Editor’s Note: Recovering Grace has posted a number of old articles and references by writers who identified significant errors in Bill Gothard’s theology and its effects. Today’s article highlights excerpts from a handful of older articles and how they are still relevant today. Several of the cited articles will be republished in their entirety later this week.
In the 1970s, supporters and critics alike recognized that Bill Gothard and his Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts (IBYC) were a phenomenon. God can use anyone or anything to bring people to himself, but are paying crowds proof of a teacher’s righteousness?
It seems too few of our church watchmen wrote about—or truly studied—Gothard’s teachings. One reason is the closed nature of the IBYC/IBLP organization, as described in the article “The Bill Gothard Story,” from The Wittenburg Door in 1973. The writers state elsewhere that they had more difficulty writing about Gothard than any previous subject, because he, his staff, and his materials were elusive. Theologians who did chime in lamented the fact that their print publications never had space, or time, to properly critique Gothard’s prolific teachings, but they agreed that such an effort was needed. Very early on, they were hesitant to offend a popular minister or his followers, even if problems were evident.
As I have surveyed their efforts during the pre-digital era, I see patterns emerge in their analysis. My approach is a bit choppy, jumping from one quote to another, but hopefully you can follow the thread. Before diving in, let me say to the theologians out there: If you don’t have time to deeply study a good chunk of a teacher’s materials, please don’t give the teacher a pass by ending your limited review with “But I’m sure he’s a great guy,” or “But we do see some major issues we don’t have time to discuss,” and “Surely he wouldn’t teach this intentionally.”
Deceiving Christian leaders with authority
Writing for The Theological Educator in 1976, Dr. Paige Patterson, then President of the Criswell Bible Institute in Dallas, takes the position of a number of Christian leaders who were already in positions of high authority: Gothard’s teaching should not be a marketing success, and in fact his advanced teachings are questionable, but the crowds are amazing, so for many Americans it must work—even if his reasoning is as circular as a hula hoop. “Gothard’s influence is so great that his teaching deserves a detailed appraisal, but we shall have to be content with four observations.”[i]
Decades later, that hazardous logic is tragic and revealing. Leading personalities are often too busy to dive into theological details. Or too content to properly criticize a peer who is able to draw a crowd.
David Henke’s summary report in 1993 references a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod study that found that the “best educated in theology were the most critical [of Gothard], but claimed the most inspiration and benefits from the seminars.”[ii] As authority and “spiritual discernment” were two of the most discussed criticisms of Gothard’s teachings, it appears that many theologians in general were self-confident in their ability to wield authority and discernment on behalf of the flock that Gothard would place more firmly under them.
Henke says, “Those at the top of the chain seldom see a problem with the system because it serves their perceived role. Those on the bottom, however, have to put up with whatever comes their way, because to chafe under the stress would be labeled rebellion.”[iii]
Patterson notes the criticisms of Gothard’s authority teachings, but says people misrepresented Gothard’s system. He also points out that the advanced seminar “digresses into his [Gothard’s] personal philosophies.” Yet each of Patterson’s written observations points out and excuses Gothard’s poor theology.[iv] Does he not see that Gothard intends to lead his followers through his Advanced Seminar and into countless other teachings, presented as though they are God’s Word?
Endorsed by seminary presidents and leading pastors
D. Patterson on Moody Radio with Duggar and Gibbs
The list of Christian leaders who were duped over the decades cuts across denominations and parachurch organizations and includes many people and groups that otherwise seem to be theologically on-target in most regards. One prime example is Dr. Charles Stanley of First Baptist Church of Atlanta, who, with his posse, crushed the spirit of the staff during the 1980s scandal, when they tried to help Bill Gothard by calling him to repentance.[v]
What is most troubling is that Gothard was mailing his teachings to 90,000 pastors for several decades! To my knowledge Gothard has never recalled any of his materials that have been proven in error. It’s absolutely shocking to see traces of his teachings in churches and organizations where you would expect none. Many spiritual leaders act as though they are still in the dark.
Michelle Duggar at SWBTS – 2013
D. Patterson at Vessels of Honor 2
I must note that when I first found Dr. Patterson’s article, I assumed he would share my view. About twenty years ago I shared dinner with him and some good folks who helped build his legacy at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. I wouldn’t learn of Bill Gothard until much later, so at that time I was oblivious to the destruction in Gothard’s teachings. Now here we are. Life is surprising like that.
Does Paige Patterson still endorse Gothard’s false teaching? His wife, Dr. Dorothy Patterson, spoke at an IBLP seminar in 2013 and invited Michelle Duggar, one of the most prominent IBLP evangelists, to speak at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary [click on the screenshots of these event announcements to enlarge them]. This, at a time when more stories of Gothard’s sexual harassment of young girls continues to come to light. I would be encouraged if the Pattersons would make a public statement clarifying their endorsement of Gothard’s theology.
Many other notables have written endorsements for Gothard’s materials. They may want to bring themselves up to date on IBLP teachings and clarify their positions as well.
Correctly identifying the Author of authority
Early criticism of Gothard was not easy. Pastor G. R. Fisher gives a nod to Wilfred Bockelman and his 1976 book, Gothard, The Man and His Ministry: “The book is not widely accepted or taken seriously because Bockelman himself is not known. Yet the book is measured and thoughtful” in pointing out “some serious disagreements” with Gothard’s teachings. [vi] Stronger and more numerous warnings would come with time.
Writing almost a decade later for the same publication as Patterson, George F. Lee, Sr., called for a more responsible examination of Gothard’s teachings, and he arrived at a very different answer: “Apparently for some people the size of the crowds attending the seminars demonstrates the approval of God and accredits Gothard’s views and system. Gothard provides a neat package of how relationships are supposed to work with an abundance of Scripture quotations (not much exegesis) supported primarily by success stories. There is a subjective interpretation and a second guessing of God’s actions that others are expected to receive as objective truth.”[vii]
Lee concedes that “the biblical and cultural doctrines espoused by Gothard are voiced from many Baptist pulpits. The difference is that individual views are not like Gothard’s: systematized, packaged, and distributed in a manner that is essential to the survival of a religious business. To this extent individual freedom has been discarded for the sake of uniformity, pragmatism, and success.”[viii] Fisher writes in the same tone: “I am concerned that the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts is no longer a para-church organization helping Christians with some areas of Christian living, but is in fact becoming a system.”[ix]
Misplaced authority
Lee continues, “A closed system with one spokesman … subjects everybody to following one leader. So is Gothard to be ‘Paul,’ ‘Apollos,’ or ‘Cephas?’ Why not just follow Jesus with everyone having access to him? The problem is not with Paul, Apollos, or Cephas, but it is with people ascribing cultic qualities to a man.”[x]
“While Baptists acknowledge a place of authority in personal relationships, they feel that no one should assume a role of authoritarianism over another Christian. People should be encouraged by their leaders in family, church, business, or government to realize the full potential of experiencing God’s personal leadership for themselves. This in essence is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, that individuals can experience God’s will personally. Each should aspire to experience God’s will on earth even as in heaven.
“The most successful parent is not the one who has succeeded in gaining complete obedience from his or her child, but rather the one who has led a child to personally know and obey God’s will for himself. There is a distinct difference between the authoritarianism inherent in the chain of command and the authoritative responsibilities of those in leadership.”[xi] Fisher addresses the danger at the top of the chain: “In I Corinthians 1:12 Paul warned the Corinthians against seeing one teacher as the final possessor of all truth, as having the final word on everything. This practice was causing division and sinful pride in that local church. A well balanced Christian draws from various godly men in their areas of insight and takes advantage of all legitimate ministries…. While I am not saying that Bill Gothard is all wrong, I surely am suggesting that he should be more tentative and open to the counsel of men better equipped in the Word than he. There are serious and troubling problems in areas of his teaching and resulting trends that if made a test of fellowship could seriously divide and disrupt the Body of Christ.”[xii]
Bad theology at an authority’s whim
Tim Crater frames the issue this way: “It is possible to subtract from the Word what we don’t fancy … and it is equally possible to add to the Scripture man-made doctrines.… Whether one drifts to the left with liberalism or to the right with legalism one has departed from the Word.”[xiii]
Fisher: “Every sect and cult has its amazing stories. Seeming miracles or success stories may make a teaching seem more plausible, but it doesn’t necessarily make it true. Theology by anecdote may simply amount to manipulation, no matter who uses it. Proper interpretation of Scripture, and not success stories, determines truth.” Also, “We must take note of the important basic hermeneutical principle, apparently unknown to Gothard, that not everything reported in the Bible is necessarily commanded.”[xiv] Some is simply history.
Regarding Bill Gothard’s hermeneutics, Crater writes, “…meaning must be determined by ‘spiritual discernment.’ Whose spiritual discernment? Does this mean the subjective impressions of a spiritual leader, divorced from evidences from the text which can be publicly discussed? Whatever he means by it, it is the ‘ultimate’ arbiter of meaning in Scripture.” “It provides a convenient camouflage for us as we smuggle in our own pre-determined views.”[xv]
Human authority that breeds legalism
Crater: “In sum, there is a strange note of mysticism in Gothard’s statement … which seems to suggest that final meaning can be determined by a subjective experience apart from considerations of logic and reason.” “I may think very highly of my opinion but unless there is Scripture to support it I ought not to give it out as gospel … We get into trouble whenever we try to be less holy than the Lord requires, but we do not always appreciate that we can get into equally deep water when we try to be holier than the Lord. It simply isn’t possible and we do ourselves and those we counsel a disservice in the process.”[xvi]
“…making our own opinions equal with the Word of God, binding upon those to whom we minister…. Most major defections, such as the cults, exhibit this pattern, but there is also a warning here for faithful evangelicals as they seek to develop their theology… For counselors as well as pastors and teachers this ‘abiding in the teaching’ is especially important, since others look to them for counsel in making very crucial decisions in life.”[xvii]
“And many are listening to his [Gothard’s] teaching on this subject. Frequently they are thrown into turmoil because of what they hear. This in itself is no proof of either the rightness or wrongness of his position on the matter, but it does mean that biblical counselors ought to consider his view and be alert for those who have been exposed to it.”[xviii]
Henke concurs, “In my research…I found numerous people in the counseling fields who said their case loads went up significantly after a Gothard seminar.” On page 18 of Bockelman’s book, he says similarly that a person told his wife, “I work for the county mental clinic, and I know from past experience that we are the ones who get stuck with the people whose thinking and lives have been wrecked by this [Gothard’s command-centric, legalistic] kind of approach.”[xix]
“Legalism is best characterized as an attitude than a set of beliefs. The focus is on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law hence the application of biblical teaching about Christian living will lead to uniformity among people.” The joy of life dies, and spiritual abuse arises. “They never think of themselves as legalists, but as committed Christians.”[xx]
Attitude or Actions?
Returning to Paige Patterson, he asserts, “Gothard’s critics often allege he is guilty of legalism, but this charge dissipates when Gothard’s emphasis on attitudes producing actions is taken into account.”[xxi]
By the same reasoning, we may ask: Looking at Gothard’s actions, what is Gothard’s attitude?
His actions are his abuse of others, including those closest to him, and his abuse of the Word. What attitude would produce such actions?
By these measurements, his attitude could appear to be that people and the Bible exist to be used however he would like, without adequate concern that either suffers.
Truth or Lies?
An open letter written in 1977 by Joseph Bayly calls Gothard to task for how his seminars at least appear to encourage his followers, whether directly or indirectly, to lie on behalf of their authorities and to sit passively as evil is carried out. Bayly gives three examples, including wives lying on behalf of their husbands, a pastor counseling a wife to commit adultery to benefit her husband’s work, and a wife not intervening as her husband beat a child to death (he claims he was obligated by Gothard to “break the child’s spirit”). In each case, the wife believed she had no authority, that God would judge her husband, and that her obedience would please God.[xxii]
Lies have been symptomatic of many issues throughout Bill’s presidency, stemming perhaps from self-preservation mixed with pride, and certainly his power and desire to have his own way. The pages of Recovering Grace continue to fill with examples, such as those recounted by Dr. Ron Allen and Ruth and Larne Gabriel. A particularly incriminating sequence is how Gothard ignored all of his own teachings in deflecting and blocking his staff for about five years as they tried to help the ministry heal from the scandal of 1980.
“John Farhat, former staff artist interviewed in the Cleveland Press, Monday, Sept. 29, 1980, said, ‘Bill has an obsession for power.’” Board member Dr. Samuel Schultz told Henke that “Gothard said he was not accountable to the Board, but only to God (sounds like Swaggart and Bakker).” Dr. Schultz also recounted a story where 15 out of 30 staff told him that they felt they needed to ask Gothard for permission to date someone. Many of these staff who were so loyal eventually had to leave because they could not represent Gothard if his practices did not match his teachings.[xxiii]
Crater: “Gothard comes down rather hard on those who disagree with his approach. He implies that to take another view … indicates that one is not ‘open to the truth.’”[xxiv]
Perhaps Gothard came to believe that authority and truth were his to control?
A Divine Order?
Bayly says, “[Gothard’s] views are so systematized that openness and dialogue would be threatening. A divine order, simply arranged, is essential to his system.” An advisor to Gothard confirmed this thought when he called Bayly and said that Mr. Gothard had refused to answer criticism to date. But “a closed system invites criticism from afar since there is no open discussion up close.”[xxv]
“…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.”[xxvi]
Writing in 1993, Henke states, “The message is public and therefore open to public discussion. The question of the messenger’s failure to live up to his teaching is something that has already been taken through the process of Matthew 18 without satisfactory results according to those who tried to bring accountability. Therefore it is now at the stage of taking it to the whole church.”[xxvii]
“Bill Gothard disqualified himself from further ministry in the late seventies.” Gothard claims positional authority, but lacks Moral Authority.[xxviii]
Conclusion
It is interesting to note that in general the more recent the article, the bolder the writer. With mounting evidence, there is less need to soft-pedal and say, “I’m sure he’s a nice guy who wouldn’t hurt anyone on purpose.” Gothard’s brand of authority and its resultant legalism should be refuted, as well as his license to abuse.
A wider range of Christian leaders and churches must join the chorus and break whatever power Gothard has to makes lies seem like truth.
One would surmise from the reasoning in Henke’s full article and the evidence on Recovering Grace that, over time, Gothard became just as unloving as he was powerful. So many of his relationships were based more upon power than Christ’s love, and he has not shown love by making himself willingly vulnerable to the church discipline he requires of others.
Today, many may think that IBLP’s teachings are of little consequence now that Gothard has stepped down from leadership. To some degree this is certainly true. But like a chain smoker, Gothard has touched many lives with his second-hand smoke—teachings laced with impurities—that have harmed the Church body.
We, the Church, must clear our lungs.
[i] Patterson, Paige. “The Theology of Bill Gothard,” The Theological Educator, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Vol. 6, 1976, pp. 11-13. [Permission to republish not granted.]
[ii] Henke, David. “A Summary Report: Bill Gothard’s Institute in Basic Life Principles,” for Edgewood Baptist Church, September, 1993.
[iii] Henke. [iv] Patterson. [v] Veinot, Don and Joy; Henzel, Ron. A Matter of Basic Principles.
[vi] Fisher, G. R. “Is Anything Wrong with Bill Gothard’s Teachings?” Journal of Pastoral Practice, Jay Adams, editor, Vol. VII, No. 2, 1984, pp. 35-45.
[vii] Lee, Sr., George F. “The Gothard Institutes,” The Theological Educator, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, no. 28, Spring 1984, pp. 4-8.pp. 5-7. [Permission to republish not granted.]
[viii] Lee. [ix] Fisher. [x] Lee. [xi] Lee. [xii] Fisher.
[xiii] Crater, Tim. “Bill Gothard’s View of The Exception Clause,” The Journal of Pastoral Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, (Phillipsburg, N.J., Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980), pp. 5-12. [Permission to republish not granted.]
[xiv] Fisher. [xv] Crater. [xvi] Crater. [xvii] Crater. [xviii] Crater. [xix] Henke. [xx] Henke. [xxi] Patterson.
[xxii] Bayly, Joseph. “Basic Conflicts: An open letter to Bill Gothard,” ETERNITY, 28 June, 1977, pp. 60-62.
[xxiii] Henke. [xxiv] Crater. [xxv] Lee. [xxvi] Bayly. [xxvii] Henke. [xxviii] Henke.