who go through the whole
program.
During the week there will be twelve times when portions of the book are
distributed. In the front of the book is a little card that lists all twelve
times and the name of the material to be distributed then. When you receive
yours, that card will be checked off, so you can’t
go back and get a second copy.
[pp.
39-40] |
One effect
of this was that no one who had not actually attended a seminar had access
to what Gothard was teaching, so very few had the opportunity to privately
and objectively scrutinize his materials outside of the arena atmosphere
of his seminars. Not only that, but at his seminars Gothard publicly discouraged
attendees from even discussing the materials outside of the seminars. As
Bockelman, who actually did attend a seminar, wrote:
Bill Gothard is perfectly justified in saying, “If people want to know
what the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts is all about, let them come
to the seminar.” He even has the right to say, “You can’t
form an opinion unless you’ve attended the whole Institute.”
He has reason to be dissatisfied with those who have never attended one
of his Institutes, but who nevertheless pontificate on them.
Still, I don’t think Gothard is being particularly
reasonable when he suggests that people attending the seminar not even
discuss the handbook outside the meetings. ...
[pp.
19-20] |
To many Christians
in the 1970s, Bockelman’s book was probably reminiscent of someone “crying
wolf.” But reading his comments from the post-Jonestown, post-Waco perspective
can be rather troubling. True, Gothard did not set up a hermetically-sealed
cultic community along those lines, but there is one feature he appears
to have in common with them: the avoidance of accountability through the
control of information — specifically: the control of information about
himself and his teachings.
The absence of Gothard materials — and the ironic
suppression of their content by Gothard himself — outside of his seminars,
meant that objectionable portions of his teachings were kept out of the
Christian public’s view. Since
attendees (whom Gothard dubbed “alumni” after they attended) were discouraged
from discussing them, outsiders knew of no reason for alarm.
Since you could not just go out and buy a Gothard
book at a Christian bookstore, that meant that Christian book reviewers
could not read them and point out any problems with them. Thus no one would
read any critical reviews of Gothard’s
work. It also meant that his books were generally unavailable to Bible
professors, theologians, and those engaged in apologetics ministries. Thus,
as thousands of Christian college kids filed into Gothard’s
seminars, their instructors were unable to even comment on this alternative
source of teaching, unless they themselves took time out of their busy
schedules to attend. And since Gothard was so widely praised — frequently
by those who, themselves, had never been to his seminars — there seemed
to be no reason to check up on him.
Gothard’s
materials are understandably difficult to track down these days, unless
you actually know some “alumni” who will let you borrow their copies. But
some copies of seminar materials from the ’60s
and ’70s have found their way
onto library shelves, and into used book stores, and we used these as the
basis for evaluating the content of his early seminars.
How Gothard Says
He Interprets the Bible
An examination of Gothard’s
materials from his earliest days shows that there was a great deal
to be concerned about. But Gothard knew how to disarm his audience, assure
them of his competence, and allay potential misgivings. Thus, in his large,
red, Basic Seminar Textbook from 1979, he seems to lay out a sound
foundation for what follows in his book:
WORKING
THROUGH THE TEXT: Before any application of Scripture can be made,
there must be a thorough understanding of what the text is actually saying.
 Why
was it written?
To
whom was it written?
What
were the conditions at the time?
What
is the precise meaning in the original language?
What
related Scriptures explain it further?
[p.
3] |
These are, of course, standard procedures for
biblical interpretation — indeed for any kind of interpretation.
But it’s
one thing to know the rules of interpretation and to be able to quote them;
it’s quite another thing to practice
them. And not very far into the Textbook we begin to encounter uses
of Scripture which fly in the face of the very sound procedures Gothard
himself advocates. For example:
Undue
concern for clothes may be an attempt to cover up or compensate for unchangeable
physical features which are rejected. Jesus linked these two thoughts in
Matthew 6:27, 28 “Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto
his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment?”
[p.
12] |
Gothard makes it sound as though Jesus is addressing
the problem of shame over unwanted blemishes, a big nose, or the like.
A glance at the context, however, reveals that Jesus had nothing of the
sort in mind, but instead was addressing the sin of habitual worry:
"Therefore
I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or
about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food,
and the body more important than clothes?"
[Matt.
6:25, NIV] |
Jesus by no means was linking the two thoughts
of clothing and a poor self-image, but by teaching that He was, Gothard
also commits the error of anachronistic (chronologically misplaced) reasoning,
by "projecting" (if you will) the assumptions of 20th century psychology
onto the teachings of Jesus.
How Gothard Actually
Interprets the Bible
Examples like this are not very disturbing at
first, and seem to be offset by other examples of correct Scriptural application.
But over the course of nearly 200 pages, they begin to multiply, especially
in areas where Gothard’s views
tend to be the most unique — for instance, on page 20, when Gothard begins
discussing his favorite subject of "authority:"
The
essence of submission is not "getting under the domination of authority
but rather getting under the protection of authority". Authority is like
an "umbrella of protection", and when we get out from under it, we expose
ourselves to unnecessary temptations which are too strong for us to overcome.
This is why Scripture compares rebellion to witchcraft - "Rebellion is
like the sin of witchcraft." (I Samuel 15:23) Both terms have the same
basic definition - subjecting ourselves to the realm and power of Satan.
[p.
20] |
Here a pattern emerges not only of citing Scriptures
that do not prove his point, but also of not giving any Scriptural
support for something that Gothard considers essential. His citation of
1 Samuel 15:23 is not even tangentially related to his definition of "submission"
as "getting under the protection of authority." And instead of providing
us with a Scripture verse that does prove that point, Gothard diverts
our attention to another issue entirely: he smoothly glides into a comparison
of rebellion to witchcraft that is designed to establish the following
thesis:
Rebellion is evil; therefore, submission is righteous.
This idea sounds biblical enough that to most
seminar attendees — who are usually busy balancing a three-ring-binder
on their knees, feverishly taking down notes, while trying to catch everything
on Gothard’s overhead presentation
— it is not obvious that Gothard has just misused the Bible. But then,
who
doesn’t occasionally
quote a Scripture verse in support of a point that it does not prove? We
all make this mistake from time to time; it doesn’t
mean that our teaching is dangerous, does it?
While this reasoning may quickly pacify the conscience
of a seminar attendee, it will also set that person up for difficulty,
because: 1) Gothard’s view of
submission to authority is the foundation on which he builds many
of his other unique teachings; and 2) by the time Gothard deals with the
subject of authority, quoting verses that do not prove his point has already
become something of a habit for him. So for a person to have gotten all
the way to page 20 in the Basic Seminar Textbook without being alarmed
by this trend means either that a) that person is not very familiar
with the Bible, and/or b) that person is being kept too busy by
the pace of the seminar to notice. Only the more informed and alert seminar
attendees would be likely to pick up on these problems.
Even if it is true that all rebellion is evil
and thus all submission is good, it is still not the same as saying that
submission means "getting under the protection of authority." When is Gothard
going to supply us with a Scriptural basis for this idea? He isn’t.
He basically expects us to accept his assertion and follow him quickly
to his next point, before we have the opportunity to notice that he is
not teaching Scripture, but rather his own ideas. His citation from 1 Samuel,
therefore, reads more like a sleight-of-hand than a reference for a biblical
principle.
But there is more to consider in Gothard’s
teaching on authority, because an intrinsic part of it can be found in
his statement, "Authority is like an ‘umbrella of protection’,
and when we get out from under it, we expose ourselves to unnecessary temptations
which are too strong for us to overcome." Gothard has thus shifted away
from the "authority paradigm" that has been historically presented to young
people.
Most young people in the ’60s
and ’70s were taught that authority
protects people from social chaos. We need government, and a police force,
and a military, and all the structures and powers of authority — so the
standard explanation went — in order to keep evil from running rampant
in the world. It is no secret that many people in their teens and twenties,
especially during the ’60s, rejected
this line of reasoning.
Nevertheless, it is the central rationale
provided by the Apostle Paul in Romans 13:3-4, and we have to wonder why
Gothard felt the need to supplement Paul’s
teaching with the notion that not submitting to authority somehow exposes
us "to unnecessary temptations which are too strong for us to overcome."
Is it not enough that we should fear the inevitable social ills that result
from disregarding authority, must we also fear some mystical, spiritual
ill as well? And mystical it will remain, in more ways than one, because
Gothard never shows us from the Scriptures how this is so.
The Links in
Gothard’s “Chain-of-Authority”
Gothard teaches that God had three primary purposes
for instituting human authority: 1) "To [help us] grow in wisdom and character;"
2) "To gain protection from destructive temptations" (as outlined above);
and 3) "To receive clear direction for life decisions" (p. 20). To prove
his first point, Gothard writes:
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 favour with God and man." (Luke 2:52)
[Ibid.] |
Here Gothard has taken a story from Luke, which
was designed to illustrate the identity of Christ as the Son of God and
Messiah, and has twisted it into a conflict over the parental authority
of Joseph and Mary, so that he could fit it into his own system. We know
the reason Luke recorded this account from its climactic scene (which Gothard
omits), in verses 48-49:
When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him,
"Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously
searching for you."
"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn’t
you know I had to be in my Father’s house?"
[NIV] |
This is also the only record we have in Scripture
of Jesus ever being scolded by His human parents. But if we believe in
the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ, then it was a scolding He did
not deserve. The sinless Christ, at age 12, answered His parents’
question with His own question: Didn’t
they know Who He was? And didn’t
they know that Who He was would dictate where He was? So
the basic issue was: Why didn’t
they think of coming to the Temple first? It would have saved them
a lot of unnecessary worrying! Contrary to Gothard, this story has nothing
to do with any conflict Jesus was facing over whether to stay in the Temple
or go home with His parents. Jesus was not contemplating entering the ministry
at age 12!
So if this is not a story about Jesus making
the tough choice "to leave His ministry at the temple" so that He could
submit to His parents, then neither is it a story about how that His choice
to submit was why He "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with
God and man." It wasn’t the point
of Luke’s story, Luke was simply
describing the progress of the young Jesus’
life, and thus Gothard misused Luke’s
story to create a false cause-and-effect relationship between submission
to human authority and character development. There are many people who
have submitted in this way, but have not increased in wisdom and
stature, or in favor with God and man. The Nazi party comes to mind at
this point.
In order to justify his statement that submission
to authority is necessary to "receive clear direction for life decisions,"
Gothard writes:
Correct
decisions are based on faith; that is, visualizing what God intends to
do. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Romans 14:23) One of the most
basic aspects of faith is to realize how God gets His directions to us
through those He has placed over us.
[Ibid.] |
Here again we are confronted with two questionable
statements, and a Bible verse that proves neither of them sandwiched in
between. How did Gothard come up with his definition of faith as "visualizing?"
He doesn’t say. Where does the
Bible say that following those "over us" is "one of the most basic aspects
of faith?" Gothard doesn’t help
us out here, either. But he goes on:
After
the centurion asked Jesus to come and heal his servant, it occurred to
him that just as his life was structured around a "chain of responsibility,"
so the kingdom in which God operates must have a similar structure of authority.
[Ibid.] |
The account Gothard is referring to is found
in Matthew 8:5-10:
| When
Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help.
"Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."
Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him." The centurion replied, "Lord,
I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word,
and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with
soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’
and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it." When Jesus
heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell
you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.
..." |
Is the point of this story that God’s
kingdom is structured around a "chain of responsibility" (or "umbrellas
of authority") similar to that of the Roman Empire? No. The point of this
story is that the centurion had such great faith in Who Jesus was,
that he knew that Jesus did not need to come to his house in order
to heal his servant. Jesus was God. He could heal long-distance.
The main point of every story in the Gospels
is to highlight for us Who Jesus is! By distracting us with his
"authority" teaching, Gothard is not only violating the rules of proper
interpretation, but he is frustrating the intent of the Gospel authors,
and diverting our attention from the glory of Christ’s
Person.
But Gothard is relentless. He interprets Matthew
8:5ff. as yet another passage that corroborates his view that submitting
to a "chain of authority" will help us "to receive clear direction for
life decisions." But again: when we look for a connection between Gothard’s
thesis ("receiving clear directions") and Gothard’s
text (Matt. 8:5-10), we come up empty. If anything, here we have a story
where the centurion was telling Jesus what to do, instead
of "receiving clear direction" by submitting to His authority! It soon
becomes apparent that Gothard cites Matthew 8 primarily to support his
underlying premise (since it does not support his immediate point),
which is that Christians must get under one of his all-important "umbrellas
of authority."
In his book Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the
Cults Misread the Bible (InterVarsity Press, 1980), James W. Sire refers
to this method of proof-texting as "The Biblical Hook":
When
Scripture is quoted, especially at the beginning of an argument which turns
out to promote a cult doctrine or point of view, it may be that it is being
used primarily as a hook to grasp the attention of readers or listeners.
"The Bible says" gets the attention, but what follows the quotation may
be far from traditional Christian teaching and far from the intention of
the Bible itself.
[pp.
41-42.] |
We do not mean to imply that Gothard is a cult
leader. On the other hand, nor is this the only way found in Sire’s
book in which Gothard misuses Scriptures. The examples we have provided
so far are simply consistent with Sire’s
description of "The Biblical Hook."
Gothard's persistently incorrect, but strategic
citation of verses creates the illusion that he is teaching "biblical principles."
And this leads us to another issue, which we will address in Part
3 of this series: Just how many "biblical principles" are necessary
to live the Christian life?
|
|
