The Prosperity Gospel Family Style: The Gothard Movement and Biblical Fundamentalism

I think among sensible fundamentalists there was always a strong wariness of Gothardism similar to the attitude toward the Hyles camp: something smelled off and vaguely cultic but there seemed little value in kicking the hornet's nest.



Growing up, I would often hear vague reference to Gothard used in a negative light, indicating someone affected by his teachings who we could expect to be overly strict on his/her family, fractious, and a future source of misery for the church.



The problem was, of course, that similar to the Hyles situation, a lot of this was said quietly so as not to cause offense, and things that should have been denounced publicly were not.



I expect this was actually the case in many fundamentalist churches.

T Howard said:

1981 Resolution #16 REGARDING BASIC YOUTH CONFLICTS

The FBF expresses concern over the ministry of Bill Gothard and Basic Youth Conflicts and calls upon Fundamentalists to exercise caution in condoning or cooperating with a ministry that has never identified with the cause of Biblical separatism.

It's only focus was / is on ecumenism... Just like Kevin mentions:

I think that we tended to focus on ecumenism first, but a lot of people had misgivings about Gothard on these scores. I attended several seminars, including a one day Christian workers meeting in Atlanta. Gothard had Charles Stanley speak to the group that day. I admit it was curious to see several prominent fundamentalists at that meeting.

The thing is, I think fundamentalists at the time were willing to hit the ecumenical angle because it was obvious, would make sense to fundamentalists, rather than digging deeper and doing a more careful analysis. That was a failing, and probably is why some shy away from fundamentalism. They think fundamentalists only care about ecumenical issues and have nothing to say elsewhere. In any case, the reality is that fundamentalists had misgivings about Gothard early on, even if they didn't express the full gamut of why they had misgivings.

dgszweda said:

One area that Gothard infused fundamentalism was in spanking. Yes spanking has always taken place, but he had an impact on the Pearls and Tripp, both books that were heavily circulated around fundamentalism as a model. Tripp was a bit more separate from Gothard, but he used many of the same terms taken from Gothard's publications. This also infused spanking into Christian schools. I was not aware of any fundamentalist christian school (including BJU) that in the 70's and 80's did not let school administrators spank kids without parental notification. The spanking was modeled after Gothard's detailed modeling, even though it may have not been labeled as Gothard. I am not sure there is any school that would spank kids in the same way as they were done in the 70's and 80's. The teaching was clearly wrong and was not just a "cultural" element. It was poor theology. Gothard influenced fundamentalism a lot more than we like to give it credit for.

Secular schools felt quite free to strap children without informing their parents. In my schools, the strap was administered on the open palm. (I never received one, though many friends did.) Often, guys who were sent to the principal's office and weren't strapped would stop at the restroom on the way back to the room, run their hands under cold water and slap them up against the concrete walls so they would be red when they got back to the room. If you went to the office and didn't get strapped, you were low status.

Thus, I don't think your perception is correct on this. Fundamentalists did agree in general with Gothard about strong discipline, but that was why they listened to him at all, not that he had significant influence.

When I think "ecumenical" I think of Bible believers joining together with liberals/apostates. Gothard's associations were with Christians who weren't as separated as fundamentalists and not apostates, Roman Catholics, and charismatics (although there may have been a few of the latter there weren't enough to notice).

BTW, if you wanted to see "Shiny Happy People" in the 70's and 80's you only needed to watch the TV programs produced by some conservative Christian churches and schools. : )

Ron Bean said:

When I think "ecumenical" I think of Bible believers joining together with liberals/apostates. Gothard's associations were with Christians who weren't as separated as fundamentalists and not apostates, Roman Catholics, and charismatics (although there may have been a few of the latter there weren't enough to notice).

Not so, Ron. Well, maybe Gothard had no associations with apostates, but he certainly did with Roman Catholics and charismatics. At the meetings I attended in Atlanta, Greek Orthodox priests were prominent attendees, though I don't know how strongly they were connected to his organization.

Anyway, over the years, he grew closer and closer to many Charismatics.

I appreciate the clarification. I just never saw those groups. My big issue was Gothard's twisting of Scripture. As someone said of his seminars: “Well, I hear lots of talk about rules. Lots of talk about behavior. Lots of talk about authority,” he said, pausing for a breath. “But I don’t hear much talk about Jesus.”

Rules never transformed anyone.

Ron Bean said:

My big issue was Gothard's twisting of Scripture. As someone said of his seminars: “Well, I hear lots of talk about rules. Lots of talk about behavior. Lots of talk about authority,” he said, pausing for a breath. “But I don’t hear much talk about Jesus.”

Rules never transformed anyone.

I think I agree with the basic premise of what you are saying, as long as you aren't advocating anarchy! (I don't mean civil anarchy, but we can't have anarchy in the church either.)

Gothard was big in Fundamentalism, as to the rest, Fundamentalism was always messy to define, even within the movement. And secondary separation has always been more of a theory than a hardened practice. It's a bit late to try to remove the stain of Gothardism now, when stronger actions weren't taken at the time. Fundamentalism has a huge blind spot for heresies on the right, and that is where the Gothardites, Hylesites, Andersonites, Neo-Ruckmanites and the extremes of Landmarkism are hiding in plain sight.

I never trusted Gothard, when at BJU, most of the Bible faculty went after him. However, several people from administration at the time praised him, and allegedly a board member and a VP at BJU were involved in the "cover up" over his brother Steve's sexual abuse of women at IBLP. Many materials circulated in counseling handouts quoted Gothard.