In
a recent post, I discussed the letter that Bill Gothard recently sent out
to his Advanced Training Institute alumni wherein he defended his aberrant definition of grace
as something that a believer needs to merit after their initial
experience of salvation by faith. (There was so much to say, I couldn't do it all in a single post.) The error might seem like a rather
simple one, and it's ramifications might seem quite limited. They
actually turn Protestantism right back around into something that is
strikingly similar to Roman Catholicism wherein performance of good
works keep a person from damning themselves to hell.
To get technical, Bill Gothards views
are heavily influenced by what theology geeks know as “pelagianism”
or a variant thereof, a philosophical aspect of theology that
maintains that a person has the power within themselves to “pull
themselves up by their own boot straps.” I recently found Ron
Henzel's notes about his research into Gothard's work in graduate
school at Wheaton which demonstrates his admiration not only for
pelagian Charles
Finney but also the influence of the Keswick/Higher
Life Movement and Shepherding/Discipleship Movement gurus like
Watchman Nee.
Whereas the New Testament points out
repeatedly that God works in the heart and soul of a person to change
them through the power of the Holy Spirit which comes by grace (God's
willingness to forgive us) through faith (when we repent of our sins
and put our trust in God as the One who “pulls us our boot straps
for us”), Gothard's version pelagianism teaches that Christian
growth after the initial moment of faith in Jesus comes through
willpower, striving, and determination to achieve a certain level of
holiness through lifestyle. In this type of pelagianism, it's
rather tricky, because its advocates don't necessarily deny that the Holy
Spirit also works in a person to transform them, but it teaches that
Christians who fail to strive and labor through their own will and
power of their own flesh and striving are not really Christians.
Growing up as a Pentecostal, I first
experienced this Higher Life influence through the discussion of the
gifts of the Spirit. As a new Christian, my mother read a great
deal of Dwight Moody's writing (a Baptist), and that eventually lead
to a discussion with me of what made us different from him (as
Pentecostals). I found that many Pentecostals put more emphasis on
the gifts of the Spirit themselves than they did the Gospel in many
cases, and they would often also look down on those who did not
practices or pursue manifestations of the Holy Spirit (if that's
indeed what some of them even were). Of those who attended churches
that did not speak in tongues, for example, people would often call them and
their churches “dead churches” because they were said to lack the
full spectrum of power and benefit that was believed to be a result
of speaking in tongues.
The “dead church people” were seen
as those who made it into the fold successfully in order to
eventually get to heaven, but they backed away from a real commitment
and all that God offered them through the gifts. This always
troubled me deeply, not only because we always had lots of “Baptist
books” on our bookshelves, but it also bothered me because I was
taught not to judge a person by their outward characteristics or to
look down on others who didn't measure up to my own preferences.
This perception of a “higher life” and higher level of being as a
Christian would set me up to chase after divine healing through “acts
of faith and holiness” that were little more than works of my own
flesh to achieve a higher level of being. We should always look
forward to “higher ground” as the old hymn sings to us, but even
its lyrics cry out to God to take the believer to a new place of
maturity. It is not a place that we attain on our own. Was it God
that works in us or is it me who must be busy about the work in order
to earn the right to seize it?
In terms of theology, what Gothard
effectively does is merge justification and sanctification together
because of the ongoing work needed that must be initiated on the part
of the Christian to get the sanctification process to progress for
them. The Protestant Reformers demonstrated that justification (to
be declared righteous through the Blood of Jesus which is not
merited) and ongoing sanctification were related but separate
processes with one proceeding after the other. In Gothardism, the focus that one is made righteous
(God's work within a person) plays the minor role in the process, and
following the "Christian law" gets advanced to the forefront of a
person's motivation and concern. In very pragmatic terms, it is a
long process of continually giving -- in order to get something in
return.
Romans
chapter 5 says that by Adam's offense, many died, but through the
free gift of Christ, we are justified (we are made free of guilt
which comes through the law and are made acceptable to God). As
believers, we receive the “abundance of grace and the gift of
righteousness” and will “reign in life” through Jesus (vs 17).
Grace is the freely given gift of God and precedes both faith and
works. The word for “reign” means “to
exercise kingly power.”
In verse 21, Paul writes that sin reigned in death, but for those
in Christ, grace reigns through righteousness. Grace is the first
part of the process which starts the cascade which God initiates and
perpetuates, and our “reigning in life” (which implies power)
results in good works which are an outward sign and end result of
what God begins in us through the abundance of grace that he has for
us. While we were yet sinners, when we inevitably sin, and where sin
abounds, grace abounds all the more. (Gothard should know this.)
Gothard
teaches something very different, reversing this chain of events.
People don't reign in life through the abundance of grace and imputed
righteousness that Jesus gives us, but according to Gothard, people
are supposed to reign over their own lives through self-control and
determination which they should use to do good works. To Gothard,
those good works somehow change how God responds to us, and then God
offers us grace which gives us power for living, and presumably, more
power to have more determination to do more good works. (Note the cycle in the above diagram.) Grace
abounds only when we do works of righteousness, not when we sin. It
isn't God's grace that reigns in Gothard's paradigm, it's the
individual who is supposed to reign over their own behavior so that
they can earn grace. It is a righteousness of self through works, righteousness of self that one must work to merit God's righteousness. Scripture doesn't support
this view – it derives only from Gothard's formulaic and
oversimplified views which argue a maintenance of salvation through
works.
-->
When that happens, justification
collapses into sanctification. You must continually earn
justification. This is not only a problem with Gothard. Sonship
Theology which has become popular among some Calvinists maintains
that justification comes through faith but that we are also
sanctified by faith as well, arguing much of the same thing
concerning works and merited righteousness that Gothard does. The
author of an article that is critical of Sonship Theology states that this
approach to justification is “associated
with pietist, quietist, Wesleyan Holiness, or Keswick thought.”
(Bells and whistles went off in my brain when I read this about this
other religious system because it had so much in common with
Gothard.)
Not only does the Westminster
Confession that Gothard cites in his letter separate forensic
justification (a legal status before God which delivers us from the
law of sin and death), it establishes “definitive sanctification”
which refers to the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, while
He takes and bears away our sin (the act He already completed at
Calvary). And it differentiates this “definitive sanctification”
from “progressive sanctification” which is the ongoing process of
making us holy as we are transformed by the renewing of our mind and
conformed to the Image of Christ. Like Sonship Theology, Gothard
also confuses and collapses all of these single elements into one
process through his redefinition of grace.
That author, E. Calvin Beisner, goes on
to state in the conclusion of The Roes of Faith in Justification and Sanctification: A Constructive Criticism of an Element of Sonship Theology:
Justification neither comprises nor is grounded on a renewal of our character or conduct, but definitive sanctification comprises, and progressive sanctification grows out of, just such a renewal. The initial renewal (“having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts”) is definitive sanctification; the ongoing renewal (“and those graces . . . stirred up, increased, and strengthened”) is progressive sanctification.
If you recall in Gothard's Thanksgiving
Letter, he claims quite boldly that his version of grace is drawn from and
supported by the Westminster Confession. (I still cannot wrap my
mind around that one, save that it is proof of more of his style of proof texting.) Here is what Beisner points out from the
Westminster Confession in his article:
Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ? A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification His Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued: the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.Second, consider how the Standards distinguish between faith’s role in justification and its role in sanctification. Of saving faith, Confession, 14.2, says,
By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.
This in no way supports Gothard's claim
that the Westminster Confession teaches that grace is a type of power
that man must earn through striving to perform good works. Many
Christians fall into error when they fall into the problem of black
and white thinking. Beisner goes on to say:
Legalists collapse sanctifying faith into justifying faith without any distinction and so talk of an “active, living, obedient” faith in relation to justification without mentioning that it is a “resting” faith. Quietists collapse justifying faith into sanctifying faith without any distinction and so talk of a “resting” faith in relation to sanctification without mentioning an “active, living, obedient” faith.
In his elitism of Fundamentalism and
Higher Life, and in his errors of oversimplification, Gothard acts
like the legalist who does not differentiate between the “active,
living, and obedient” part of faith to deny the rest that the believer enters into through faith. Here again, is an example of
Gothard's black
and white thinking, an informal logical fallacy and a propaganda
technique, used to demoralize and “de-Christianize” anyone who
does not ascribe to his teachings, and that results in reductio
ad Hitlerum. (This can also be viewed as a primitive ego defense mechanism that children tend to use to feel better about
themselves by diminishing others. Paul taught that we should esteem
others better than ourselves [Phil 2:3], but that is a whole other
doctrine that Gothard distorts, a topic for another day.)
Gothard esteems ALL those who reject
his teachings as the evil quietists who make the the polar opposite
extreme of his own error: a lack of appreciation for sober,
responsible and “active obedience” which results in true
antinomianism (those who follow no laws or standards). He fails to
acknowledge or perhaps cannot comprehend that there is a sweet place
of balance between these two extremes of the legalist and the
quietist (a person who follows a type of passive, meditative
mysticism that dismisses personal responsibility).
In closing, Beisner states that,
If we conflate these two aspects of faith in either direction, we risk becoming either legalists on the one hand or quietists on the other. The former is deadly, equating with the false gospel of Romanism. The latter is debilitating, leading to practical antinomianism and long-term immaturity in the Christian life. But recognizing and preserving the distinction enables us to rest completely in the saving work of Christ at the same time that we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13).
