Editor’s note: We would like to highlight a few points from among the many interesting aspects of the following open letter and Bill’s Gothard’s response:
1. According to Gothard, parents who have utilized his teachings to justify breaking the will of their children should cease immediately. If a child resists discipline, the parent should stop and examine his or her own wrong attitude.
Mr. Joseph Bayly, vice-president of David C. Cook Publishing Co., was author of several books, including The Gospel Blimp (Zondervan).
2. According to Gothard, a wife or other person should maintain a right attitude of obeying God above man, and say “No” to lying or covering the sin of an authority.
3. According to Gothard, “it is unwise to cite hypothetical situations. By their very nature they do not contain vital facts nor the power of God in a particular situation.” What does this say for his own style of teaching?
4. Gothard’s public teachings should be vigorously discussed in a public forum. Recovering Grace is one means of doing so. Also, concerned laypeople and theologians will want to visit and sign the Open Letter to the Leadership of the Institute in Basic Life Principles. IBLP is aware of this call to examine the organization’s teachings, and we hope for a meaningful statement on the issue.
Basic Conflicts: An open letter to Bill Gothard
by Joseph Bayly
ETERNITY, June 1977
Mr. William Gothard
Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts
45055 North Adams
Hinsdale, Illinois 60521
Dear Bill Gothard:
God has given you great opportunities and responsibilities in recent years, and I, along with most evangelical Christians, am thankful for your ministry. Many people have told me of their growth through your Institutes. I therefore approach you as a Christian brother, believing that we share deep concerns for the church of Jesus Christ and its testimony in the world.
Two years ago I was ministering to a group of missionaries in South America. During a session on the biblical teaching about the relations of husbands and wives, I asked a question: “If your husband were at home, and the phone rang, and he said, ‘If it’s for me, say I’m not here,’ would you do it? Would you lie because your husband told you to?”
I was surprised when not one of the women answered “No.” The closest anyone came to saying she would not obey her husband was one woman who said she’d delay long enough in replying that it might tip the person off to the fact her husband really was at home.
After the meeting, another woman said to me in private, “Yes, I’d lie if my husband told me to do so. God would judge him for the lie, not me. I would only be doing what God tells me to do; obeying my husband.”
When I asked her and some of the silent ones (who later revealed that they felt the same way) the basis for their willingness to lie on their husbands’ instruction, they said that their opinions had been formed at your Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts. Several told me you used Sarah’s willingness to pass herself off as Abraham’s sister as the biblical precedent.
Since then, others have told me that this is a misunderstanding of what you teach about the relations of a man and his wife to each other, to sinful acts and to God.
As a believer in John Dewey’s principle, “Lord, deliver me from my disciples,” I was willing to believe this, even though other women in the intervening years have told me that they received that same impression from your seminars.
Now I’m not so sure, because of two recent incidents about which I’ve heard. It is for this reason I write an open letter to you, with opportunity for you to disclaim the impression people have received.
Since this is an open, public matter involving tens of thousands of people who have sat under your teaching, rather than a private matter between the two of us, I feel that this public means of your denying or confirming the teaching is appropriate and biblical. (An example would be St. Paul’s writing public letters to the Corinthian church and other churches, rather than going to individuals in private.)
Three weeks ago an attractive woman told me that her pastor is a firm supporter of you and your seminars, and that she had said to this pastor, ” ‘ In the business world, an occasional husband who wants to succeed or get a big contract will offer his wife to his boss or a purchasing agent. If my husband told me that he wanted me to have such a relationship, should I do so?’
“My pastor told me that I should try to talk my husband out of this idea if he ever proposed it. But if he wouldn’t back down, I should obey. He said I would not be judged by God for adultery; my husband would be judged for telling me to do this. I would merely be doing what God tells me to do: submitting to my husband, which pleases God.”
A week later, in another city, I heard of a case that may be familiar to you. If it is, I think you may welcome this opportunity to set the record straight.
A father who claims his idea came from your Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts has recently been found guilty by a court and sentenced to seven years in prison for killing his young son. This man was a respected member of an evangelical church—in fact, he was about to start teaching a course on child discipline.
The father, believing that it was his duty to break his three-year-old child’s spirit, an obligation which he said you taught, had an argument with the child about birds perched on a wire which they could see through a window. The child—precocious and strong-willed—would not respond as his father desired. So the father struck his son, and for the next two-and-a-half hours, when the child continued to oppose his father, repeatedly struck him. At this point the child died.
[At the request of Mr. Gothard, I wish to add the following facts not available to me at the time I wrote the letter. This information is from accounts in the (Portland) Oregonian and Journal newspapers. The three-year-old boy was not the man's son, but a foster child. (From another source I have learned that his previous years were tragic: both parents died in separate incidents.) The child did not die of the beating, but died of drowning in the bathtub where the man said he put him to revive him after beating him with a wooden stick. The autopsy further showed that the child had suffered multiple bruises in the buttocks, thighs and calves. "Over the most minimal controversy, (the convicted man) took it upon himself to beat a baby almost to death," noted Multnomah County Circuit Judge Clifford Olsen.]
During this time [of the beating] the man’s wife came into the room, but did not intervene. The reason: she believed that it was not her right to object to the beating, because she would be taking authority away from her husband (which she had learned in the Institute was wrong).
I was told that the man, who pleaded guilty, does not feel that he disobeyed God; rather, he did what God commands Christians to do. The result of his obedience must be left in the hands of the Sovereign God.
Here are the questions I should like to have you answer, for the sake of the people who have attended your seminars; and for those who have not, but have been exposed to your teaching second-hand; and for the sake of the evangelical Christian community’s testimony, with which you are closely identified.
1. Does a Christian woman who is a wife have the responsibility to obey God rather than her husband, when the two are in conflict? Specifically, does God hold her guilty of lying, of adultery, of complicity in child abuse/manslaughter when she does not cross her husband but obeys in these areas?
2. Do you follow the New Testament doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers, including women, reaffirmed by the Reformers, with their immediate access to God; or is a married woman’s husband her priest, the connection between herself and God?
3. Is Old Testament Sarah a proper example for Christian women, in her obedience to Abraham when he told her to lie about their being husband and wife? If you have taught this (and a number of people claim that you have), do you give any weight to God’s act in the New Testament in striking Sapphira dead for agreeing with her husband to lie (Acts 5:lff.)?
4. Does a Christian parent have a responsibility to break his child’s will? If so, to what lengths should he go to achieve this end?
5. This question is not so important as the others, perhaps, but I’d like to know whether it is a concern for you that people such as I must depend on second-hand accounts of what you teach in your seminars if we do not have the time or money or inclination to attend? Do you not feel a responsibility to put any of your ideas or explanations into print for the general public? Must we always judge your ideas by what others report?
Thank you for answering this open letter. I assume that you can do so in the next four weeks. If I receive your reply by April 10, it will be carried at the end of my column in ETERNITY magazine where this open letter will be published. Otherwise the letter will be published without a reply.
Sincerely, in Christ,
Joe Bayly
* * *
(Perhaps, in the absence of a reply from Mr. Gothard, I should detail our contacts after he received the above letter.
1. Mr. Gothard called me on the phone after three weeks, telling me he had been away and, later, sick. He said he had not yet read my letter but it had been summarized for him. We discussed areas of disagreement, and he suggested I “interview” him instead of publishing the letter. I said No.
2. A psychologist who “advises Mr. Gothard” (in his words), and who has been blessed by his ministry, phoned me to say that he hoped I’d not publish the letter. Would I accept an answer from someone other than Mr. Gothard? When I replied No, he said that he had advised Mr. Gothard not to reply, since if he replied to me, he’d have to “defend” himself against all sorts of people—something that he has not done. Rather, Mr. Gothard, he said, has refused to answer criticism to date.
3. Mr. Gothard called me several days before the April 10 date, and again discussed various aspects of this open letter with me. He said he was writing a reply, which I’d receive by April 10.
4. On April 11, Mr. Gothard’s secretary spoke on the phone with my secretary, giving several very brief comments from Mr. Gothard. I feel no Christian responsibility to publish these round-about comments, nor to pursue the matter further. It is my considered opinion, however, that no servant of the Lord is in a privileged position when it comes to answering the allegations of unbiblical teaching. And no leader, Christian or otherwise, who programs the minds of tens of thousands is above answering responsible criticism. (JB)
Republished with permission from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (AllianceNet.org).
How Basic the Conflict? An open letter from Bill Gothard
by Joseph Bayly
ETERNITY, August 1977
I have now received a written reply from Bill Gothard to the open letter published here in the June issue.
Questions which I raised, to which he addresses himself, were:
1. Does a Christian woman who is a wife have the responsibility to obey her husband rather than God, when the two are in conflict? Specifically, does God hold her guilty of lying, of adultery, of complicity in child abuse/manslaughter when she does not cross her husband but obeys in these areas?
2. Do you follow the New Testament doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers, including women, reaffirmed by the Reformers, with their immediate access to God; or is a married woman’s husband her priest, the connection between herself and God?
3. Is Old Testament Sarah a proper example for Christian women, in her obedience to Abraham when he told her to lie about their being husband and wife? If you taught this (and a number of people claim that you have), do you give any weight to God’s act in the New Testament in striking Sapphira dead for agreeing with her husband to lie (Acts 5:lff.)?
4. Does a Christian parent have a responsibility to break his child’s will? If so, to what lengths should he go to achieve this end?
5. This question is not so important as the others, perhaps, but I’d like to know whether it is a concern to you that people such as I must depend on second-hand accounts of what you teach in your seminars if we do not have the time or money or inclination to attend? Do you not feel a responsibility to put any of your ideas or explanations into print for the general public?
Here is Mr. Gothard’s written reply.
Dear Joe Bayly,
My great reluctance in replying to your open letter was not because I reject criticism. On the contrary, I not only welcome criticism, but I actively seek it from many, especially recognized Bible scholars throughout the country. Neither is it because I don’t want to clarify publicly what is taught in the seminar.
In answer to your questions: the seminar teaches that a person should never do evil, even if asked to do so by one in authority. On the other hand, it does emphasize that we must have a spirit of obedience, even if we must refuse to do evil. Daniel illustrated this spirit when he refused to defile himself with the king’s meat and later when he refused to obey the king’s command not to pray. In the first instance, he was able to design a creative alternative. In the second, he willingly went to the den of lions. In both cases he had a spirit of obedience but did not do evil. The apostle Peter condemned Sapphira for agreeing to tell a lie; but this same apostle used Sarah as a model of an obedient spirit. He urges all women to learn Sarah’s spirit without doing evil: “…whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well…” (I Peter 3:6).
In our day the source of most conflicts with authority is not over commands to do wrong actions but in demonstrations of wrong attitudes by those under authority. Chief among these are ungratefulness, disrespect, disloyalty, and pride. For this reason, it is unwise to cite hypothetical situations. By their very nature they do not contain vital facts nor the power of God in a particular situation.
The seminar teaches that every Christian has direct access to God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
The seminar emphasizes that a person should never break his child’s spirit. Instead, he must win the child’s will without breaking his spirit. If the child resists discipline, the parents should stop and examine their own attitudes. All too often, a child will reflect the wrong attitudes of the parents back to them.
My reluctance in writing a response to your letter was because of a deep respect for you as a Christian brother and a commitment to the scriptural principles behind Matthew 18 and Galatians 6: 1. These require that we privately check all facts when a brother misses the mark, and that we do it in a spirit of trying to restore that person rather than trying to expose him. These apply to your report on the child abuse case. When someone who appears to be a “respected church member” brings shame to the cause of Christ, it is absolutely vital that all the facts be checked out before commenting on them publicly. Only then will others understand the real causes of the problem.
Those who were directly involved in this case have given me the following information: that the father who killed the boy was involved in a previous marriage and was accused of abusing the child of that marriage; that his present wife was unaware of the former child abuse and his pastor was totally unaware of both the previous marriage and the former child abuse. (We explain in the seminar how conflicts in previous relationships will affect a parent’s ability to give proper discipline, and Scripture explains that if a man covers his sin, he will not prosper.)
Further information given to us is: that the man stated to his pastor, “I was not following seminar teachings”; that the three-year-old boy was not their own son, but was a ward of the court from another family; that the man was absorbed in many books on child discipline and claims that these influenced him; that the man used an object for spanking which is not scriptural; that there were bruises on the child from his knees to his head; that the child did not die by spanking but by drowning; that the wife did interfere, but was ordered by her husband to go downstairs; that the man has acknowledged his wrong to the church and asked for their forgiveness.
Joe, I spoke to you privately on two occasions after checking out this information. I urged you to do likewise and give a fair report based on the facts. You refused to do so. Now I ask you publicly, is it “responsible criticism” when a critic’s use of incorrect information incites public indignation; when he refuses to check out secondhand reports, even after being told that they are false but instead puts the full burden of defense on the one being publicly criticized? I believe this question is vital to the cause of Christ and his reputation in the world.
If we are to turn back the forces of evil, we must demonstrate to the world a spirit of accuracy and of genuine love in all of our words. I would be grateful for the privilege of personally meeting with you and discussing these points together with any other questions you may have on the seminar ministry.
Sincerely in Christ,
Bill Gothard
* * *
In about two hours of telephone conversations. Bill Gothard and I have discussed many matters related to my open letter. I have reassured him, as I did in the letter itself, that I am thankful for his ministry, that many people have told me of growth and problems solved through his seminars.
I should like to make several comments about the letter.
Concerning Mr. Gothard’s judgment that I violated Scripture by not discussing these matters with him in private, I can only say that in this (as in several other areas), I realize more than before that our understanding of Scripture differs. This was no private “trespass” by Mr. Gothard against me (Matthew 18); it was a question of Christian doctrine that may have been taught or misunderstood by a multitude of people in the United States and Canada. (Mr. Gothard’s estimate is that a million people have attended his seminars.)
Because of this involvement of the church, the relevant example—if I may mention it with any semblance of humility—is Galatians 2:14, “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, ‘If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?’”
Nor do I consider Mr. Gothard a man who has done wrong and needs to be restored (Gal. 6:1). He is instead a Christian leader whose teaching needs to be examined, as does my own and that of any other person with a public ministry.
One thing the church has lost in the past 30 years is the public discussion of issues on which differing opinions are held by Christian speakers and writers-what might be called creative controversy. And this loss has left us vulnerable and isolated. It is my opinion that on significant matters of faith and life, Christian periodicals can rightly and biblically provide such a forum—but only if they are open to such discussion.
Concerning Mr. Gothard’s statement that he asked me to investigate the influence of his seminars on the man who caused the death of his three-year old foster child in Portland, Mr. Gothard did suggest that I check with the social worker about this. Since I had previously heard directly from responsible members of the man’s church—people who knew him-of his repeated attendance at the Basic Youth Conflicts Seminars, and that there was a significant relationship between this and his practice of discipline, I felt no necessity to find what a social worker assigned to the case might say.
I can understand a pastor’s desire not to cause any problem to the seminars; I can understand the man’s desire not to harm something that meant so much to him.
Out of a rather tense exchange between Mr. Gothard and me, precipitated by my open letter, has come a positive result: I can now quote Mr. Gothard directly to all those missionaries in South America; the lady whose pastor told her she could commit adultery without guilt can show Mr. Gothard’s letter to him, and everyone will in the future know that this is not what Mr. Gothard teaches.
Perhaps one further statement is in order. There may be “creative alternatives” to the suggestion of violation of the ceremonial law (defilement), as in Daniel 1, but there is no creative alternative to a command or suggestion to sin. The only answer is disobedience (Daniel 6:10 ff; Genesis 39, in which Joseph proposes no alternative to Potiphar’s wife). Christian believers in Russia know this. Unfortunately, many Christians in Germany during the Third Reich did not.
I appreciate Bill Gothard’s gracious spirit and anticipate fellowship with him in the future.
Republished with permission from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (AllianceNet.org).
For posterity, the following links are to relevant articles from Eternity magazine.
1. “Bill Gothard’s Seminars Go Marching On” (Eternity, November 1973, pp. 29-38.)
2. “Getting It All Together” (Eternity, November 1973, pp. 32.)
3. “Basic Youth Conflicts: A Closer Look” (Eternity, November 1973, pp. 33-50.)
4. “Basic Conflicts: An Open Letter to Bill Gothard” (Eternity, June 1977, pp. 41-43.)
5. “How Basic the Conflict? An Open Letter from Bill Gothard” (Eternity, August 1977, pp. 41-43.)
6. “The Power Abusers” (Eternity, October 1979, pp. 23-27.)
7. “Shaking the Gothard Chain” (Eternity, September 1980, pp. 16-17.)