Reflections on the Bill Gothard Phenomenom and Scandal…

Last updated on: January 10, 2016 at 5:49 pm by Roger E. Olson

Reflections on the Bill Gothard Phenomenom and Scandal… 2016-01-10T17:49:28-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Reflections on the Bill Gothard Phenomenon and Scandal (and Comparison between that Phenomenon and the Young, Restless, Reformed Movement)

One of the questions most frequently asked about the “Young, Restless, Reformed Movement” (YRRM) is the reason for its popularity. People often ask me why so many young(ish) Christians are attracted to it. After all, to most observers its rise and spread seems inexplicable. Hard-core Calvinism was supposed to be dead and gone except among a few older Reformed people in certain extremely conservative denominations. Then, suddenly, so it seems, thousands upon thousands of seemingly bright young Christians were being swept up into it with passion. The movement became so big that even Time magazine took notice and named “Calvinism” one of the ten big, new ideas influencing the world.

One part of the answer I have often given is to compare the YRRM with an earlier youth-oriented evangelical movement called “Basic Youth Conflicts.” Both seemed to appear and become wildly popular without any clear warning or explanation. Both centered around a charismatic Christian personality who seemed to have all the answers to life’s ultimate questions. Both offered to confused, disoriented Christians, most of them relatively young, clear, unambiguous “keys” to understanding not only the Bible but life as a whole. Both offered a Christian-based ideology that explained cultural dysfunction and offered solutions that were not complicated or confusing.

Those who lived as American evangelicals through the 1970s can’t have missed the Gothard phenomenon. I would argue it was one of the three most influential Christian movements of the 1970s that also influenced non-evangelicals and American culture beyond evangelical Christianity. The other two were the Jesus People Movement and the Charismatic Movement.

I first encountered the Gothard ideology while attending a fundamentalist/Pentecostal Bible college. There was dissension among the ranks resulting from spiritual abuse, mismanagement of the college, and a disintegrating infrastructure. Much of the dissension was aimed at the college president who was a bully. (He famously or infamously attempted to exorcise demons from two students who went to him to complain about the food in the cafeteria which was truly inedible.) One morning in required chapel a leading pastor and board member preached to the students and faculty about “God’s chain of command.” His message was that our only duty was to pray for leaders God had placed above us in “God’s chain of command” and never question them. We were to be absolutely submissive to them because God had placed them over us. The Gothard ideology was clearly borrowed more from the military than the Bible. The Bible is full of prophets “questioning” those “above them” in the “chain of command.”

Conservative evangelical Christians flocked to Gothard’s Basic Youth Conflicts seminars by the thousands. I, on the other hand, was “turned off” by the ideology from the first time I heard it preached. To me it was overly simplistic, foreign to the Bible, and dangerous. It was an ideology designed (whether intentionally or not) to protect the powerful and oppress the weak. Children were to obey their parents until they married. In fact, they were supposed to remain at home and under their parents’ authority even as adults—until they married. Wives were to obey their husbands unless they asked them to sin and, so it was rumored, even if they observed their husbands sinning they were not to question them. There was one case reported widely in the news where a wife and mother did nothing to hinder her husband from drowning their children in the bathtub because she was under the influence of the Gothard ideology.

I remember one seminary class in which a Gothardite student challenged the professor because he dared to criticize that ideology. The professor allowed the student to express himself rather strongly, something dedicated Gothard fans tended to do, and when he finally stopped the professor simply said “If you really believed in Gothard’s teaching you would not challenge me; I’m over you in God’s chain of command.” The student immediately turned beet red and went quiet.

Any evangelical Christian who lived through the 1970s in America has to remember that mass movement. There were many articles about it in evangelical magazines including especially Eternity then published by the Evangelical Foundation out of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. One evangelical writer “took on” the Gothard “chain of command” ideology in his Eternity column called “Out of My Mind.” He was the extremely popular Christian writer Joseph (Joe) Bayly. Bayly was one of the first evangelical Christians to criticize Gothard’s extremely popular teaching publicly. He argued in his columns in Eternity that it opened the door to all kinds of abuse of those in power.

I well recall numerous conversations I had with Gothardite evangelicals throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. They vehemently defended Gothard’s ministry and teaching claiming it as biblical and “the solution” to all social dysfunctions and that anyone who disagreed with it was in danger of rebelling against God himself.

I argue that Bill Gothard was one of the most influential Christian teachers of the 1970s and 1980s. His message was widely received and embraced, I believe, as the antidote to the social and cultural upheaval of the 1960s. It became part of the warp and woof of conservative Protestant Christianity in America—having lasting effects long after the mass Basic Youth Conflicts seminars died down in popularity.

Recently, Bill Gothard’s reputation has been tarnished by accusations that, over the years, he raped and molested numerous women. A current “news flash” has it that thirty women are suing him for rape and molestation. He was relieved of his leadership what remains of his ministry by its board. Of course, he is innocent until proven guilty, but the accusations seem too deep and wide to dismiss as simply one or two disgruntled and greedy people attempting to get at his money. We will have to wait and see as the court proceedings unfold.

My personal opinion has always been that the “chain of command” ideology leaves the door wide open to abusers to hide and even justify their abuse of those under them. It also tends to silence those being abused. Power without accountability corrupts—even among the most “spiritual” leaders. Transparency and accountability are the only antidotes to the corrupting influence of power.

I feel no Schadenfreude about Gothard’s troubles. I only feel a certain amount of vindication as I was highly critical of his teaching and suffered loss of friendships over that.

Gothard was and has been even up until recent years (ref: his influence with the Duggar family) an extremely influential fundamentalist Christian teacher. Only a few courageous prophets like Bayly dared to take him and his teaching on critically. I well remember the letters to the editor of Eternity that harshly attacked Bayly and others for daring to “touch God’s anointed.”

After the Gothard phenomenon began to die down I noticed something similar arising to take its place. At first it had no identifiable title. Some of my colleagues called its young followers “Piper cubs.” Suddenly, in the 1980s I was hearing evangelical Christian young people, mostly students, touting John Piper as the “best Christian teacher” of all. They spoke warmly and passionately about his “Christian hedonism.” (I still have in my files not a copy but the original of one of his first published articles entitled “Confessions of a Christian Hedonist” published in His magazine—the now defunct publication of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in America.) The “Piper cubs” were mostly young males in the early twenties; they had no hesitation about contradicting me, their theology professor, whenever I taught about Calvinism and Arminianism. One of them came to my office after class, in about 1985, and told me this: “Professor Olson, I’m sorry to tell you this, but you are not a Christian.” I asked him why he would say such a thing and he responded “Because you’re not a Calvinist.” I asked him where he heard that non-Calvinists could not be Christians. He said “From my pastor John Piper.” (Many years later Piper told me directly that he never said non-Calvinists cannot be Christians but admitted that some of his more passionate followers may have misinterpreted him as believing that and that he had not done enough to correct that impression.)

While not all Gothard followers or Piper followers were or are “true believers” in their teachings—in the sense laid out by Eric Hoffer in his 1951 study The True Believer—many have been and still are.

I argue that the YYRM would never have “taken off” as a mass movement without Piper’s influence. Once Louie Giglio “baptized” Piper as one of his main, if not his single main, speaker at Passion and One Day youth events, the YRRM really took off as a mass movement with Piper’s teachings at its center and as its foundation and main attraction.

Why do I compare Gothard and Piper and their movements? The comparison has nothing to do with scandals; it has only to do with the kind of single-minded, overly simplistic, absolutist dedication of core followers. Both were perceived by many developmentally immature evangelical Christians as “the recovery” of true, authentic Christianity that, if adopted by all Christians, would solve all the major problems facing and infiltrating Christian churches from secular culture. The single enemy of both, whether followers know it or not, is the rise of anomie out of the secular and pluralistic cultural revolution of the 1960s. Both offer “the cure” for all that ails church and society. Both have strongly ideological and demogogic features. Both have the tendency to idolize power. Leaders of both failed to recognize the predictable abuses of their teachings by their absolutizing followers.

The core problem with both movements is threefold. First, they tend to take one rather idiocyncratic idea and blow it up into the interpretive key to the whole Bible and Christianity in general; Second, they tend to totalize an ideology developed out of that idea/key as something that cannot be subjected to critical scrutiny without revealing the critic’s spiritual weakness if not outright rebellion against God. A problem with both is that they did and do not regard their signature teachings as proposals for consideration but rather regard them as having the status of divine revelation itself. (How many times have I heard YRRM people call high Calvinism “a transcript of the gospel itself?”) Finally, both tend to elevate a single individual teacher as above question or criticism and both of those teachers are noted for rarely, if ever, saying “But I could be wrong.”

Many people have asked me why I don’t try to become the “Arminian John Piper.” The answer is complicated with many aspects. I don’t consider myself a charismatic personality and I am constitutionally averse to all totalizing. “I could be wrong” and “what I teach has problems” never attract mass followings.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 10, 2016

Denomination of the Week: Beachy Amish

Next Post

January 13, 2016 Critical Thoughts about Belief in God and Modern Science...

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was struck dead for lying about money in the early church?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Simon the Sorcerer Ananias and Sapphira Demas Nicodemus