"While some people did raise concerns about Gothard’s “umbrella of authority”/“chain-of-command” teaching, a truly disturbing feature of American conservative evangelicalism in the 1970s and ’80s was how few leaders and teachers objected to it. Bill Gothard was reviving medieval ideas about church authority that had been rejected by the Protestant Reformation…"
Ron Henzel – Senior Researcher, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc.
As emphasized in a previous post, I consider myself extremely fortunate to be looking at Bill Gothard's Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) from the outside in. Praise God I don't have any first hand experience! As I survey Christendom, it appears that Gothard's teachings over the last five decades have harmed countless individuals as well as churches and other organizations. There is so much rotten fruit.
"Authority" has gotten way out of hand in the 21st century, and I strongly believe that Bill Gothard's teachings have contributed to this disturbing outcome. Incredibly, many Christian leaders are intoxicated by their own power, and Almighty God cannot be pleased by this man-centered worship.
Please know that Dee and I are committed to exploring Gothard's teachings and sharing our findings. We would appreciate any suggestions and/or ideas you might have. A good starting point for Gothardism is a concept called "umbrella of protection". Bill Gothard's website explains it this way: (link)
Understanding “Umbrellas of Protection”
embracing the Biblical principle of authority"An umbrella is designed to provide protection from various elements of nature: rain, hail, snow, wind, or sunshine. As long as a person is under an umbrella, he finds shelter from harsh weather conditions. If he steps out from under the umbrella, he exposes himself to the environment.
God-given authorities can be considered “umbrellas of protection.” By honoring and submitting to authorities, you will receive the privileges of their protection, direction, and accountability. If you resist their instructions and move out from their jurisdictional care, you forfeit your place under their protection and face life’s challenges and temptations on your own."
Gothard then outlines jurisdictional , specifically:
Family: Husbands and Parents
Government leaders
Church leaders, elders, and other believers
Employers
Thankfully in the internet age there are so many helpful resources about Bill Gothard and his Institutes in Basic Life Principles. We have discovered a website called Recovering Grace, which has some wonderful articles on Gothard and his teachings. The editors at Recovering Grace have given us permission to republish information on their website, and we graciously accept! Their number one goal is to get this information out there, and we would like to share some of it through our forum. What follows is the personal testimony of Dulce Chale.
Peering Underneath the Umbrella: Musing on Gothardism
By: Dulce Chale
In recent days, I’ve been reading a bit about Gothardism on various websites, and it has brought back a lot of memories. Growing up, my family never went hardcore into the ATI (Advanced Training Institute) program, and we would still be considered on the outer fringes by the inner circle members. We were actually very “worldly” from a Gothard point of view: We wore pants and watched TV (although our family standards were much more conservative than most people I knew). In later years, my sister and I listened to Christian rock, despite knowing about the demonic powers being summoned through the witchcraft-beat! (GASP) Not only that, we also occasionally listened to worship songs written in a minor key! Somehow, we escaped the curse of depression.
On the plus side though, we attended every seminar (both Basic and Advanced) every year from the time I was twelve (this was before the children’s seminars, which my brother attended). We led their Basic Seminar Follow-up course and the Financial Freedom seminars. We were home-schooled (of course). We played all their board games. We memorized the 49 character qualities, and could quote The Pineapple Story and Character Sketches (all volumes). We spoke the code. We did Wisdom Searches in the mornings. And, looking back, I realize how deeply entrenched my parents were, and understand things like why my mom continued to get pregnant, even after a staggering number of miscarriages and being told she needed a hysterectomy.
If you just casually attended the Basic Seminar, you probably found it quite easy to take the good and spit out the bones. It starts off Monday night with a pleasant introduction to the whole thing, and a teaching on self-acceptance. Bill Gothard takes you through the “Ten Unchangeables” and explains that God is using all the things that we cannot change about ourselves to paint a beautiful masterpiece in our lives. Bill is a good speaker, and is brimming over with amazing examples of all the people who have been helped through his teaching of the “non-optional principles.” Even now, there are a lot of things that I would probably agree with, at least to an extent. But knowing more about the core makes me nervous.
The next night’s teaching on authority sneaks up on you. He outlines a vertical chain of authority (God, father/husband directly under God, wife below, children lower still) and explains the consequences of getting out from under the umbrella of (patriarchal) authority. (Women have no authority, except what their husband delegates to them over the children.) He gives a long litany of stories of those who went against the wishes of their husbands/fathers and suffered terribly, contrasted with tales of those who submitted, against culture and common sense, and were rewarded beyond their dreams. Those who rebel and eventually return are gravely compared to cracked diamonds–only worth a fraction of the value they could have had if they had been submissive all along.
In a sense, all of his teachings come back to the idea that if you align yourself underneath the umbrella, perfectly submissive to all of Gothard’s principles, then you will be safe. If you dare to go out from under the umbrella by not conforming perfectly with a joyful countenance and light in your eyes, then any number of hailstorms will pound you to a bloody pulp.
The fatal flaw of Gothard’s teachings is that he denies the power of Christ. It is all about Man.
It sounds a bit fanatical (and it is), but when you are there it is much more palatable. His quiet humor, lovely chalk talks and assortment of hooks are appealing. By the time you get through the teaching on how to conquer anger by yielding rights (Thursday), you are probably ready to overlook some of the more extreme parts of his teachings on moral purity (Friday) and any discomfort from the teachings on authority begins to blur and fade as he leads you through the examples of success through meditation on Scripture (Saturday).
It is nicely packaged, and full of guarantees. If you follow the principles, you will be blessed with success. Suffering is the result of rebelling, even unknowingly, against any of the principles, but all can be made right (with a smaller diamond, of course) by simply following his steps. I bought nearly all of it, until sliding out from under the umbrella in my relationship with my husband Carlos. Once I was married, I stopped attending the seminars. Even so, it is only recently that I have been able to put together my disagreements with the underlying Gothard doctrines.
One of these is the extreme patriarchy taught. Nearly everyone I knew growing up believed that the father was the head of the house. What many people don’t recognize is the difference in degrees when it comes to the application. Many of the families that I know who believe that the wife should submit to her husband actually practice something much closer to mutual submission. While I believe that they are very sincere, it winds up that through temperament or conscious design, the wife has the respect of her husband and freedom to participate in many decisions, and even the ability to come to some on her own. Although there may be a theoretical agreement that the husband has the final say, in reality, decisions are reached together.
Gothard’s view of authority is far more extreme. The wife must submit entirely to her husband, regardless of the rightness of his choices. She is allowed to appeal if he wishes her to sin. Of course, the definition of “sin” is incredibly and inexplicably narrow in this context, especially compared to the hyper-sinfulization [My own word…I am quite pleased with it!] of those not in the position of authority! If her appeal is denied, she may choose to suffer for doing right, but must continue to honor her husband, and look happy to the rest of the world, since any discontent in her countenance is a public shaming of her head. In addition to this, he teaches very strongly that the one under authority is the one responsible for change: In other words, if the husband does something wrong, it is all your fault. If you were only more submissive, more this, more that, you would please him and he wouldn’t do that. You can patch the leaks in your umbrella by just trying harder to submit. It is the perfect recipe for abuse.
Whatever God is speaking, he will speak to your husband/father. It doesn’t really matter what the topic is: A daughter’s future spouse, your callings and responsibilities, how you should spend your time, how you should raise your children. Any decision is between the father/husband and God, and the father/husband will let you know when he is ready to. Your responsibility is to cheerfully go along with it. Even if your father is not a believer (which is somehow also your fault, of course), you still have to rely on him to be the go-between between you and God.
There are all kinds of other, minor things that have become twisted and elevated into doctrine, some that I agree with aside from the theological status conveyed upon them, others very weird indeed. But to put it all into a nutshell, the fatal flaw of Gothard’s teachings is that he denies the power of Christ. It is all about Man (and here, the male gender is most definitely implied). Even grace becomes redefined as MAN’s desire and MAN’s ability to do God’s will. “Grace” rests squarely on our efforts. (“Would you make a vow to do XYZ? And if you really mean it, would you raise your hand as an outward demonstration…”) The work of the Cross becomes an afterthought, and all that matters is our ability to conform to the checklist. Instead of works flowing out of faith in God, the works flow out of faith in the works themselves to provide carrots or avoid the stick. If you can keep your façade together, and especially if you can make your man look good, then you will reap all kinds of goodies. If your life isn’t perfect, well, that is your fault for not following the steps precisely.
The concept of mercy is ignored. The power of Christ’s sacrifice is a mere footnote to our own efforts and accomplishments. This is incredibly dangerous, especially because it is the kind of mindset that corrupts every thing it touches. Every relationship, every accomplishment, every action becomes tested by whether or not it follows Bill’s principles. When you hear of someone going through a difficult situation, rather than responding in compassion, you wonder which principles they violated to reap that problem. Or, if you know them at all, you have probably already figured out which principles were violated. Because of the unrelenting emphasis on appearances, you condition yourself to pretend all the time, until you have spun it all in your mind to the point that you aren’t really sure what the truth is anymore. You yield your rights to others (“Jesus, then Others, then You–what a wonderful way to spell JOY!“) and may never even realize that you also yielded many healthy, necessary boundaries.
I felt a bit smarter back before my diamond was cracked, back when I was centered under my umbrella of protection. I could give you all the answers to any situation so that you could apply the principles and understand where you went wrong (You were cursed because you let a Cabbage Patch doll into your home; because you went away from home to college; because you didn’t joyfully submit, etc.).
Now I find that grace isn’t about me; it is about the amazing love that God lavishes on us. It isn’t all about my efforts or shortcomings. It is about His mercy and patience in helping me grow. Instead of seeing all relationships in a vertical line of top-to-bottom hierarchy, I am seeing them as a circle of love and service. This makes all the difference! Instead of shaming myself and others, I am learning to joyfully proclaim that His banner over me is love. Instead of desperately trying to patch leaks in my umbrella, I am enjoying the glorious sunshine of freedom and grace.
There are other great resources on the web, and we are including a couple that we believe will be helpful – more to follow!
Authoritarianism (Urban Change – Ron Henzel)
All About Authority: The Popularity of Submission Doctrine (Under Much Grace – Cindy Kunsman)
Lydia's Corner: 1 Samuel 17:1-18:4 John 8:21-30 Psalm 111:1-10 Proverbs 15:11
Hey – first reply!
đ
Given that my own brush with Gothardism was brief and mild by comparsion, I can only attempt to imagine how hard it must have been for those who had it much worse.
As a humorous aside, I found out about a unique experience that a home schooling family had whose kids were close to my age. The family applied to be a part of some Gothard program, and was rejected because the father had a beard. The father responded, with supporting scriptural evidence, that having a beard wasn’t sinful. They were still rejected because he wasn’t “submitting” to “authority,” despite that Gothard was clearly wrong and he was right. In hindsight, I’d say their kids were better off!
Love the last paragraph! Especially this:
Instead of seeing all relationships in a vertical line of top-to-bottom hierarchy, I am seeing them as a circle of love and service.
As for Gothard’s teaching, oh my goodness. There is just all sorts of wrong going on there. đ
@ Josh:
Yep! God’s protection FROM the umbrella there! đ
But seriously now, this concept of “covering” (as distinct from Goatherd’s Umbrella as such) is surprisingly prevalent, certainly over here. Most of the house church denominations (or apostolic streams, as they tended to be known) that arose in the UK during the 70’s and 80’s taught, and indeed still teach, that one must be under the covering of appropriate – human – spiritual authority in order to be safe from the devil and to receive God’s blessings. In a nutshell, “covering” was the house-church take on the ancient clergy/laity divide that the reformation, being clergy-led, never addressed.
By way of example…
I did a bit of work, a wee while back, alongside a group of believers who preach the gospel in settings such as psychic fairs. (And an admirable group they are too, btw.) The wee lassie who was co-ordinating things in our town, on discovering that I’m a none, gave a revealing response. She was, she said, a great believer in being “covered and protected” by being part of a church. Even though she worked full-time for this “para-church” organisation, and even though they were, and still are, quite literally seeing the blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk and the poor hearing the good news (all of which was apparently good enough for Jesus), she believed that she still had to be “covered and protected” by being in “a church”. Otherwise, she explained, “you’re open to all sorts of attack”.
If she gets any of this from scripture, rather than just the tradition she grew up with, she’s never given any hint of it to me. I’m still unclear on what kinds of attack she thinks I’m open to, and exactly what authority the devil has to come against para-church groups when he would have to run away from a clergyman.
While it is decades later and I have been divorced for over 20 years from a truly cruel and evil man, reading this today sadly reminds me of how influenced many in our church were by Gothard’s teaching and the distorted perception i had then of what it meant to live as a godly woman.
Thank God for His grace and love that pulled me away from the abuse and wrongful teaching!
Thanks for the opportunity to be reminded of how bad it was so long ago which reminded me of how good and how great it is today to walk in the all encompassing blanket of Hus grace!
@ Eagle:
For the most part, I think it is a sincere desire to be a “good Christian.” New converts are especially susceptible to the beliefs of the particular group they become a part of when first saved. Most of us were naive and trusted without question (often because we were taught this), the people who discipled us.
Bridget wrote:
I agree, because that was my desire too. I know and love some very sincere people who still don’t see the truth about ATI or similar groups. I want to extend grace to them, without condemnation, because that’s how the Lord treats me.
I don’t have much to add, but it’s notable that I had my first panic attack at an Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts seminar at age 17 back in the good ole 70s.
There is so much about these teachings I find disturbing, but the cracked diamond analogy just made me sad. What about the parable of the prodigal son? Jesus’s words were so instrumental in bringing me back to God, showing me that reconciliation was truly possible and that my rebellion could be understood and forgiven. And this eternal truth is being suppressed by this man, all so that HE will be obeyed and adored rather than God?
Bill Gothard should start worrying about his own umbrella of protection. He might need it.
Also — Dulce, thank you for sharing your story. You express yourself very well.
lilyrosemary wrote:
Yes! You’ve summed it up very clearly. I’m glad you’ve found your way out to the sunshine!
Gothard:
It’s one thing to respect authorities, which is fine, but you’re not supposed to hand over too much control of your own life to someone else, as he’s suggesting.
Gothard:
The Bible is chock full of verses that tell you that bad stuff can and will happen to you, even if you are righteous, living a godly life, and all the rest.
Look at Job of the Old Testament, and the ultimate example is Jesus Himself. Jesus said if you follow Him, you can expect troubles and trials in life.
The “Pineapple Story?”
Quote from the article:
The Bible doesn’t support this at all.
I was never a member or follower of this Gothard stuff, but I was a very obedient Christian daughter, and it actually created major problems for me into adulthood.
I did not get showered with rewards beyond my dreams etc and so on for being such a submissive, godly daughter. That is just a total crock.
That’s beyond being unbiblical to being dangerous teaching. The husband is responsible for his actions and reactions, the wife is not.
A wife who is being abused must give the husband negative consequences for the abuse (such as moving out, divorcing, calling the police) or else the spouse will never learn.
“Submitting even more” is actually rewarding the abusive spouse for the abuse and will likely increase the amount and/or severity of abuse, not diminish it or stop it.
Yes, he’s encouraging codependency. You should always put You before Others.
Even the Bible assumes this is what you will and should do, Phil. 2:4 (‘Don’t look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too’), you have to meet your own needs first before you can do so for others.
If not, you will be run down, exhausted, filled with resentment and bitterness, giving because you feel you have to give and help and meet other people’s needs, not because you really want to. And God prefers a cheerful giver not one who serves out of fear, a feeling of obligation and guilty, (2 Corinthians 9:7).
There is all kinds of crazy going on in Gothard’s teachings.
@ Josh:
Vicki in NC wrote:
Never thought about this until you mentioned your attack, but I had my first panic attack on the way home from the Friday night message. VERY INTERESTING!!
Gothard’s ideas seeped into the early 70s charismatic renewal. Combined with shepherding, well… the effect was deadly.
*So* glad I’m out of those places!
The âPineapple Story?â
Oh yeah. What’s The Pineapple Story? Anyone know?
Hmmm….the church/cult I left six years ago was very much into the whole 'covering' thing. Slightly different twist, though. If you aren;t married, then your covering will be…not your father, your Pastor. Sigh.
He used to teach that because Eve was deceived, bur Adam knew exactly what he was doing, women needed to be under pastoral or husbandly covering because they are easily deceived. And if your husband isn't a believer, then you had better be under your pastor….and I won't even get into how literally he would take that with the vulnerable….
I remember the day I quit, he tried to scare me out of it. One tactic was to tell me if I stepped out from under his covering, I would (not might) be deceived. I have to admit that this is one of the things that still haunts in the darker hours – especially since I have become a none – the fear that I will get sucked onto something and deceived again.
I am so glad though, that as far as coverings go, I've realized there's only one needed and even worth having – Jesus.
google the “pineapple story” told by missionary Otto Koning. It is worth reading.
@ anonymous and Tim B:
I did a quick search on it about an hour ago. It’s a book by Gothard (or some guy he knew) about a missionary who worked by a pineapple garden. The book is supposed to teach people how to overcome anger. Some people may need help overcoming it, but I had the opposite problem, bottling it up.
I bet Squidward lived next to that pineapple garden. (Two Spongebob references in one day!)
Wow, from what I am reading it sounds like SGM followed a lot of Gothard teaching. Where was Gothard located? I had never heard of him until blogs became popular.
@ Jeannette Altes:
I have never married and am over 40. I would have told that pastor to cram it and would have left that church.
Men can and do get deceived too. All you have to do is turn on the Christian programming to see all the male preachers and their “Wealth and Health” con artistry going on. These male preachers are teaching false things and sometimes Christian men send money to these frauds.
There are examples in the Bible of males being deceived, like the old guy who gave the blessing to the younger son (Genesis 27). The guy (was it Jacob?) who got tricked by the father into marrying the older daughter (Leah?) rather than the younger one.
Anon1 – – Gothard had a wide following. My in-laws were charismatic and they went when my husband was a kid in the late 70s), I know a lot of missionary families who went. We went when we were at a basic non-denominational (not charismatic) church. He was also very popular among homeschoolers. I never heard any church advertise it, but it was spread via word of mouth.
I am so tired of seeing the aftermath of this guy/program. If you start digging around, you will find abuse, infidelity among leaders. I know quite a few former and current ATI (the homeschooling branch of the program). There are so many abuse stories and a side issue, I am very concerned about the lack of education for ATI students. ATI is supposed to be designed for a wide age group of kids. Give me a break. What I saw was abysmal. The emotional stench of all of this nonsense is getting to me from just typing this. Blech. I need to hit send and leave.
The same talismanism as the prosperity gospel…but probably more dangerous.
I am glad that my bible is a pineapple-free zone!
I don’t know if this guy is well-known in Australia, certainly not in circles I’ve moved in, though some of the charismatics are into ‘covering’ — when I first heard them mention it I had no idea what they were talking about!They were equally shocked when I told them not every church teaches that (this was years ago)
Are there any verses of Scripture they use for this doctrine? It strikes me as incredibly fear-based, that something terrible will happen to me if I step out the protection of this human system. It makes me want to say to these people that if they step out they will find themselves wrapped in the boundless love of God.
I thought Jesus was the only mediator between God and man (or woman)?
Eagle wrote:
I can’t speak for everyone, Eagle, but I can give some idea as to why I got sucked into something like this. As Bridget said, it was all to do with being a zealous Christian. And I was exactly that; I wanted my life to count for something – most people do, regardless of theology or lack of it – and if I was going to live the Christian life then I wanted to life it to the uttermost. I still do, as a matter of fact; I can’t personally get the idea of Sunday church. One reason I’m a none is that I’ve struggled to find a congregation of believers who regard ministry as something we are all full-time in, particularly including (though not limited to) our working lives.
Another reason why I got sucked into an abusive form of church is that I didn’t properly know God as Father; therefore, when the counterfeit came along, offering me an “opportunity to serve” whilst withholding any support or return, I didn’t recognise it as not being consistent with God’s character.
Now here’s the thing. There’s a lot of stuff out there about “Daddy God” (often translating “Abba” as “Daddy”, as though Jesus were regressing into infancy in Gethsemane). And “Daddy God” wants to gently and safely wrap us in his gentle, gentle, gentle, safe arms of gentle, gentle love. I’ve even read one (male) writer describing a 4-week encounter with God as being like “a womb of liquid love”. In other words, the summit of that kind of Christian experience is to become a perpetually passive foetus, and “Daddy God” is frankly more like “Mummy God”. To be honest, I don’t know why some people don’t go the whole hog and worship Gaia.
This sort of thing has never appealed to me. But, because we humans are so prone to black/white either/or pendulum thinking, I knew of no middle ground between a smothering Mother God and a harsh uncaring Father God who expected me to delight in the privilege of serving him with little or no support or help in return.
So I was ripe for the picking by a leader who was willing to stand in the place of God as regards my service and obedience. As he used to say: “You don’t live to please yourself”. (He did, incidentally; it simply so happened that this involved empire-building, not sex and drugs; so it was hidden.) So in living to please him by serving in the “church” he was planting, I was ticking an important box. From there, I basically gave away all the decision-making authority in my life, and surrendered all the boundaries, one by one.
There’s a story in there, of course. I might tell it some time!
The followers of Jim Jones submitted to him. Did things go wrong because they didn’t submit enough?
Nick,
We would love to feature your story!Â
“So I was ripe for the picking by a leader who was willing to stand in the place of God as regards my service and obedience”
I fear you have just described the experience of many ‘nones’ and others who have been taken for a ride by trusting Christians.Â
Deb wrote:
What is perhaps even more frustrating is the assumption, by some people currently immersed in denominational congregations, that I’ve left that kind of church expression behind because I’ve “been hurt” and am running away because I’m “afraid to be hurt again”. I’ve had numerous experiences of congregational para-church groups (or “churches” as their members like to call them), some good and some bad. All of it adds up to a positive and considered decision that the model is unfit for purpose.
It took years to get Gothard’s teaching out of my life. He infects people with a burden of shame and guilt. As teenagers we used to quote him like the Bible. “Bill Gothard says…”
Thank goodness my church stopped promoting him in the 1970s. But I was shocked to see how important he is to homeschoolers and to the nouthetic so-called “biblical counseling” gang even today.
I was on a Facebook thread discussing the importance of treating the poor the way Jesus would and emphasizing they had God-given and civil rights. A homeschool dad jumped in a questioned whether anyone should demand “rights.” I knew he was infected with Gothard-think.
That’s a big part of Gothard’s message: It’s ungodly to assert rights – such as a desire for fairness and justice. But how convenient that only the people they want to dominate have no rights. The leaders themselves have plenty of rights.
Janey wrote:
“Rights? We have no ‘Rights’! Except to DESERVE ETERNAL HELL!!!!!”
— standard-worm theology radio preacher line from the Seventies
Except (Important Difference) this time with HIMSELF on the Throne atop Church Authority, Infallible Ex Cathedra.
“NO POPERY!” means “Now *I* Get To Be Pope! Die, Heretics!”
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Some do. I’m from California, and a lot of those who do have political power out here. “THE PLAAAAANET WUVS US! THE PLAAAAANET WILL THANK US!”
Eagle wrote:
Since Protestant Christianity is the most common and widespread religion in our culture, most religion-based cults would come out of it.
And as for lack of discernment skills, I chalk that up to their definition of Faith Faith Faith. Where “the substance of things hoped for” becomes “denial of physical reality” and “God chooses the foolishness of this world to confound the wise” becomes “the bigger a fool I am, the more Godly I must be.”
And when everything around you is neverending crisis and confusion, you want to find a resting place of passive stasis where You Are Right. Somewhere to love-bombing Belong, someone to tell you exactly what to do and what to think, just to make the thrashing stop.
Eagle wrote:
Probably because Christians are not taught to think critically, but accept what they are told to believe by pastors/elders/pop christian ‘leaders’ because they have… wait for it… AUTHORITY (And they should really convincing and they sound like they know what they are talking about! Who are we to question them?)
It’s just an outgrowth of what Deb said near the beginning of the article about authority being way out of hand.
Covenant Life School made us parents go to one of Gothards seminars (it was gob school then) way nack in the early 1980s if we wanted to send our kids to the school. Also, we didn’t really have a choice about sending them to the school, if we were really committed, of course we’ll send them there. Why wouldn’t you? Soon after that the leaders that were decided Gothard was a little much, I think.
Talking about panic attacks, I almost had one a few years ago listing to CJ speak at CLCs youth retreat. I had to do deep breathing to calm down because I really didn’t want to get up and run out of the room.
Bridget wrote:
I remember how my dad, not a believer, responded to me after I went through the basic seminar. He told me I needed to get my nose out of the bible and my a** out to a bar so I could meet a man. I recall I was so confused, should I to submit to my dad’s authority? Crazy making cult. The irony is I did meet my husband in a bar after a MSU football game.
I can’t even think about this stuff without my brain immediately looping into Rihanna’s Umbrella-ella-ell-eh-eh-eh-under-Bill’s-umbrella-ella-ella-eh-eh-eh.
JustSomeGuy wrote:
Yes, our pastor knows best for us and our government will take care of us, so rely on both. It is an outgrowth also of socialistic thinking education system.
@ Vicki in NC:
Vicki,
So that’s what I was feeling when I too was at those meetings in the 70s. And I thought it was just my ‘rebelliousness’ reacting.
I’d never heard of Bill Gothard before reading TWW and Julie Anne’s blog. I believe he’s another one of the dots I’ve been connecting in trying to figure out where my nondenominational, former church got some of their wacko ideas from. We also submitted to this covering doctrine. Before I married my husband, I, like Jeannette did, submitted to my minister. He had final say over where I lived, what job I held, what I did with my free time. Even after I married, our minister would tell my husband what he expected me to be doing with my time. My husband caught flack if I didn’t comply. I have to wonder if my former church didn’t pick up some of this junk from Gothard’s teachings.
This quote caught my attention: “By honoring and submitting to authorities, you will receive the privileges of their protection, direction, and accountability.” In my experience, the leaders only stand accountable when things are going well. As soon a a crisis erupts, they drop all accountability like a hot potato, even lying to distance themselves from any involvement.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
I have heard many folks in this system say the blame is always on them for some hidden sin. Makes sense because there is no way out of that argument. Once you claim there is no hidden sin you know of that would cause things to go wrong, you are in sin for claiming sinless perfection! They win no matter what.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Interesting, Nick. I suspect that many members come into authoritarian churches wounded by their upbringing and searching for a way to resolve it without leaving the old family system. There are certainly enough father, submit, obey, family, marriage, chick metaphors to make it appear seamless.
So perhaps because of the nature of your parents’ abuse, you felt absolutely suffocated by that womb symbolism when searching for affection from the always-aloof men. I took another tack—-I stayed for a while staring at the leaders and obedient members, then ran like a banshee because my pastor-father was the abuser and my mother was the acquiescent/submitting type. But I continued the same system in my marriage and it took a very long time for me to grow up enough to establish better ways/understandings.
You wrote: “What is perhaps even more frustrating is the assumption, by some people currently immersed in denominational congregations, that Iâve left that kind of church expression behind because Iâve âbeen hurtâ and am running away because Iâm âafraid to be hurt againâ.”
Hugely annoying! Of course, they *would* think that way since they believe in their system. An outsider criticizing family is “just not done” so they are being extra generous by surmising that you’re merely afraid lol.
Seeing church community as family can be a good thing, but it all depends on what kind of family we’re talking about.
@ Patrice:
Yes. Like many people who were young during the charismatic renewal/Jesus movement, I got sucked in by the whole “family” aspect. It might have worked *if* said “family” had been healthy, but…
“You wrote: âWhat is perhaps even more frustrating is the assumption, by some people currently immersed in denominational congregations, that Iâve left that kind of church expression behind because Iâve âbeen hurtâ and am running away because Iâm âafraid to be hurt againâ.â
What exactly is wrong with not wanting to be hurt again or subjecting your family to similar type of hurts? I would say that is healthy avoidance. We must stick our toes in and be observant before we commit to anything. We must interview them to see if they fit our criterion! Because of experience one can know what red flags to look for in some ways. Problem is they want your full committment. They are usually looking for conformity.
Anyone who does not run away from what looks to them like cultic expressions of conformity is the one who is naive.
Joy Huff wrote:
I just wish someone would go into a full-blown tizzy fit in the middle of one of these conferences/retreats, stand up and yell out: WHAT IN THE H*LL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
But the problem with that is that you would be labeled in sin. There is no way to win with this funky corrupt system. These men have no business being in leadership. They need to be dethroned. NOW.
The whole thing is just so weird. Where in scripture does it ever promise us that we will be protected from the storms of life if we stay properly “under” certain human authorities? This is something man made up. It’s pretty blatantly NOT in scripture as far as I can see. Scripture emphasizes running to God for protection, not that man can protect us!
The cracked diamond analogy literally made my jaw drop. It flies in the face of basic notions of grace and forgiveness. Wasn’t Jesus really, really about Grace and forgiveness? If you believe that mistakes can permanently damage a person’s worth, isn’t that sort of doubting the principle of forgiveness and atonement?
I can’t believe that so many people don’t see through this.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
You said that is not true of you, but that is one reason I’ve sort of checked out from Christianity in some ways, and may not return to any church.
There is usually little sensitivity shown in this area. I’ve seen preachers and believers on Christian shows and blogs address this by handing out even more judgment, quoting the part from the Bible about having to assemble together and so on, as if quoting a verse is going to move me to reconsider.
There is no attempt at all to meet the person where he/she is (hurting, angry, whatever) and admit, “Yes, Christians have hurt you, or they did you wrong, and I am sorry for that, but please give us another chance.”
Instead, you get chided or judged for being too afraid/ angry/ reluctant/ selfish to cozy up to any more Christians any more, or to attend another church, which is an attitude that only turns me off even more.
Good post, SO. Considering Protestants apparently like the Gothard system so much, it is even more baffling and ironic.
HUG makes a good point about the way Protestantism splinters in North America (and produces aberrant beliefs – ahem – polite way of putting it). This is partly I suspect because North Americans are individualistic. Then again, if you go to Russia I expect you will find other strange offspring from Christian orthodoxy against an Orthodox background, although one suspects the Church over there would probably stamp them out with the help of the authorities as they tried to with the “Old Believers” centuries ago. And Africa seems to throw up some strange churches against a largely Pentecostal background, though I’m not sure whether the completely heterodox Lord’s Resistance Army was from that origin.
I believe this process also occurs in parts of Asia with non-Christian religions, but I’m sure other people are better qualified to answer that.
Janey wrote:
That reminds me. Eagle was asking on a previous thread about Welch, and I told him Welch is a nouthetic counselor (he may not call himself that, but he seems to subscribe to their views).
Well, I was looking up some books on something about a week ago, and I stumbled across another one by Welch.
It was a booklet about domestic abuse by Welch, and one person (I think a lady?) who read it gave it a bad review, saying Welch tells abused women in that booklet to “submit more,” don’t divorce your abusive husband – and the usual horrible advice these types of guys give to abused wives.
You said,
If you don’t assert yourself, you will be allowing other people to walk all over you, abuse you, or take advantage of you, and believe me, there are dishonest, evil people who gladly will.
Daisy wrote:
I love this one. Try trampling on their rights and sense of justice and see how that goes. This is just code for submit to me so I can trample on you. You don’t deserve fair treament or justice.
But that is not how God’s “kingdom” on earth is to operate. We are to be the epitome of fairness and justice to each other so the world will know what it looks like and that it comes from Christ. They impugn the Name of Christ with this sort of teaching.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
There was a guy swallowed and killed by a sink hole a few weeks or months ago. If we could interview him from the afterlife, he’d maybe want to disagree.
It could just be me but when I read the description of the umbrella of protection I had a picture of Don Corleone explaining to some poor schmuck the bad things that COULD happen to them if they didn’t join up to his protection. If they stepped out from his protection then perhaps they would get a broken window etc. etc.
On the cult question, I think there are a lot of people, not just in religious areas, who are attracted to authoritarians who have all the answers. You just have to do what the rules say and you’re safe. So you get people who join David Koresh or Charles Manson or Ron Hubbard or Adolf Hitler for that matter. It saves you trying to answer the difficult questions for yourself. The leader has it all worked out.
Beakerj wrote:
Me too.
And that other song, “It’s Raining Men” (only the Weather Girls advise viewers to “leave your umbrellas at home”)
Daisy wrote:
Yup, I went through this just this past week. We left our cultic church 2 1/2 years ago. After muddling around for a year, we went to a house church for about nine months until we found out one of the members is a convicted child m0lester. We left there and started searching again. We have been attending a Methodist church about twice a month for the last six months. We haven’t been to any other church events or Sunday school, but so far, nothing alarming has been said in any of the services (although they do have a different view on (infant) baptism than we have).
One of my friends, whom I only see a few times per year and don’t know very well, went through the whole “You have to forgive [the people at the old church]” and get into “fellowship” with other Christians again. She suggested Mr. Hoppy join her husband at a men’s accountability group at their church.
Mr. Hoppy would be perfectly happy to never go to church again. I mostly want to try again because we are members of a medical sharing group that requires a church officer or pastor to sign a form ever year saying we attend regularly, don’t get drunk, etc. Also, having little Hoppies complicates things, because I don’t want them to grow up with the cynical view of church we both currently have.
I know my friend means well, but she just doesn’t understand. I told her our previous church was “like family” and she tried to defend them (she doesn’t know them) by saying “anybody” could stab us in the back like they did, even her. After all, we are all “just sinners.” Mr. Hoppy agreed that she was just giving me all the pat answers that so many like to give without thinking. He and I agree that most non-believers would have no trouble understanding that their (church elders’) behavior was wrong and that we are better off without “friends” like them. Why can’t other Christians see this? Why are they so bent on defending their own that they can’t see the sin that unbelievers can easily see?
Daisy wrote:
Yes yes yes! That dynamic can occur in any relationship, even among friends. When I was in college and so very sick, I did not have the strength to assert myself in any area of life and I got taken advantage of by almost everybody. Two of my “best friends” at the time decided that my inability to assert myself meant that I was easily manipulated by them. I finally found the strength to eliminate those friendships. It is so important in every single relationship to assert yourself as an independent thinker, especially in personal relationships and in church settings. I know that I am much more prone to accepting the demands of strong personalities when I am weak. It is so tempting and easy to let someone stronger lead and follow a formula or set of rules.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
Because churches teach them to think like this. It is rather ironic. Churches will rail against the sins of the culture but excuse such behavior such as lying, deception, lording it over others, etc in their own camp when done by leaders. The exact opposite of what Paul was explaining in 1 Corin 5. Christians get a pass but the culture does not. I have a judge friend who is constantly pointing this out to me because of what he sees in court from Christians defending molesters/abusers in their church because they are “Christians”.
And churches are not teaching what the “kingdom of God” means.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
I’m sorry for what you went through.
I have no idea why so many Christians behave that way.
Some of us were discussing this phenomenon at the Internet Monk blog a few weeks ago, where one of the Christian guest bloggers wrote about having depression, and how he gets more practical help and sympathy in his times of emotional pain from his Non Christian friends (including an atheist coworker), than he does from his Christian friends who he’s spoken to of his depression.
I’ve noticed that holds true for any sort of problem in life, whether you have relationship problems; have been betrayed by folks at a former church; have mental health problems; are physically ill; you are in mourning for a deceased love one-
Whatever problem you are having, and if you confide about it to another Christian, hoping to get love and support, nine out of ten of them will instead judge, give advice, criticize, and blame you for your own situation, or toss out a platitude or two.
I’ve only known or come across a small number of Christians who know the wisest response to someone who is hurting, and give them a hug (my mom was like that, and boy do I miss her).
The rest feel as though they have to “fix” you or your situation, so they quote Bible verses at you, or try to shame you in some way or blame you. I don’t know of anyone who likes being on the receiving end of that stuff when they are the one who is hurting, but they do it to other people all the time.
I meant ‘know that the wisest response to someone who is hurting is to listen to them.’ I don’t know how I left that out of my original post.
I’m pretty sure Gothard had a big influence on Doug Phillips and the Vision Forum crowd. Phillips called him a “beloved man” in the very first lecture I reviewed. Plus that word “jurisdictional” keeps showing up (it’s fast becoming one of my most hated words along with “winsome”). And speaking of umbrellas, I was told this weekend at the homeschool conference that an integral part of good character is not questioning authority.
Also the next Big Box post went up yesterday.
Janey wrote:
Ha, at first I read that as “Gothard stink.”
Still apropos, no?
It is a shame that legalistic stench has permeated the hardcore homeschooling movement, the IFB, SGM, and so much of the modern church. Even those who have never heard of or been to an IBLP seminar have likely been influenced by that leaven.
Janey wrote:
I wasn’t aware of the connection between Gothard and the nouthetic counseling movement. You may have just cleared up a mystery for me. For two decades I’ve wondered about the authoritarianism rising amongst MacArthur followers as nouthetic counseling rose to prominence within GCC, TMC and TMS. It would be really interesting to connect the dots from MacArthur directly back to Gothard through Wayne Mack and Jay Adams.
Lynne T wrote:
Oh, my goodness! Bill Gothard is pretty big among some of the homeschoolers here in Melbourne. There is even a ‘Gothard Centre’ (of sorts) in Lilydale (an eastern suburb). They have Family Days in Lilydale once a month and a lot of homeschoolers go there for fun and
indoctrinationfellowship.ATI is also a popular curriculum among some homeschoolers here. I’ve been invited to Basic Seminars, but my headship said ‘no’ and I thankfully submitted. đ
Hester wrote:
This would not surprise me one bit.
Basic Youth Conflicts was somewhat popular in the Christian Reformed denomination in the 70’s. I was sent there twice while a teen (Get away from home! Spend time in Seattle!)
My father tried to force me to attend one more time, over (a second) unapproved marriage proposal but I discovered my bulldog and refused everything. It was a summer from hell. When I finally landed back at college for my senior year, I remember lying on the floor with a migraine and nose inexplicably bleeding but feeling huge relief because it was *over*. I slept for 12 hours on that floor. I never went home again.
But throughout, I maintained a pleasant demeanor for the public. Ach
It has been important for me to name these people properly. Gothard does evil. He is one of those “Lord, Lord” people. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
One of a number of indispensable experienced realities at the heart of the Good News is that God is no longer remote, but lives among, and even in, us. Jesus’ sheep listen to his voice and he calls them by name (i.e., personally). That is, if you are truly Jesus’ disciple, you know the truth (which is Himself, not a set of facts about him that a scholar selected) and that truth sets you free. You follow a King, and your King knows you.
An abiding characteristic of the abusive church is that you follow a Pastor “king” who does not know you, nor care about you: the rules are far more important than any number of people who may be broken by them. You are required to follow laws that were made without any knowledge of you or your circumstances, to suit the vision of a religious entrepreneur or the vanity of a religious scholar.
Mention has been made in this thread of nouthetic counseling… why are these people, after centuries of so-called “reformed” dogma, still obsessed with the belief that they can achieve righteousness by obeying the law?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
P.S. I should clarify: this point cannot be made often or forcefully enough. These religious scholars always claim, of course, that it is not they but the Infallible Word of God that is the origin of their laws. It is not; it merely provides the “ore” from which they mine the goods they want. Although they pretend the Bible is their master, in truth it is their slave.
Patrice wrote:
I’m not trying to monopolise this thread, honest! But I do need to clarify this point. Patrice – I don’t want to over-react to your use of the second person, nor hastily infer more than you were actually implying. But to ensure that the record remains clear and accurate, I was not abused by my parents, nor anyone else for that matter. My basic human need for significance and a role in God’s household is exactly that – a basic human need – not a reaction to hurt and abuse. A bit like the fact that when I get hungry, it’s not a traumatic reaction to some occasion when I wasn’t fed soon enough as a baby. I’m just hungry.
Hi Daisy. I understand what you are saying in one of your posts, but I think (a) it depends on what sort of church these unsympathetic Job’s comforters are attending, and (b) their age.
When I experienced a very bad life event a few years ago, one or two of the younger and more zealous Christians (who incidentally seemed to have been touched by the neo-Calvinist brush) made comments to me that really infuriated me. On the other hand some of the older Christians rallied around and looked out for me, had me over for lunch and so on, without giving me any pep talks.
And I have to be honest and put my hand up and say I was guilty of the same sort of behaviour as you describe on at least one occasion prior to that, not because I was indoctrinated but because I was probably simply complacent. So yes, we are all sinners, although that should be an explanation, not an excuse!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This is true for me, too. My family had its dysfunctional ways, but I never doubted that my parents and God loved me. Still, I went from a solid, mainstream church to the Jesus Movement, and from there to discipleship/shepherding, which gave me a sense of security and family but also introduced me to Gothard. What can I say? I was young and naive, and I wanted to be part of a group that claimed to have the answers. I can’t blame that on anybody but myself. It sure is hard to shake off the old, warped beliefs, though, especially because I’m still friends with a lot of lovely people who have never made the break.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I’ve been wondering about that too. My idea so far, FWIW—
The first action taken by those introduced to this sort of Christianity and by those starting nouthetic therapy, is thorough destabilization via total depravity, suffering as a result of personal sin, Godlessness of rights, deserving nothing but hell, dying to self, etc.
The resulting internal chaos makes them desperate to find a place of solidity but the doctrines don’t allow it. Instead they are pointed to externalities: rules and authority. Neophytes will grab them gratefully because they provide structure to lives whose centers have been lost. That it is an external structure functioning like a corset doesn’t occur to them in their deep relief of finding something (anything!) sturdy enough to assuage their profound sense of vulnerability and un-safety.
The destabilization also inculcates a sense of personal filth, which only strengthens their passion for purity via correct belief and full obedience.
I suspect 5-point Calvinists will not be able to leave legalism and authoritarianism until they stop believing that the human self needs to die in order for Christ to do his good work. In which case, they will no longer be 5-pointers. So maybe they’re right, after all—some people need to be dyin’ to self and it’s them. đ
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Ok. Yes, we have plain human needs and that is plenty enough.
I will suggest, though, that it is not required that one be literally traumatized to carry a wound or two from inevitably flawed parenting (being human). Wounds come in all sizes.
I didn’t traumatize my daughter, but last year we had three difficult conversations during which I apologized for mistakes I made. Because I heard her out, believed her experience, and took responsibility for my wrongs, she saw that my love was genuine even if flawed.
It is astonishing what a difference it has made for her in the short time following. Her driving need to label right/wrong has waned. She’s been able to own up to her own flaws with humor, and has become more comfortable around others with values different than hers.
If I had not been able/willing to do this, I can see that she might eventually have tried to resolve those issues in a church family, and because of her wounds, not been able to pick well.
Hester wrote:
I just threw up in my mouth a little. People who buy this must realize that these authorities who they follow blindly will never assume responsibility for their mistakes. It’s a sick feeling to realize that you’ve made life-altering decisions based on bad advice that you ultimately have to own anyway. I’d rather own my own mistakes. Those whose lives these authorities damage will be nothing more than collateral damage to them.
” I was told this weekend at the homeschool conference that an integral part of good character is not questioning authority.”
Wow Hester, I raised my children TO question authority, just do it respectfully. I also just publicly praised one of the girls on my volleyball team who I chose as captain this year, the main reason I chose her? She argued with me, so I knew that she would be able to argue with the official without fear. I just had to help her learn to argue constructively and respectfully. Because she questioned, and sometimes to the point of it being annoying and extra work for me, she became the one who understood the game more than the others, and occasionally I let her win an argument. She also became the only player that always put one hundred percent of herself into the team, just the opposite of what control freaks fear. Some other coaches criticize my more ‘democratic’ approach to coaching, I think because they see it as weakness, but I know exactly what I am doing. Some coaches just want to look all powerful and have everyone see how they can make all their players look so neat and all in a row and under their thumbs, just like the church leaders who have inferiority complex issues.
AMEN@ Jeannette Altes:
AMEN
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Well said Nick and I agree. Years ago I heard a Messianic Jewish leader (Jacob Prasch) make the claim that all the great women of the Bible from Deborah & Jael to Lydia & Priscilla were only able to do what they did because they had a male “covering” which gave them legitimacy. And you’re right Nick, their (patriarchy) strip mines pollute the water table and leave great ugly holes in Christendom.
@ BTDT & Patti:
Oh, it gets better. It was in a lecture about the character of the Marines at Iwo Jima. He claimed it was only because those Marines didn’t question authority that they went on such a dangerous mission and had such good character. But the real kicker? He vilified the Japanese for blindly following and being willing to die for their emperor. WTFlapjack. Goose? Gander…?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I feel this is just as applicable to the discussion we have been having about YEC under the post: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/04/24/on-yec-interpretation-of-scripture-and-their-use-of-technology/
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Ooo. That’s a good observation! (Not the Mahaney kind of observation….)
anonymous wrote:
I hope Nick does not mind if I steal that profound statement? :o)
@ Anon 1:
Yeah, me too!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
The heart of my favorite quote is apropos: “pretending to act in the name, and for the glory of God, from opinions which their logic and learning have collected from scripture words, or from what a Calvin, an Arminius, a Socinus, or some smaller name, has told them to be right or wrong…” Wm Law
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
“Ich habe nur meine Befehle ausgefert.”
(“I was only following Orders.”)
The follower is always expected to throw themselves under the bus to protect the Leader. If they don’t, the Leader will throw them under himself. After all, who’s More Important?
Less than collateral damage. At least collateral damage acknowledges that there was damage done.
When I think of these 'leaders; (Gothard. Mahaney, Driscoll, etc.) I keep hearing this quote from Shakespeare's "Richard III"…..
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Back in the late 1970’s, a young woman explained the need for a covering is from 1Cor 11:3-16. The head covering reference is a metaphor for authority. When she was at home her father was her covering, but now because she was living away from home her pastor became her covering. I thought this was kind of strange because she had a very responsible position in a teaching hospital. It seemed that she was very capable of making professional decisions, yet decisions regarding her personal life had to go through her pastor.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
“So I was ripe for the picking by a leader who was willing to stand in the place of God as regards my service and obedience. As he used to say: âYou donât live to please yourselfâ. (He did, incidentally; it simply so happened that this involved empire-building, not sex and drugs; so it was hidden.) So in living to please him by serving in the âchurchâ he was planting, I was ticking an important box. From there, I basically gave away all the decision-making authority in my life, and surrendered all the boundaries, one by one.”
Nick, you probably won’t want to say, but I’m really curious to know which church you were at when you experienced this. I always think “We’re a small, not terribly religious country, so how many dodgy churches can there be?” and I wonder if there’s more than I thought. I only know of four Scottish churches that I would deem to have cultic tendencies and that go in for things like Umbrellas of Authority (and I went to two of them!), but maybe there’s a lot more than I thought.
Also, you mentioned surrendering all your boundaries. I think that’s the worst thing about these churches. Generally there is no delineation between what is your business and what is everybody’s business, or at least your Authority Figure’s business, even if the Authority Figure hardly even knows you. Your whole life is up for scrutiny by this person, and you are public property.
Marie
Welcome to TWW. I am so sorry for the abuse that you endured and I rejoice that you have found grace, love and freedom.
Anon 1 wrote:
Steal away! Though, strictly speaking, it’s not really stealing if you asked first. đ
You can have my other version too, if you like:
{Person x} is merely adept at using the Bible as a sock-puppet that always agrees with him {or, less usually, her}.
…I know this is off-topic, but somebody, anybody, NEEDS to do a Bad Lip Reading parody of Steven Furtick’s ‘Hay Haters’ video (this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCW9-MglCsw )
(…if you don’t know what I’m on about here’s a Bad lip Reading of Mitt Romney http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5i3F0YnkP0 )
Donna wrote:
Fascinating.
Lynn wrote:
đ
Joy Huff wrote:
Wow! I bet there were many others as well. I have come to the conclusion that when I feel things, other do.
cranston wrote:
This is the funniest comment of the week!
Jenny wrote:
Nouthetic counseling is just plain dangerous.
@ Joe:
“Back in the late 1970â˛s, a young woman explained the need for a covering is from 1Cor 11:3-16.”
Doug Phillips derived it from the overly literal KJV translation of a metaphor in Genesis 20:16:
“And unto Sarah [Abimelech] said, ‘Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other’: thus she was reproved.”
Most other translations render it more like the NKJV:
“Then to Sarah [Abimelech] said, ‘Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; indeed this vindicates you before all who are with you and before everybody.’ Thus she was rebuked.”
How this is a justification for anything like Gothard’s system is beyond me.
From the Christian Post:
“Benny Hinn Asks Followers for $2.5 Million to Get Out of Debt”
I hope he doesn’t get a penny. He probably will, but I’m still hoping he won’t.
Sophie wrote:
Er… your original quote may’ve got a bit altered there… đ
Anyway, back at the ranch, Dee/Debs/ChappieBehindTheCurtain can give you my email, and I’ll happily pick this up locally.
We weren’t part of a particularly famous movement, nor under a famous international speaker (at least I don’t think he’s famous, though a number of his actions support the hypothesis that he wants to be). So I’ve never been particularly keen to do the “stay away from this church” thing; indeed, a friend contacted me a few years ago when she was thinking about joining the church, and I suggested she give it a try. Though I did add the proviso that she must keep clear personal boundaries (I had reason to suppose she did have them), and sign no “blank cheques” of commitment.
Hester wrote:
A big part of me wishes we could do away with the KJV. I’ve nothing against it, but it has become a bronze snake to so many movements, teachers and individuals who are infatuated by its “sacred” antiquity and led astray by archaic quirks of translation. The whole point of it was to liberate scripture from the chains of Latin and cast it in language that people could understand. Its continued use 400 years later, when English has changed radically, is almost an insult to that purpose.
Sorry – should’ve said “infatuated with“. Getting late here on the right of the Atlantic. And “bronze snake” is a link, in case that’s not obvious.
@ Kolya:
I had the opposite situation, which was shocking for me. Most of the Christians I went to after the death of my family member were in their 50s or 60s, age wise.
Some are Baptist, some are Pentecostal, not sure of all the rest of them, what denomination they are. I was expecting people of these ages and Christian devotion (some attend church weekly) to show the most understanding and compassion, but I was wrong.
Some had experienced a death years before I did of one of their family members. You would think this, plus their age (life experience), would make them more understanding and empathetic of my situation and loss, but no, they were among the worst with the criticism, simplistic answers, etc.
Some of the best responses I got in my grief were from some online friends who were in their late 20s or early 30s, one was a Christian (but who hardly ever goes to church), and the other actually does not like Christians (except for her mom and me she says) and considers herself at times Wiccan or maybe agnostic.
As far as my old battle with depression goes, I’ve had Christians ranging in age from 20s to 70s say rude things, or say insensitive things, in person or read them online, or seen TV preachers say bad things.
Some of these people (who I spoke to in person about depression) were “Word of Faith” Pentecostal – Charismatic who told me I must have depression because I wasn’t praying enough for a healing, etc.
The Baptists and other assorted variety of Christian would give me cliches or make judgmental remarks.
Meg Moseley wrote:
When I was younger (try not to laugh at this), I thought people around age 40 and up had life figured out. Now that I’m in my early 40s and have experienced a couple of traumatic things (in my late 30s) and had my eyes opened, I’ve come to realize that nobody has life figured out. Nobody.
And realizing that makes me even more upset with some of these preachers who abuse their positions. They have no better clue how to live like than me (or anyone else) so where do they get off ordering other people around or acting like they have it all figured out?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Well said!
Patrice wrote:
One thing that bothers me about the ‘your pain is due to personal sin’ (other than it can be grossly insensitive to the victim if not true), is the Bible does not teach it (does not teach it is true in all cases for all people), see the book of Job, and John 9: 1 – 3, and Luke 13: 1-5.
I don’t know how any one can hold up the “your problems are all due to personal sin” position when the Bible itself says this is not true for all suffering / all people all the time.
Muff Potter wrote:
Aside from the sexism, I, as a woman who’s never married, find this sort of stuff troubling because it also feeds into some of the views I’ve heard among some fringe groups (or even average preachers of mainstream denominations) which imply singles are not as valuable as married couples or are lacking in some way.
I hear these preachers say on occasion (or see them write on a web site), when they are trying to defend marriage or explain it, that a man is one-half, and a woman is one-half, and if you put that man (.5) and woman (.5) together (via marriage), that the two now equal “one,” and I’ve heard them use terms such as “complete” or “whole” to describe what effect marriage has on a man and woman who come together.
I don’t think these guys stop to consider that not all in their viewership or audience has ever married or ever will be married.
Singles are getting a message that they are only half a person, or only partially in God’s image, when Paul says things like,
@ Hester:
Like this (standard dating / marriage advice on Christian sites and in blogs):
>If you’re a single woman and want marriage, you have to be skinny and pretty.
>But you can’t be a skinny and pretty single woman because being attractive might cause your brothers in Christ to stumble.
>Remember, ladies, God loves you for who you are and not if you are pretty, and Christian men should too, but if you want a husband, you will have to be pretty.
Daisy, I must admit I’m gobsmacked to hear it was the older Christians who gave you such a stony reception. That I find frankly astonishing, and also sad.
Re your post on singles being “halves” looking for another “half” to make a whole, I believe this idea was specifically mooted by Plato in the Symposium, but I don’t recall it anywhere in Scripture! So yes, rather a strange idea without any Biblical basis. It is true that Proverbs says “he who finds a wife finds a good thing” (roughly paraphrasing from memory, and I assume by extension it also means she who finds a husband), but in the NT both Jesus and Paul, while making it clear that marriage itself is very highly esteemed (ie no easy divorce or bed-hopping) do not elevate it to the status that some people apparently are doing.
Joe wrote:
That brings to mind an old Simpsons episode where Ned Flanders keeps calling Rev Lovejoy for advice and input on every thing all the time, and it drives Lovejoy nuts.
I couldn’t find the exact clip I was thinking of, but this one if kind of close:
Flanders and Rev Lovejoy in Church
.
Pack rat that I am, I still have my Red Book from the Basic Seminar and the book from the Advanced Seminar packed away in the attic, along with the Men’s Manual and whatever Wisdom Booklets and updates I collected. They’re not packed because I might want to follow them again, not that I followed very well back in the day, but because I might someday refer to them to remind myself of the absolute garbage we tried to buy into in our young adult years of early marriage. It wasn’t just one church or one denomination, because we were introduced to the Gothard way of life via college friends in one town, then by our church in another town, and then heavily by the church we were at for six years in the town we’ve lived in for nearly three decades.
We know a lot of Gothard followers, but I do believe the heyday has passed. The teachings thrive around here, particularly and disturbingly in home school circles, and sometimes advocated by people who don’t even know of Gothard. Anytime I hear the words “umbrella of authority”, “spiritual authority”, or ” biblical covering”, I know what I’m dealing with, even if the speaker doesn’t know the roots. A few more phrases I remember include praying a hedge of protection around loved ones, not giving the devil a foothold, generational sin, and especially “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft”. That last one is my all-time favorite! It almost guarantees that the speaker has been to a Gothard seminar! A close runner up to my favorite phrase is “purpose in your heart” to do XYZ, which would be anything that Gothard thought you should do. It might be purposing in your heart to put yourself to sleep every night reciting the scriptures you’d memorized, or it might be purposing in your heart to spend 30 minutes every day in Bible reading from henceforth and forevermore. And be sure that you have raised your hand to take that solemn vow (or maybe signed one) during the seminar, when “every head was bowed and every eye was closed”. I eventually “purposed in my heart” not to buy into that junk. You know what? Nothing unusually terrible has befallen me in the many years since. i was just an all-around failure at Gothardism!
I also have a beautiful copy of The Pineapple Story, along with The Eagle Story. Interestingly, The Pineapple Story does not name the missionary telling it, but since someone mentioned it, I discovered the missionary himself is on a youtube video telling it. I only listened to part of it; just not that interested any more.
Deb/Dee: I’m also interested in reading the account that you mentioned in comments on one of your previous Gothard articles, in which you mentioned Mayflower, Ar. Although it is interest mixed with some apprehension, since I’ve lived in that general area for nearly three decades. Did I mention that Gothardism is alive and well here?
Tree wrote:
Thank you for tying these phrases together! Growing up, I never heard of Gothard, but I sure heard these phrases. Knowing they all have the same root source helps shed the hold they still try to exert over my mind.
This text from Matthew 21 seems pertinent –
23When He entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him while He was teaching, and said, âBy what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?â 24Jesus said to them, âI will also ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. 25âThe baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?â And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, âIf we say, âFrom heaven,â He will say to us, âThen why did you not believe him?â 26âBut if we say, âFrom men,â we fear the people; for they all regard John as a prophet.â 27And answering Jesus, they said, âWe do not know.â He also said to them, âNeither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.
Parable of Two Sons
28âBut what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, âSon, go work today in the vineyard.â 29âAnd he answered, âI will notâ; but afterward he regretted it and went. 30âThe man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, âI will, sirâ; but he did not go. 31âWhich of the two did the will of his father?â They said, âThe first.â Jesus said to them, âTruly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you. 32âFor John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him.
This is by John Piper:
This sounds uncomfortably close to suggesting that it takes a man and a woman married to each other to represent God or something like that, as though God can’t be represented by any other types of people or people in other types of relationships.
So, if you are a Christian adult, even a hetero one, who has never married, does this mean you do not represent God’s covenant with humanity, or you cannot be in “covenant worship” with, or represent it, is that the unintentional result of his view?
I thought the entire body of believers (male, female, black, white, widowed, divorced, never married, whatever else) all together represent the bride and God’s covenant with humanity, or we worship him corporately?
@ Daisy:
The phrase “God and man in covenant worship are represented by male and female in covenant sexual union” sounds worse, to me, than the suggestion that single people can’t represent God. It sounds like the wife is supposed to worship her husband.
In any case, it is a highly inaccurate paraphrase of Paul’s statement in Ephesians 5.
I do wonder which came first, in various people’s minds, out of the two beliefs: the doctrine of ESS (the “eternal subordination of the Son”) or the doctrine of USW (the “unconditional subordination of woman”). I can accept the possibility that there are some, perhaps including Piper, who genuinely think the Bible Scriptures teach ESS and for whom USW (if I may continue to call it that) is simply a logical extension. That would mean Piper teaching women to endure domestic abuse (however transiently) is akin to his teaching Christians to endure persecution for the gospel’s sake, should it arise. That’s different from a sexist yob wanting an excuse to subjugate women, and concocting ESS ad hoc to provide that excuse.
P.S. I don’t suggest that excuses any failure to protect women from domestic violence, but it might explain where such an idea comes from.
I don’t know what the spectrum of complementarian opinion is regarding men who are subject to domestic violence (and they do exist).
John Piper…paging Dr. Freud!
@ Daisy:
I agree. Telling someone who is in pain “Well, we all sin so what’s yours?” is Christianized bullying, cruelty towards the weak by someone with power.
[The Lord] heals the brokenhearted
and binds up their woundsâŚ.
His pleasure is not in horses’ strength,
Nor his delight in the legs of the warrior;
The Lord delights in those who reverence him,
Who put their hope in his unfailing love.
Hester wrote:
Maybe Abimelech invented eye glasses? Or maybe he was a proponent of blind folds? Or maybe he was talking about the old tradition of putting silver coins over the eyes of a dead person—creepy! choices choices
@ Daisy:
“God and man in covenant worship are represented by male and female in covenant sexual union.”
I hate it when people compare worshipping God to sex. I’ve seen old Puritans do this too, though a little differently: in church, Jesus “embraces” His bride (the congregants) and scatters the “seed” of His Word (preaching) onto her. I suppose you could also extend this to the fact that the Word is supposed to bear fruit (i.e., a baby).
I find it creepy to walk around with the idea that what goes on in a church service is some kind of “spiritual sex” with Jesus. And at the risk of sounding like Mark Driscoll, I would probably find it even creepier if I were a guy…
Hester – I am a guy, and I certainly find it creepy.
Quite apart from the idolisation of lecture/preaching by a consecrated priesthood, I find the panting, crooning, gasping sounds made by a significant proportion of worshippers in the traditional charismatic liturgy in the UK viscerally unpleasant to listen to. Odd as it may sound, I do actually really like full-on exultant singing to God exhilarating – it’s perfectly allowable in scripture – and I don’t judge anybody for the noises they make when they’re praying. It’s between them and God, and if God doesn’t mind it, it’s none of my miniscule business to nit-pick. I just wish, sometimes, that they’d do it in private… sigh.
Surely the picture of Christ and the church as his bride simply represents the devotion of Christ to the church and the love she should have for him?
Any attempt to press this analogy further runs the risk of being both rather strange and of missing the point, I think.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Not a criticism of what you said, Nick, but picking up on that, to say the marriage is a picture of the covenant relationship between God and the church and then to say therefore a woman must endure the treatment of an abusive husband as that pictures enduring persecution is quite the bait and switch.
Since when is God the persecutor of His bride? The persecutor of Christ’s bride is the wicked, Satanic, Christ hating world, right? So, in an abusive marriage, who’s the real husband pictured here?
anonymous – a colossal bait-and-switch indeed. For that matter, to swap interchangeably between Christ/church and Father/Son is also questionable, to my mind. But back to the point: an abusive husband who professes christian faith can in no way be treated as having committed a mere liturgical or theological offence. Such a person should be treated as a “pagan or a tax-gatherer”, and dealt with according to the criminal offence he has committed.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yep.
@ anonymous:
Er, um, not to mention that the suffering wife now becomes a picture of the suffering Christ (the head) instead of a picture of the Church (the Bride of Christ). What torture is done to the analagy even without the sex bits added in. Why do they have to try to make so much more than “Love your as Christ loves the Church . . . ”
BTW – no mention of sex between Christ and the Church ANYWHERE. Sheesh, does that mean we should do away with that bit of married life? Someone should ask Piper or Mary K.
There’s another point to the Unconditional Subordination of Women that I’ve not heard any of the more famous complementarians (never mind patriarchalists – and I do draw a distinction there) elaborate on. That’s not to say nobody has, and I’d be genuinely interested to hear anybody’s thoughts here.
Many who are first will be last (after the final judgement, in eternity); and the last, first. And certainly there is no marriage nor giving in marriage at the resurrection, as per Matthew 22 or Luke 20. This surely has very strong implications for how our gender roles and identities play out in life beyond physical death. Does that not mean that the reward of a woman who spends this life submitting and reining in (or stifling) her gifts and aspirations, will spend eternity in authority over those under whom she submits now? That those women who are last in this life, will be first, and those men who place themselves first, will be last?
You have to wonder…
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I have wondered the same thing BUT, I do have to wonder if the wife is enabling sin especially if the husband is a professing believer. And I do often wonder how that will play out. Good question to ask Jeff Crippen perhaps what are his thoughts?
@ Bridget:
. . . should be “Love your “wife” as Christ loves the Church.”
Anon 1 wrote:
Interesting!
I wonder if the women who spent their lives stifling their gifts will receive a loss of reward?
A woman who stands by her man, even if he’s a spiritual abuser, will have to answer for her sin of support, imo. If so, and I believe it is, it’s no longer “safe” to just blindly trust him and blindly support him. Suddenly, the woman has to actually think and be responsible. Yowsers! That’s a game changer for many women!
Just to be clear …
No one can change their spouse, but it can become clear you don’t support their sin.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
âGod and man in covenant worship are represented by male and female in covenant sexual union.â
I hate it when people compare worshipping God to sex. Iâve seen old Puritans do this too, though a little differently: in church, Jesus âembracesâ His bride (the congregants) and scatters the âseedâ of His Word (preaching) onto her. I suppose you could also extend this to the fact that the Word is supposed to bear fruit (i.e., a baby).
I find it creepy to walk around with the idea that what goes on in a church service is some kind of âspiritual sexâ with Jesus.”
***************
thoughts… thoughts… can’t hone all of them down at the moment into something crystal clear. but a beginning attempt:
let’s get the tongs and OH, GROSS, remove words like “sexual” “union” “intercourse” “spouse”, and effigies of the bible men who say them & quick toss em in this bag here, OH–BLECH–YUUUUCK tie it up, take it out to the trash — get it outta here QUICK….. SICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
excuse me while i spastically flail wildly about for a second to get the grossness off
ok, better
now that that’s all gone… what about the thought of God connecting with us, us connecting with God. like electricity putting life into something. like, big love finding a place to go. And be, and do. Like, action and reaction.
eh…. too abstract…. i’m trying….
@ Bridget:
“Er, um, not to mention that the suffering wife now becomes a picture of the suffering Christ (the head) instead of a picture of the Church (the Bride of Christ). What torture is done to the analagy even without the sex bits added in.
Why do they have to try to make so much more than âLove your as Christ loves the Church . . . â
**************
It comes from having the luxury of staring at the bible for far too long and turning one’s brain inside out like a paper cup and deeming the result “spiritual insight”, if not “prophetic”.
it’s like someone in a lab coat putting this and that on the bunsen burner and cooking it down, down, down and calling the residual paste A NEW DISCOVERY “BECAUSE MY NAME IS DR. SO & SO!”
As far as Benny Hinn, I was reading something online that had him listed as one of the ten highest salaried pastors. I wonder where all that money has gone?!
And @Joy Huff – as far as panic attacks, I had plenty of them while I was in CLC, though I can’t blame them all on CLC or the pastor’s messages, although some were due to that. I had an image of someone doing yoga during one of C.J.’s message to avoid a panic attack. how’s that for a crazy image?
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Jeannette, it is my fervent belief that one day you’ll be completely free of this crapola and breathe the air of New Eden. Messiah came to free captives, not to fit them with new shackles.
elastigirl wrote:
đ
Former CLCer, do we know each other? After that time at the retreat, I couldn’t listen to CJ anymore. For some time now. CJs words in my head look like jagged steel spikes as in the movie ARMAGEDDON. They feel evil. This has been going on for about 8years. But I thought it was just me because I’m very rebellious. Then the brent docs come out. Unbelievable. It’s very hard to walk away from. This stuff still has a hold on me. I’m getting there, though. It’s helpful to be able to write about it here and on sgm survivors. Doing this makes it seem to have less of a hold over me.
Muff Potter wrote:
Muff, thank you. that is my hope…..
Joy Huff wrote:
Yes, these religious indoctrinations are hard to let go….but talking about and hearing – sharing our stories – draws the poison out, slowly but surely. Not all at once, though, as I think that might annihilate us. Bit by bit, it is drawn out until only the shadows remain.
@ anonymous:
“…to say the marriage is a picture of the covenant relationship between God and the church and then to say therefore a woman must endure the treatment of an abusive husband as that pictures enduring persecution is quite the bait and switch.”
That would definitely be a bait and switch. Thankfully I’ve never heard anyone say that abuse pictures persecution, but there is, after all, nothing new under the sun so I’m sure somebody has.
@ Joy Huff:
perhaps “rebellious” is the name religious leaders give for independent thought.
Or, the name they give to a person who balks when their personal boundaries are infringed on (a very healthy response).
“Rebellious” would be more accurately called by another word, and I have a hunch it is one of your very best traits.
http://pinterest.com/pin/166140673723834142/
Hester wrote:
Yep. My former pastor said it. He stated that persevering in an abusive marriage was “suffering for the cause of Christ” and gave glory to God. Ugh.
Bridget wrote:
That doesn’t stop the sex-preoccupied Christians who like to read too much into the Christ = groom / Church = bride analogy.
I read a book about Christian singleness, and the authors spend some time in one chapter giving quotes by other Christian authors who talk about marriage and sex.
In their works, these other authors really stress the sexual act between husband and wife and suggest something like sex is the only or best way to really, really know, experience, or understand God.
So as someone who’s never married (and thus never had sex), I guess that makes me a sub-standard Christian.
On one page, the authors of this book about singleness summarize one other author’s views this way:
They then provide a paragraph of Thomas’ from one of his books, then they continue with a summarization of his views:
They mention that these attitudes are quite similar to pagan fertility cults or attitudes towards sex.
A pastor in a church I visited once said something along similar lines to that.
It’s only a logical conclusion of a certain line of belief.
Jenny wrote:
That is not just wrong, it’s chilling. So, the more Christlike you are the more persecution you get right? So spousal abuse just marks you out as spiritual, & who could argue with that? Right?
You know, the more I think about this, the more loud this gets in my head:
I have desire to get under an umbrella or any other kind of ‘covering’ with any pastor or minister…..in fact, eww!
Daisy wrote:
When I read the first sentence above, my mind immediately went to the idea of temple prostitutes. I can see that I’m not the only one that makes that connection.
Also, if a person holds that opinion, then what do they think it means when one or both members of a couple rarely or never enjoy the experience? If a husband is a lousy lover and his wife doesn’t get much pleasure out of it (especially if they grew up in the purity culture and she is completely clueless about what gets her going), does that mean she is unable to know and understand what God is like?
People should really think more about the conclusions others will reach by extending their theology.
@ HoppyTheToad:
As I’ve pointed out (above and earlier on this blog), I’ve never had sex, not at all. I’d like to wait until I get married, but marriage may never happen for me.
Well, sex is *usually* an act of intimacy, but I’m not sure in all situations. For example, the sort of encounter between a man and a prostitute in a back alley would hardly count as “intimacy”, I think.
The other problem with the view that we come closest to knowing God by sexual intimacy is that neither Jesus nor Paul were as far as we know married. As I’ve pointed out earlier, both Jesus and Paul also pointed out the constraints of marriage (no easy divorce and looking out for one’s spouse’s interest). Indeed, the disciples were so astonished by Jesus’ words that they wondered whether it would be better not to marry.
I’m glad we don’t live in the old days when people skirted around the issue of sex, even within marriage, but on the other hand we don’t want to overcompensate and fall into the opposite error of obsessing about it.
I was listening to a critique of a Rev Pete Wilson sermon on one site, and out of curiosity, I went to his church’s site.
At the bottom of that page, under “Process of Membership” is this:
When I was little, my parents used to take me to a local church. We became members of that church. I don’t remember signing any paper work to belong there.
I find this new trend of making people sign legal documents and such to become a church member really weird.
Not to mention if you are a Christian, you’re already a member of ‘The Church’ (universal body of believers).
Kolya wrote:
LOL, you totally need to send that quote to Mark Driscoll, Ed Young Jr, and any of the other guys like them out there. đ
@ Daisy:
“Signing the membership agreement”
Forget “agreement,” the PCA church my family almost joined used the terms “membership vows.” Which begs the question, can they broken? And what happens if you do? They also used materials in class that compared church membership to a marriage, which we’ve discussed at TWW before. I’ve yet to have anyone explain to me how you can “cheat” on your church, or “fornicate” beforehand.
Also the views of that Thomas guy on sex as some form of prayer are just plain creepy. To whomever it was above that brought up temple prostitution – that was an apt observation.
Then again, I suppose I’m a serial adulteress because I play the organ at lots of different churches…and get paid for it to boot. Maybe there’s a reason my avatar is a big red A. ; )
@ Kolya: About intimacy, I’m thinking that a lot of married people experience a “lack of intimacy” – for all kinds of reasons.
I *so* wish the mythology promoted by many evangelicals re. marriage would disappear. It reminds me of an idea that I had as a young child, that somehow the world would change into The World of Tomorrow overnight, complete with flying cars.
Taking vows isn’t some sort of magic, neither is sex, though I think perhaps too many evangelicals hold up both marriage and sex in marriage as some sort of miraculously transforming thing… in truth, we’re just people – no ore and no less – and things simply don’t work that way.
@ numo: “no more and no less,” that is.
Agree–remember Ananias ans Sapphira.@ Katie:
Jeannette Altes wrote:
A good resource critquing the “covering” movement is Frank Viola’s book, Who is Your Covering?: A Fresh Look at Leadership, authority and accountability http://www.amazon.com/Who-Your-Covering-Leadership-Accountability/dp/0966665716
Throughout my adult life, I’ve been thankful that God protected me from the influence of a cult my best friend joined in high school. At the same time, I regretted that my family belonged to what I erroneously referred to as a nominal mainline denomination, because they just weren’t serious enough about really being good Christians. And I felt like a 2nd class citizen when others from my church were able to attend the BLI sessions when Gothard came to town. I remember that there were 4 or 5 couples in our PCA church who attended — and yet, the pastor and his wife chose their words carefully when speaking about the Gothard seminar. They didn’t forbid anyone’s attendance, but it was clear they didn’t recommend it, and in hindsight it looks like they were trying to be diplomatic and not authoritarian.
After reading all this and thinking about the Gothardites and the covering language I heard from indoctrinated friends and charismatic relatives, I am really thankful that I grew up in that ‘nominal mainline denomination’ and that God not only protected me from a very dangerous cult (The Way International), but He kept me from attending the Gothard stuff, too. I’m still scratching my head over His allowing us to become involved with SGM, but we never really toed their lines, and came out relatively unscathed. But I think if we’d gone through the Gothard stuff, I’d have swallowed that SGM covering stuff hook, line, and sinker.
I do remember a PDI/SGM pastor once talking about someone who had left the church, saying, “While she’s a member here, we can help protect her, but once she steps outside our covering, there’s nothing we can do…”, implying that she’d be turned over to Satan and Jesus would not be able to help her. HOGWASH!!
I do have some relatives who went all-out Gothard with homeschooling. The dad taught classes at zero-dark thirty before he went to work. The girls had never heard secular music until they went roller skating with their grandmother. They were homeschooled from start to finish — but apparently didn’t sign on to everything, because the two girls attended prestigious universities. By all accounts, they are lovely Christian women who, in spite of considerable financial wealth, are surprisingly unspoiled and have chosen to live and raise families in an inner city area reaching out to the community with after-school homework help and other practical ministry. I’d love to talk to them to find out exactly how they view the Gothard influence at this point in their lives.
I hope that by the time my grandkids grow up, we’ll have stopped letting crazy people tell us how to live. That ‘nominal mainline denomination’ may be ‘church-lite’ and liberal-leaning, but they were pretty good at the Golden Rule and keeping their noses out of their members’ private business. Looks like they’re the ones who kept the main thing the main thing. It was the one who loved to emote about keeping the main thing the main thing who got sidetracked into blackmail, authoritarian covering, and diabolical cover-ups.
@ Nickname:
“Iâm still scratching my head over His allowing us to become involved with SGM”
************
Hello, Nickname. I understand. I was never aware of SGM, but spent my own number of years in a ridiculously dysfunctional, controlling environment that was extremely damaging. My motivation was to “do it for God; he deserved my best, my most, not my whining and quitting because of discomfort.”
I figured, if this problematic environment was problem enough, he’d yank us out. Job transfer, needing to relocate for another reason, the church would burn down, the pastors would quit (or die), etc. I kept waiting for God to do something. Since that something never happened, I figured “well, guess He wants me here.”
In addition, all the talk about “not missing God’s perfect will”… can sure scare a person sh*tless. Afraid to make the wrong decision, the wrong choice. So one stands still
Eventually, my husband & I were so worn down we couldn’t do it anymore. We left because we no longer had the will to do it. We were completely empty, demoralized, lifeless.
I’ve detoxed a LOT. I’m much more clear-minded now. And the way I see it, we have a brain and the ability to evaluate and understand and make choices. I do not think God’s guidance is usually something “imposed” on us, that compells us, that we must wait for our lives to be “imposed upon” before we make decisions, choices. I do not think God’s guidance is something we “let happen” to us either by other people making decisions that affect us, or by circumstances eliminating all options but one.
On the contrary, I think God likes it when we use our brains and our wits and moxie and make our best, intelligent decisions, choices. Better to be moving and living life by making choices (good ones to enjoy and prosper from, and bad ones to chop through & learn from & deepen) than to be standing still waiting.
There will be mess at times. God’s not afraid of mess. I think God says something like “ok, what do we have to work with here?”
So, as to why God allowed us to become involved with SGM or our own ridiculous church here,…. because he gives us freedom to make our own choices.
I think that may have sounded dumb. Too tired to think it through.
All to say I’ve come to relish the freedom to make my own choices, and to accept the consequences of them, good and bad.
Hester, you mentioned that the subject of joining a church has been addressed on TWW. Do you remember the thread? The pastor of the church asked us on Sunday whether we will attend the Sunday breakfast for prospective new members. Ni am usually a joiner, but my husband is not, and at the last church we attended the trouble started when Ed became a member three years after I did. What are the advantages of joining a church? Is it only voting rights? Ed likes not being questioned about where he is if he doesn’t show up to an event, but for me I want them to need me there.
@ VelvetVoice:
@ VelvetVoice:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/09/14/are-covenants-a-yoke-of-bondage/
This post has links to several others on the subject. My personal favorite, “You cannot resign without permission”.
@ elastigirl: You make very good sense, elastigirl!
Dave A A wrote:
My answer? Eat my dust!
@Joy Huff – I have a feeling I’m a bit older than you are. Was your whole family in the church? I seem to remember their names. I was a single at the church until early 2000.
@ Velvet:
Sometimes it may only be voting rights, sometimes they won’t let you do certain things (Sunday School teacher, for instance) unless you’re a member. Personally I’d stay away from any church that 1) compared church membership to marriage and/or 2) referred to the membership agreement as “vows.” That is based only on my personal experience though so maybe others’ mileage may vary. I think the post Dave referenced above has more information, and I know I’ve talked about the church-membership-as-marriage thing in the comments here before.
I’ve had only one experience with funky church membership stuff and that was at a PCA church. They bugged us a lot about joining and basically wouldn’t let us do much in the church until we did. Then the pastor let a Reconstructionist into the pulpit and we walked. Only three years there was enough to send us back to the good, normal Lutheran church we had attended before. We don’t plan on leaving again unless things get really irreparably hosed up.
Just reed the progression of the dialogs and see how far you people had gone from REALITY.
Yet I was wandering if I am risking a response according to Matthew 7:6
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you”
One day opinions are going to truly make a difference and what if they will cost you ETERNITY?
Bc wrote:
Oh good night! Thank you for your comment. It helps our readers to understand the nature of the theology espoused by followers.