Hi Ben,
Thank you for your thoughtful and considerate (and civil!) letter. Since you afforded me such courtesy, I'd like to return the service. Honest dialog between people is very valuable to me.
I'm going to respond to each question and issue you raised as forthright as I can. I'll just cut and paste off your letter and put quotes around what you wrote to allow for context.
"I am wondering if you ever attended a Basic Seminar."
No, it's true I haven't. I'm not convinced it's that necessary that I do participate personally in order to offer a valid critique, however. My wife has attended several, so we have most of the teaching materials (both IBLP and ATIA). Also, my wife and I both have friends and acquaintances who have participated in the program to varying degrees of seriousness and commitment. Your point is well taken however, and I would like to personally attend, though I fear, since I am already so familiar with the materials, I will be unable to participate with a total lack of bias. There is another point I'd like to mention but I'll save it for later in this letter.
"It seems to me that your position is not so much generated by a serious examination of his and IBLP's teachings and the necessary fair comparison to God's Word, as by your own past experience with a controling cult."
It is true that my experience with the cult has affected me deeply, and it is also true I am hyper-sensitive to anything that resembles or reminds me of the mind-set I took on in the cult. On the other hand, I believe I have been given the gift of discernment in matters such as these, and my hyper-sensitivity is indicative of my receiving of that gift. It's like I've been inocculated against a certain form of spiritual virus, or better, I have developed an allergic reaction to certain unhealthy spiritual realities. When I start to "itch", it's a dead give-away that something toxic is near-by.
However, I have examined IBLP/ATIA teachings and their application in light of Scripture, and I have found them seriously wide of the mark at best. The emphasis is all wrong. I'll get into that later, as well.
"It's very possible that you are not fully recovered and anything that might have some resemblance of what you went through could impair your judgement."
Perhaps. I've been wrestling with cult-related issues for 24 years now. But as I see it, my depth of experience and knowledge has honed and exercized and matured my gifts rather than impaired them.
"Bill Gothard does not pretend to be God or an apostle and the teachings of ther seminar are not only his. A lot of people over the last 35 years contributed to the refining and the cristalization of the main message of the seminar and the reason it's been so, is because God wanted to keep Bill humble and to make him dependent on his fellow brothers that love God as much as he does. The seminar is now the product of many, many lives that have been applying biblical priciples and been transformed by it."
The leader of the group I was in, David Berg, made such claims as well. False teachers typically portray a false humility. No one likes a know-it-all. We're all suspicious of folks who make blatantly outrageous claims to special knowledge. But we're not so careful when those claims are not so overtly stated. Berg also claimed that he was simply giving voice to Biblical Truths. He was adamant that "If what I say doesn't line up with Scripture it's not from God, period. Test the spirits, examine the fruits, be noble like the Bereans and prove it from the Word. It's not what I say that matters. It's what God says." It's when you start disagreeing that their true colors come out. You can tell a lot about a group by how it treats dissent and dissenters.
"You compare the ministry to a cult; every single cult I know of, discourages their followers from studying the Bible independently and meditating on it in order to get personal revelation from God because that interferes with their control."
That was not at all the case in my group, nor in many other groups which I am familiar with. In the group I was involved in, we were expected to memorize at least three Scriptures a day, and many committed more than that to memory. At the beginning we were instructed which verses to memorize, but after the "basics" were covered, we could pick whatever verses we wanted to hide in our hearts. And the verses we were required to memorize were not "fringy" verses - they were Romans Road verses to assist us in witnessing, verses similar to "The Four Spiritual Laws", as well as verses from the Gospel of John (entire chapters) and the Psalms and Proverbs and Is 53. The Book of Acts was particularly focused upon after the basics were covered. We knew our Bibles. Our controllability derived out of our devotion to God and His Word and our desire to be obedient to what appeared to be black-and-white instructions from Scripture. We wished to serve God to the utmost of our ability, with our whole hearts and minds and strength, in obedience to His commands which were not grievous and which were clearly spelled out. We offered our bodies as living sacrifices, which was our reasonable service. But our devotion and earnestness was exploited and subtly turned against us, and then against God, ultimately.
"The structure of authority he gives has God on top, than family, church, etc. he's not anywhere on it."
I would suggest to you that God is not at all interested in a "structured authority". If He were, then we Protestants are renegades from the original divinely instituted authority, the Church, and we should submit to the Pope. Most false teachers do not desire direct control so much as they desire recognition and affirmation from their followers. Typically they don't want the responsibilty or the blame, just the credit and the respect that credit affords. But it's the indirect control that's the most subtle and difficult to recognize and most tenacious. I was more directly controlled by the encouragement and rebukes of my peers than I was by the leader. The leader simply created the controlling social environment. We were never given direct orders by anyone, even by Berg. He simply facillitated the communication processes that went on amongst us, as well as acting as the instigator of the specific contents of what was communicated (which of course was selected from Scripture). We didn't call them "principles", but the notion was the same - it was God's specific will for our lives. Submission to that Will was paramount. And rebellion against the clear will of God was as the sin of witchcraft.
"The ATIA rules are the rules that members choose to submit to, in order to achieve the highest degree of charcter training. it's obviously not for everybody and they are layed out for anybody that wants to join from the beginning."
Same here. I knew what was expected up front. I was told to expect hardship and persection. I signed an agreement form on my first day in the group which spelled it all out. I knew it would cost me my life. That was part of the "draw." God doesn't play games, and God doesn't go half-way. God was serious. So was I. "If you know these things, happy are ye if you do them. And you shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
"The fact that the program itself is not publicized does not support the ridiclous claim that this is a controlling cult."
It does raise questions. Why make the materials available only to those who attend and go through the program? It's sounds like you have to be led down a particular Primrose Path in order to "really get it". Couldn't the teachings stand up to public scrutiny all by themselves? Couldn't someone else who's not on ATIA or IBLP staff facillitate the training sessions? Why not? If the "principles" are valid, they should be able stand on their own without any choreographical assistance, canned sales-pitches, or stage-lights. They should be able to withstand the light of public scrutiny. That's all I was really asking for in my article you read - simple public discourse on the "principles" and holding them up to the light of Scripture in a less controlled environment.
"But if you would've attended you would've known this. If you did attend a full Basic Seminar than it would be obvious that your bias must be coming from some other sources like maybe your past experience or the fact that you may have a hard time reconciling issues in you personal life with the biblical standards presented in the seminar."
I'm curious. What would I have gotten in the actual seminar sessions that I can't get by reading the materials? Those "other sources" that my bias comes from happens to be the actual materials and the testimonies of past and current alumni. What am I missing? What's the necessary additional ingredient? What is it exactly that happens at the seminars which would give me a more accurate perspective on the movement?
"I'm saying this because you don't bring any biblical rebuttal to any of the teachings."
I tend to save the best for last. :)
"Personally, I consider Bill Gothard one of the most godly teachers that America has and think that whatever may be considered extreme in his teachings is by far outweighed by the overall value of these most practical teachings. The bottom line is the we are saved by grace, but if we wanna be of any use to God we have to make the Bible practical in our lives so those around will see the light not just hear about it. I believe his ministry does the best job at this, in the whole christiandom."
That's getting up there in the accolades and praise department. At one time I spoke similarly regarding David Berg and the Children of God's "ministry." If the Children of God were about anything, they were about "making the Bible practical in our lives so those around us will see the light not just hear about it."
I would agree that Bill Gothard's teachings have had an enormous impact upon "christendom." I just don't regard that impact as somethimg beneficial or edifying. So I have to ask, what exactly is it that this ministry "does best"? What is your vision for the future? What do you imagine God's Prime Directive to be? What is the Church's role in the world? What is she to be about? And how might she be faithful to her high calling? And how is IBLP/ATIA answering that call? To me those are the questions we need to be addressing in this time. How we answer makes all the difference in the world, as I'm sure you'd agree.
"I've been in the Romanian marines before I emigrated to the US eight years ago..."
You're from Romania? Did you come here with your family? Our daughter Jennie spent 4 months in Bucharest last summer helping out at a clinic for street kids, and my wife's sister adopted a baby girl from a Romanian orphanage seven years ago. I also worked in a shoe repair shop alongside a Romanian Jew who immigrated to the US with his family (wife and 5 children). We have connections, you see. :)
"... so I'll close with an image from the military. In the army of God there are the regular army troops and then there are the navy seals. The difference is in the level of training, the quality and quantity of it and the effort involved; which leads to a difference in the efficiency of the mentioned categories of soldiers. Have you looked up this ministry lately to see how God works through them. It's up to us at what level we wanna serve God."
Ah yes, the Lord's Army. Yes, we too saw ourselves as God's Green Berets. We were the Vanguard, the Heavenly Fifth Column, Revolutionaries for Jesus, the Sold Out Ones. We were out for nothiong less than World Conquest, not by power nor by might, but by His Spirit through His Word. But no Army is worth a hoot without discipline. We lived the lives of soldiers who were encamped in enemy territory. It cost us everything we had, but what fool would not give up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose? What sacrifice is too costly for the Gospels's sake, for the Kingdom's sake, for God's sake?
"If you believe and profess the essentials of christian doctrine, then you are my brother. May God bless you with love for Him and His Word, wisdom and discernment."
And so I do and so I am, my kind brother. Thank you. And also to you.
So here at long last is my response to your request for my biblical rebuttal.
I'm not going to address what are to me the more minor teachings (music and adoption and standards) other than say that those teachings are divisive and unedifying to the Church. They encourage splitting the Fellowship of the Saints into classes of Christians according to the level of their adherence to the "Principles" taught in the seminars. Many local churches have been devastated by a small group of alumni who seek to get their respective churches to officially adopt these teachings. What I have witnessed is that those teachings separate Christians from other Christians more than they separate Christians from the world. What makes us distinctly Christian is our love. Seems to me a para-church organization should serve to facilitate fellowship, not encourage further fracturing.
The basis of IBLP and ATIA teachings is authority, submission, and accountability. The whole movement is predicated upon those principles. I suggest a thorough study through the Scriptures on the words "authority", "rule", "dominion", "rulers", "thrones", "princes", "principalities", "powers", and "kingdom." It makes for fascinating and worthwhile study. The two scripture portions which jump out immediately to me are MT 20:20-28 and 1 Cor 15:24. Also, a secondary study would be fruitful I'm sure on the topic of "shepherds", which EZ 34 comes to mind.
If you've a mind to you can read my thoughts on the subject in an article I wrote called "Church Discipline?" It's in the same group of articles as the Gothard one you read.
Other than that, I just have a few more things I'd like to emphasize in this note. As I mentioned before, I don't believe God's interested in any authority structure. God reluctantly granted Israel's request for a King. He gave them the desire of their hearts, but sent leanness to their souls in the form of Saul. The prophet told them it would cost them, but they would not. They wanted to be like the nations around them. They wanted to be kewl. But they got nothing but trouble ever since, and their kingdom was eventually dismantled. Let that be a lesson to us. The Church will never win at playing the world's games. She shouldn't waste her time trying.
The picture of the Church I see in Scripture is a Body. It's an organism, not an organization. It's held together by unfeigned love between its members, not by any hierarchical structure. It's alive, made up of living stones, not a dead system. It doesn't operate according to a schematic or a blue-print, it operates according to Love, according to the Spirit, according to the Crucified and Resurrected One who died and lives for all. The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, or leaven hid in a measure of meal, or a treasure hid in a field. Not like an Army, or a Corporation, or a Club, or a Political machine. Its directions come not from the top down, but rather from the bottom-up, or better, inside-out. Its leaders are not to be "placed over", but rather "under", as servants. And those servants are accountable to those whom they serve, not the other way around. And all are to serve, because each member matters and is invaluable to the whole, each joint is God's provision for the supplying of its gift to the building up of the Body, through the edifying of itself in love. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifies.
The real question is not how the Church is to operate, or which form it is to take, or what structure it's supposed to adopt - those are the world's questions. The real question is: What is the Church for? If we could answer that clearly and truly, then we'd know what to do.
I believe the Church is to be for the world. She is to be a Servant Church, not a Ruler Church. She is to wash the feet of the world, not have dominion over it. The Church is to be a Hospice for the lost and the needy and the sick (which is just about everyone on the planet). She is to be a Home for the homeless, the outcast, and the despised of this world, a place of welcome and healing and nourishment. She will stand up to the wolves and the principalities and the powers and challenge their arrogance and expose their traps. She will preach glad tidings to the poor, loose those who are in captivity, and break the bonds of those oppressed. She will speak of Liberty. She will preach Jubilee. And she shall love like her Lord and Savior loves.
If She is to be faithful, She will be an embodiment of the Spirit, the Spirit whom Jesus said would not speak of himself, but will glorify Christ, lifting Him up in order that all may be drawn to Him. She will be like her Lord, she will have His mind, who though he was God, and finding Himself in the form of a man, humbled himself, and took upon himself the form of servant, and became obedient, even unto death, for the sake of the world, for the sake of his people, and for the sake of His Father. Who, for the joy set before him, despised the shame, and endured the cross, and now bids us follow.
As He is, so are we in the world. When He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. But, when He came into the world He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we did esteem him smitten of God and afflicted. He was despised and we esteemed him not. He came unto his own and his own received him not. But...
In the world we will have tribulation. But take heart: He has overcome the world.
We're not supposed to get organized. We're supposed to love each other. When we do, then we'll know what to do.
Bottom line, God's not interested in Control. What God desires is Intimacy. There is only one Royal Law in God's Economy: "Love one another as I have loved you." By this shall all men know you are my disciples...
I think Bill should be about that. I don't think he is, so I'm worried about you. That's all.
Your brother in Christ,
Rick