The Advanced Seminar
I have known of brother Bill Gothard's Seminars and teachings for many years now. I have had significant discussions, ministry experience, and personal friendships with those who have imbibed deeply into the Basic Life Principle ministry (forgive the wine metaphor). I had attended the Basic Seminar and the Pastor's  Seminar in the early 1990s. Thankfully, I have been able to advance to the highest level. I attended the Advanced Seminar for 3 hours on a Thursday evening and a Friday evening and all day Saturday (4/24-26/97). Candidly, part of my motivation for going to the seminar was more a matter of gaining a fuller view of the ministry than to gain application of Mr. Gothard's teaching in my life. Still, I knew that there would be good points, as well as areas I would question. In my previous experience with the Basic Seminar (1991 Hattiesburg, MS) and the Minister's Seminar (1995 Memphis), I can say that much of what was taught was beneficial to me and I thank the Lord for it.  From the Advanced Seminar, I believe that I came away with applications that are truly valuable. Among other things at the Seminar, Mr. Gothard gave some outstanding practical suggestions on being a disciplined person and on working well on the job. More questionable, his insights regarding spiritual gifts were useful, though rather overstated. It was as though his teachings on spiritual gifts were the key to the Christian life, family, and ministry. I might observe parenthetically, the emphasis on the use of his spiritual gifts teaching, was done very much the way he appeals to his diagram on "strongholds" and "taking back the ground given to the enemy" -- not outright wrong or bad, but, in smy estimation, not nearly as central to living the Biblical faith as made out to be.

This leads me to conclude that insights without exegesis are only as good as one's systematic theology. Consequently, without being able or even, it seems, willing to show that his main thought comes from a proper interpretation of the Bible, the best means of demonstrating the truth of his teaching is with an anecdote -- a testimony. In fact, I don't think it's too much to say, the punch line in Mr. Gothard's teaching is virtually always anecdotal. Now this being said, it is also clear that this is quite winsome to those untrained in the analysis of the truth of material presented. Certainly, it is not illegitimate to refer to the product of a teaching or to illustrate a point with someone's experience. Doing this is rhetorically powerful and quite convincing. However, Mr. Gothard's testimonials and anecdotes of his teachings seem to function as the ultimate and unchallengeable proof of their truth. When experience is the judge of truth, we have yielded the gavel of the sure Word of truth and the objective processes by which we know it. It follows nicely from the appeal to experience (again, not always wrong) that the best and most universally acceptable aspects of his teaching are his emphasis on character development. He has a multitude of resources which promote a kind of scrupulous character development, though it is noticeable that there is little emphasis on intellectual disciplines (e.g., reading weighty books, logic, etc.). Beyond these few observations presently on my mind, as I see it now, there are a few central issues which prohibit my full endorsement of the ministry.

Significant Areas of Concern

• In my estimation, the foundational problem with Mr. Gothard is his view of man (his anthropology), from which many other problems follow. His view of man flows from what I will call a hierarchical trichotomist position. Man is comprised of spirit, soul, and body. Man's spirit should control his soul and his soul should control his body (see the Basic Seminar Textbook 1981, p. 115, 117). According to this view the spirit (not the mind) of man receives God's Word. Mr. Gothard seems to suggest that in salvation a person's spirit is renewed to perfection by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Growth in godliness requires that the (Holy Spirit controlled) spirit of man control the mind, will, emotions, and bring the body under subjection to spirit and soul (see BST, p. 143-144). Disobedience results from reversing the line of control (e.g., when the soul controls the spirit or the body drives the spirit and soul).
• My basic response, Biblically, is 2 Corinthians 7:1: "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." Notice that the Christian's spirit can be defiled. From more of a theological point of view, it should not be forgotten that many of the Church's greatest theologians (like Calvin, Edwards, and Hodge) have taught that man is dichotomous (comprised of a two aspects, body and spirit/soul, the soul includes all the non-material part of man). Throughout Mr. Gothards teachings the physical part of man is identified as the sinful part of man. This, however, is clearly erroneous since the sinless Son of God was made flesh. "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" (1Jo 4:2). Further, the first man and woman were initially sinless with a physical body. As for those passages which use flesh (sarx) as the locus of sinfulness (Rom. 6-7, Gal. 3, etc.), they are not referring to the physical body per se, but the sinful nature within man, permeating every part of man. In fact, of the 147 times the word "flesh" (sarx) is used only a small minority of those passages have the sense of "sinful nature." "Flesh" (sarx) is used in a number of ways both positively and negatively. Positively: "Concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh (sarx)" (Rom 1:3 and 2Co 4:11). Negatively: "For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh (sarx)" (Gal 5:17). Moreover, the devils are not physical but still are the "embodiment" of evil. To connect sinfulness with physicalness is akin to the Gnostic heresy and has much more in common with Plato's teaching than that of the incarnate Jesus and His New Covenant revelation.
• Spirit versus soul. Because of his view of man (hierarchical trichotomist), Mr. Gothard fails to trust the mind as the organ which grasps, understands, and applies God's revelation in the Bible. His position could rightly be called sub-intellectual, meaning that his view regards the intellect as subordinate in process of knowing truth and falsity or right and wrong. He says, for example, about the spirit, our "spiritual aptitudes and abilities" include "discerning right and wrong," comprehending the basic meaning of life," sensing the spirit of others." But about the soul, our "psychological aptitudes and abilities" include "thinking, reasoning, remembering," "feeling various emotions," and "exercising the will and making choices" (BST, p. 138). The closest Mr. Gothard comes to any Biblical defense of his position is an appeal to 1 Thessalonians 5:23 in the following note, "The Greek word 'KAI' which is translated "and" is used between spirit and soul as well as between soul and body. This grammatical construction clearly shows that the spirit differs from the soul and soul differs from the body" (BST, 138). However, better grammarians than Mr. Gothard, like A. T. Robertson say on this text, it is "not necessarily trichotomy as opposed to dichotomy as elsewhere in Paul's Epistles. Both believers and unbelievers have an inner man (soul, mind, heart, the inward man) and the outer man" (in loc., Word Pictures).
• Spirit versus intellect. Mr. Gothard rightly calls for the intellect of a person to be under God and in submission to His Word. What is meant by this, however, is not simply the Augustinian position of "I believe in order that I might understand"--reason within the bounds of revelation and under God; and faith and reason being mutually supportive of each other in the confines of divine revelation. According to Mr. Gothard, "Neither the inspiration or the true meaning of Scripture will be understood intellectually, but will be discerned spiritually" (Advanced Seminar Textbook, p. 67).
• For Mr. Gothard spiritual truth is not the conclusion of a rational process of examination in the propositional revelation of God in Scripture. Rather one spiritually perceives truth and the mind should be in submission to the spirit. Mr. Gothard often contrasts the "spirit" over against the "intellect." For example he speaks of "the mistake of concentrating on intellectual knowledge rather than spiritual perception." Rather than exegesis (interpretive processes which are rational and seek to be objective in understanding and applying the Bible), Mr. Gothard praises "spiritual insight that comes through meditating on Scripture" (AST, p. 66). Please note that he is contrasting the "spiritual" with the "intellectual."Even regarding doctrine (presumably), he says, "the 'foundational truths of Scripture' ....are understood by faith"-- again contrasted with intellectual processes (AST, p. 67, see also BST, p. 138).
• Rather than exegesis, Mr. Gothard teaches an approach to interpreting the Bible which permits a separation of meaning from application. This is stated very directly in the Basic Seminar when Mr. Gothard discusses "one interpretation and many applications."
• Mr. Gothard's illustration on this point is from Exodus: "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk" (Ex. 23:19; 34:26). According to Mr. Gothard, the "one interpretation" was a prohibition against an idolatrous practice. Since there is "one interpretation but many applications" (a commonly accepted principle of interpretation)-- "one application" is nutritional. Namely, we should not drink milk with meat; our body cannot digest the calcium and protein simultaneously. However, our interpretation and application must be consistent with each other in its intent. Or to put it another way, shouldn't our application be an outgrowth of our interpretation? To be more specific, why is it right to make an interpretation prohibiting an idolatrous practice, and then make an application in the area of nutrition, quite apart from idolatry? In a real sense, literally anything goes from this approach. One could easily say that any application was "one application" even if the interpretation was just as unrelated as idolatry and nutrition. It seems to me that Scripture commands us to "learn not to exceed what is written" (1Co 4:6)--Mr. Gothard endorses "making wider Scriptural application" (AST, p. 67).
• If one refuses to come to conclusions by the rational, objective processes of exegesis, then the proof of one's positions must be settled by other matters. As stated above, the familiar refrain of Mr. Gothard's teaching is an appeal to a person's experience (anecdote). However, somewhat less obvious, though nonetheless frequent, is Mr. Gothard's appeal to analogy. For example, in his well-known stand against contemporary music he argues from an analogy between other disciplines and music. "The following disciplines illustrate how the purity of an item can be corrupted by adding even a small amount of another element" (AST, 1986, p. 124).
 

CHEMISTRY	LANGUAGE	MATH
H2O + CN	Truth + Lie	Solution +1
= Poison	= Untruth	= Incorrect


 

What follows on the next page (125) is the analogy to art and music.
 

ART	MUSIC
Figure + Nudity	Rhythm + Imbalance
= Pornography	= Acid Rock


 

However impressive this line up is on first glance, this presentation actually begs the question; it assumes what must be proven. Namely, no one has shown that "acid rock" music style (whatever it is) is evil. Further, the implied argument rests on an analogy between the different disciplines. He says plainly, "Accurate evaluation of music is only possible as we integrate it with the related disciplines of mathematics, science, history, and medicine. The laws of these disciplines act as an authoritative reference to confirm that the musical expression is either following or violating established principles....Just as there is a balance of power in the three branches of United States government, so the laws of related disciplines provide checks and balances for music" (p. 123). Until one can prove that a music style is truly analogous to poison, falsehood, mathematical inaccuracy, or pornography, the indicting conclusion is fallacious. An invalid appeal to analogy is called the fallacy of false analogy.
 

• If Mr. Gothard's practical applications were stated as mere "convictions" which may be observed by those so moved or ignored by others (e.g., "observing one day above another" in Rom 14), accusations of "legalism" would not abound toward his ministry. However, those who are deeply involved in the ministry are known for adopting many positions which do not seem to be required by clear applications from properly interpreted texts. Therefore, in the seminars there is hardly any distinction between applications which are mandatory for all people at all times and those which are personal and specific. Therefore, Mr. Gothard has no reluctance requiring that every "godly" person endorse such things as a no-birth-control stand (including reversal of vasectomy/tubal ligation), home schooling, monthly 14-day abstinence from sexual intercourse, an anti-contemporary music position, condemnation of any beverage alcohol consumption, as well as many other "applications from basic principles."
 
• As I sat listening to Mr. Gothard and others speak in the Advanced Seminar, I gained a clearer picture than before of a truly fundamental issue. It seems to me that the essence of Christianity to Mr. Gothard and those who follow him is "the underlying principles that tie all of Scripture together" (AST, p. 67), "non-optional principles of life," and the "application of basic life principles" (AST, pp. 6-7). These principles are design, authority, responsibility, suffering, ownership, freedom, and identification. I believe that the essence of our Christian faith is knowing God by revealed knowledge and experimental communion with Him. This entails a clear doctrinal confession of the true God and salvation by the merits of Christ which ushers forth into a life of obedience to God's revealed will. This kind of expression was really foreign to the presentation of the Advanced Seminar. In fact, I pondered whether there was any thing stated which could not have been asserted with equal zeal by a committed Mormon. In fact, I believe that it is not too much to say that no major point of instruction or application would be at odds with the Doctrine of the Latter Day Saints. This is not to say, of course, that Mr. Gothard is a Mormon or that as Protestant Christians there is not some overlap in morality with Mormons. It seems to me, however, a telling point of evaluation that a 15 hour seminar on advanced living of the Christian life involves nothing of controversy to polytheistic, legalistic, moralistic, Mormons.
 

Having had a little experience in discussing these things with those deeply involved in the Institute, I have often felt that there was simply no openness to even a consideration of an evaluation of Mr. Gothard's teachings. I have many teachers and am willing to hear criticism of (and have given criticism) of all of their teachings. But with many of those heavily involved in the ministry, it seems that there is an uncritical acceptance of Mr. Gothard's teachings. It seems that such individuals are unwilling to scrutinize these teachings because of the "godliness" of the individuals involved and their own "spiritual perception" of the truth of Mr. Gothard's material. Because of Mr. Gothard's teachings on spiritual gifts and the subjectivity of knowing the truth, one could read all of this, only to dismiss it as a misuse of my spiritual gift, or as "intellectual" rather than "spiritual." Such an attitude is nothing more than relativism shrouded in spiritual words. But we must depend on the sure Word of truth. I pray that those tempted to conclude this would turn from an unwillingness to "examine⁽¹⁾ everything carefully" (1Th 5:21).