Bill Gothard defends himself on new website

I’ve seen many practices over the years that seem to have roots in Gothardism in churches that have never heard of Gothard. (I also see Hyles-ish stuff in churches that have never heard of Hyles). The ripple effect of their influence is highly pervasive, and IMO the fruit is all the same: hero worship, intimidation, abuse, blackmail, sexual immorality, bizarre standards and rules based on “Because I said so”.

I’ve heard it said that every bad thing is a good thing twisted, and that is the best description of Gothardism I can think of; taking God-designed gender roles and family structure and making a straight-jacket out of them. Or a Louisville slugger.

If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then it isn’t a big jump to the conclusion that women and children will be victimized in authoritarian groups where they are considered the property of men instead of individual souls created in the image of God.

of these bizarre practices. I know nothing about Gothard and I don’t really want to go around reading websites to figure him out, because most things like that are so full of hyperbole I don’t know what is true.

I am truly baffled by this whole Gothard thing.

One of the bizarre practices that comes to mind is my wife’s family friend who went to ATI (Gothard’s teen retreat/work camp). The boys were told that when they rode in the bus they were not to look out the window because they might see a woman and lust after her.

Another bizarre practice comes from Gothard home school curriculum where the parents are told to take their children to a parking lot and let them watch the people coming out of a store and try to figure out what they are thinking based on their facial expression. I’m not sure what the boys were supposed to do if a female walked out of the store, but this whole exercise may explain why so many of the Gothardites tend to be very judgmental.

Mark

Not all of these will be directly or indirectly attributable to Gothard—I am of the view that he “borrowed” some of his ideas from others—but here are some of the things you’ll see in Gothard-inspired people; a requirement to homeschool, a very strong rejection of debt in all its forms, a strong rejection of music with a beat, fairly contrived standards for modesty, a requirement to keep having children whether economics and health allow, strict rules on how long a man must wait to have sex with his wife after her period or childbirth, daughters must be under father’s or husband’s authority (and not a nonrelated manager’s), and the like. In a nutshell, it tends to be a Victorian interpretation of the Mosaic law and involves portions of both Torah and Victorian culture. Gothard even teaches, apparently, that Christians shouldn’t eat pork. (no, Bill; “take, Peter, kill and eat!”)

We fundamentalists are vulnerable to this kind of thinking precisely because our movement has too often tolerated….well, about the same kind of thing from “I don’t drink and I don’t chew and I don’t go with girls that do” “evangelists”.

Gothard also has an “interesting” interpretation of the concept of grace, where he makes it dependent on what we do—“the power and desire to do God’s will joyfully”, instead of characterizing it as God’s free gift. So that much is key, really. A lot of the legalism hinges around there.

Now I would agree fully that we can get dragged down in the details; Gothard’s detractors include both thoughtful “fundagelical” theologians as well as people who are on a mission but somewhat heterodox in our view, so you can get bogged down and quickly looking the things up. I have the hope—not having succumbed to IBLP despite a fair amount of contact with his acolytes—that those with a good knowledge of the depth and breadth of the Scriptures would be less susceptible.

For many years I was in a ministry whose leader was vehemently opposed to Gothardism, especially the Chain of Command idea. (i.e. wives and adult children should obey husbands and fathers as their primary authority) The funny thing (though not funny at the time) was that he demanded to be recognized as the primary authority in every aspect in his ministry and that he was speaking for God. The direct quote was “obeying me is the same as obeying God”. You can be Gothard-like and oppose Gothard at the same time.

Ron wrote:

You can be Gothard-like and oppose Gothard at the same time.

I have actually seen this over and over. My wife even had someone get upset with her for talking about the Gothard influences in this person’s family and the person said that they rejected Gothard so they did not have Gothard influences. The lady was upset that it was even suggested that there had ever been Gothard influences in the family even though the father had read to the children from the Gothard books before rejecting him and they still held on to many of his ideas. The problem is that even when folks say they are distancing themselves from the man Gothard, they do not necessarily turn away from what he taught. Further, many of his teachings are passed on by others who do not use his name, so many people end up following them without realizing where they came from. To make it even more complicated, false doctrine is not new and many of his false ideas were around before Gothard was even born, so it does not matter where they originally came from. This particular lady is upset that all her adult children except one have rejected her ways. These are adult children who are very dedicated Christians. One of the sad things I see among Gothard influenced parents is the idea that if their children do not believe just like they do, they feel as if they have failed as parents or that the children are rebellious. I think this stems from the performance driven extra-biblical standards of the Gothard movement.

[Bert Perry]…here are some of the things you’ll see in Gothard-inspired people; a requirement to homeschool, a very strong rejection of debt in all its forms, a strong rejection of music with a beat, fairly contrived standards for modesty, a requirement to keep having children whether economics and health allow, strict rules on how long a man must wait to have sex with his wife after her period or childbirth, daughters must be under father’s or husband’s authority (and not a nonrelated manager’s), and the like. In a nutshell, it tends to be a Victorian interpretation of the Mosaic law and involves portions of both Torah and Victorian culture. Gothard even teaches, apparently, that Christians shouldn’t eat pork.

What Bert said.

While Gothard is not the source of man-as-ultimate-authority doctrine, it seems he packaged and popularized in such a way that many folks accepted it without blinking. And human nature being what it is, few who accept such beliefs are hesitant to add their own splash-of-this with a pinch-of-that. In a church I visited years ago that closely followed Gothard-type teachings, they believed that wives could not act as a navigator while their husband drove, remind him of an appointment or task, or correct him in any way (like straightening his tie) because that would be a woman acting as an authority or attempting to humiliate her husband.

I suppose it’s less humiliating to let him take the wrong turn, miss an important meeting, or have toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe. :/

I also remember talk about women wearing red, since red is the color of sin, women weren’t to wear it in any way/shape/form. A woman wearing red (or makeup or curled hair or jewelry etc ) would be called a Jezebel. Or a heifer. Or a sow. Now that I think about it, I remember this whole thing about Adam and Eve and how the temptation happened, so their conclusion was that man was inherently righteous and women inherently evil. A woman’s actions were always rooted in the desire to tempt man to do wrong, so the man’s job was to keep her in line. Sounds reasonable. If you put your head in a blender and hit frappe.

A sort of flip side of that in a different church was women as precious and delicate, driven by emotion, less intelligent, and needing protection. So… the wives don’t have their own Facebook accounts or email addresses, for instance, so their husbands could screen everything to make sure they were never subjected to spam or anything/anyone else they found objectionable. Wives run every single decision past the husband, regardless of her own intelligence, experience, or talents - although in this case his motivation is supposed to be love and his goal is to protect her from being spotted by the world.

All that to say - the main characteristic of Gothardism that I’ve seen is that the man’s authority in the home has no bounds. Women and children are treated as property. Any dissent is rebellion, any cry for help is a betrayal, any attempt at reasoning is usurping authority. It also followed that the pastor’s authority did not have limits - people in the church asked his permission to get involved in a ministry, make financial decisions and major purchases, change jobs, get married, pursue their education… and if they disagreed, they were in rebellion against God.

It’s no wonder that there is rampant abuse wherever similar teachings are accepted and allowed to flourish.

…..how did Gothard’s prohibition of the color red ever become de rigeur among churches where significant portions of the congregation cheer for the Huskers, Hoosiers, Badgers, and the like? Or was college sports right out, too? (good luck with that….) I’d better stop before I start really mocking by asking about ketchup and Campbell’s soup and the like….

On a more serious note, Susan’s note and others indicate that abuse of authority is a huge problem in Gothard circles and all too often our own. I’ve experienced it for sure. Maybe we can start to heal by noting that “appeal to authority” is a logical fallacy, and by noting that if they contradict or ignore the authority of Scripture, pastors and such void their own authority?

I know; some will reject what I just wrote because it could theoretically lead to schism. But in a world where we joke that a church split is a “Baptist church plant”, and how many godly men have received the “right boot of fellowship” by being kicked out over political squabbles, I don’t know that we could do worse without really trying.

[Bert Perry]

…..how did Gothard’s prohibition of the color red ever become de rigeur among churches where significant portions of the congregation cheer for the Huskers, Hoosiers, Badgers, and the like? Or was college sports right out, too? (good luck with that….) I’d better stop before I start really mocking by asking about ketchup and Campbell’s soup and the like….

Or a Gothard church that flies the Rebel flag. Could cause a rift in the space/time continuum.

I am starting to see why some “outsiders” view fundamentalist circles with such suspicion. How stupid. If I didn’t know better, I’d be tempted to think the descriptions in this thread were some sort of sick, twisted joke.

I work with a guy who played for Tom Osborne, and he really got a kick out of the prohibition of red—we agreed that there might be a related reason why he never heard of Bill Gothard growing up in Omaha.

Tyler nails it, too. If you want to be really depressed, visit a site called “Stuff Fundies Like”. Not all of it will apply, but most of it will sadden and depress you.

[Susan R]

Bert Perry wrote:

…..how did Gothard’s prohibition of the color red ever become de rigeur among churches where significant portions of the congregation cheer for the Huskers, Hoosiers, Badgers, and the like? Or was college sports right out, too? (good luck with that….) I’d better stop before I start really mocking by asking about ketchup and Campbell’s soup and the like….

Or a Gothard church that flies the Rebel flag. Could cause a rift in the space/time continuum.

When my wife and I were members of Marquette Manor Baptist Church in Downers Grove, IL during the early 90’s, Mr Gothard attended our Sunday evening services fairly often but I don’t think that he was a member. Also, a van load of young people attended our Sunday evening services most every Sunday. I recall that there were only a few families in MMBC involved with Gothardism at the time. In 1995, we moved to Texas and became members of Tri-County Baptist Church in Katy. We were one of the only families not involved with Gothardism in that Church. We were there until I was transferred back to Illinois in 1999. In my opinion, Gothardism is laden with extra bible teaching and I believe that it did ill to our Church in Katy. It seems to me that it was quite spiritually poisonous to the young people in the Church. Too many have turned away from the God and the Church in later years.

I went to a few Basic Seminars. Not much stuck, as most of what he presented was Mid-Western in its focus and not much use in the San Francisco Bay Area. some thoughts below:

• Owning a house without a mortgage in California? Not without a water into wine miracle.
• As for his chain of patriarchal command, my family attended the local United Presbyterian church. After I was saved and started going to a Baptist church, my dad was happy I went to any church. But even if he hadn’t been happy, I still would not have gone to that bastion of modernism. I would have joined the Armed Forces a year early.
• He lost me on the chain of command because he seemingly cut Luke 14:26 out of his Bible:

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Mr. Gothard ignored the situation in many countries and culture where if one becomes a Christian one is thrown out of the family. His dictum comes conflict where a non-Christian father expects his born again daughter to marry a properly qualified suitor who may or may not be a Christian.