Cult Next Door Movie

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
ABC 123
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 4:51 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Cult Next Door Movie

Post by ABC 123 »

Aside from concern over a word others have been assigning to the Gothard movement, what are some thoughts about his actual teaching?

Is it sound doctrine?

ETA: How comfortable would you be in a Mennonite Church that is entwined with this movement, attending seminars, using the school curriculum, going to Journey to the Heart, etc?
0 x
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Cult Next Door Movie

Post by MaxPC »

ABC 123 wrote:Aside from concern over a word others have been assigning to the Gothard movement, what are some thoughts about his actual teaching?

Is it sound doctrine?

ETA: How comfortable would you be in a Mennonite Church that is entwined with this movement, attending seminars, using the school curriculum, going to Journey to the Heart, etc?
Thank you, ABC: that was my next query.
:up:
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
User avatar
Dan Z
Posts: 2651
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: Conservative Menno

Re: Cult Next Door Movie

Post by Dan Z »

ABC 123 wrote:Aside from concern over a word others have been assigning to the Gothard movement, what are some thoughts about his actual teaching?

Is it sound doctrine?

ETA: How comfortable would you be in a Mennonite Church that is entwined with this movement, attending seminars, using the school curriculum, going to Journey to the Heart, etc?
Gothard's theology was ultimately rooted in a rather authoritarian offshoot of American fundamentalism (ultimately Calvinistic in core nature based on Covenant Theology I suspect) - and it really shouldn't find resonance with Anabaptism...but it did - here's my take:

Back in the 60's & 70's he was fairly mainstream in appeal. His Basic Youth Conflicts seminars were widely held, and attended by conservative-leaning evangelicals from across the country. Both my wife and I remember attending Gothard events as children with our evangelical (Baptist/Bible Church) pastor fathers and families. To me, it seemed like the youth discipleship equivalent of the Billy Graham crusades. Plain Anabaptist's were not a significant part of the equation - nor were they drawn to the events - and rightly so.

As the intensity of his teaching (and its authoritarianism) evolved, particularly within the Advanced Training Institute, his focus on holiness and chaste living began to draw in some Anabaptist folks (including the Charity people in a big way). This coincided with the the rise of the homeschooling "full quiver" movement of the 80s & 90s, of which Charity was an Anabaptist-leaning subset. Gothard's focus on strong lines of authority, on chastity [ironically his undoing], on the dangers of modern culture all ressonated - as did his approach to scripture (particularly the OT) which was used fairly convincingly to ground the principles he was teaching. For Charity folks, (who already were a hybrid of Anabaptism & Fundamantalism), Gothard represented another non-Anabaptist voice of affirmation of what they had been led to. But it wasn't Anabaptism.

Lester/Appleman/Ernie would know better than I, but I don't think most plain Anabaptists (excepting seeker-type people like Charity folks) were that taken with Gothardism for a number of reasons:
  • 1) Plain folks are suspicious of evangelical fads or mainstream religious movements and the related "bells and whistles."
    2) Plain folks would not have appreciated the cult of personality and individuality around Gothard, or the way he held himself up as a final authority. That was my main concern 25 years ago.
    3) The theologically-minded leaders among the Anabaptists would have seen the Calvinism & Covenant Theology of Gothard, and would have recognized that his approach to faith and scripture was foreign to their understanding.
    4) While resonating with Gothard's teaching on holiness and separation from modern culture, the discerning among them would have seen that a number of core Anabaptist tenets were missing from his teaching including: non-resistance, head covering, mutual aid, the centrality of the brotherhood, two-kingdom separation, the importance of the Sermon on the Mount, free-will, and most importantly - Christocentrism.
0 x
ABC 123
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 4:51 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Cult Next Door Movie

Post by ABC 123 »

I am following you, DanZ, though some conservative branches of Charity are now speaking against Gothard (while still teaching some of the authoritative ideas).

Beachy people never seemed that interested in him, from what I saw.

There is a segment of middle of the road Mennonite and liberal exCharity types who are still very much involved in the Gothard thing.

Some of the popular prison ministries do "Journeys" with prisoners.

I have not been able to discern how much Gothard is connected to any of the conservative counseling available.
0 x
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Cult Next Door Movie

Post by silentreader »

Lester/Appleman/Ernie would know better than I, but I don't think most plain Anabaptists (excepting seeker churches like Charity) were that taken with Gothardism


I'm not any of the above, obviously, but there were a few individual families in our church who were 'followers' who have since left a plain setting, whether this is directly related or not, I'm not sure.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: Cult Next Door Movie

Post by Wade »

Authority can be expressed in many different ways and just because it is applied differently doesn't make one actually less authoritative as far as I would understand...?

Could someone please clarify for me what is meant by authoritarian?

I am confused because I have heard more taught about submission in Mennonite settings than the impression I got from Gothard...?

Even though headcovering is a biblically defined application that should be followed, Gothard didn't teach headcovering because it is an application rather than a principle - by principle I mean something internal and that you just can't take on and off. Gothard wasn't being authoritative about most any applications as far as I understood it?...

I just natural combine authority and submission together so when any church requires extra-biblical standards to join them; that requires submission, which I would then view that church as authoritative. But I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way at all and want to submit to a church that has authority and structure to it.

It seems like a contradiction and very much confuses me, when those supportive of, or going to Plain churches with extra-biblical standards say that Gothard was authoritarian?
What am I missing?
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Cult Next Door Movie

Post by lesterb »

I know of people who were helped by Gothard. Some of his earlier teaching especially was helpful. But if I recall correctly, he himself told people that his program wasn't geared for people like the conservative Mennonites.

But he did, especially in later years, promote some things I would consider false and even dangerous doctrines. His ideas of bloodlines, for instance. He told people not to adopt children because of the generational sins that they might bring into their family. His teaching on patriarchism opened the door for a lot of Michael Perl style child abuse.

There weren't a lot of people in my circles that went. The few that did go came back refusing to share what they had been taught - because they had been told that in order to understand his teachings properly, people had to get them from him. In most cases, I would say that for conservative Mennonites to go Gothardly was a long step towards that world. Like I said, he did help people, but most of the good that he taught was already taught in the Mennonite church.

Just my opinion...
0 x
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: Cult Next Door Movie

Post by Wade »

lesterb wrote:I know of people who were helped by Gothard. Some of his earlier teaching especially was helpful. But if I recall correctly, he himself told people that his program wasn't geared for people like the conservative Mennonites.

But he did, especially in later years, promote some things I would consider false and even dangerous doctrines. His ideas of bloodlines, for instance. He told people not to adopt children because of the generational sins that they might bring into their family. His teaching on patriarchism opened the door for a lot of Michael Perl style child abuse.

There weren't a lot of people in my circles that went. The few that did go came back refusing to share what they had been taught - because they had been told that in order to understand his teachings properly, people had to get them from him. In most cases, I would say that for conservative Mennonites to go Gothardly was a long step towards that world. Like I said, he did help people, but most of the good that he taught was already taught in the Mennonite church.

Just my opinion...
That's helpful. Thank you Lester.

I did have a conservative Mennonite minister (ultra-conservative) tell me that he met Bill Gothard. Bill commented to him that he couldn't understand why Mennonites would ever show up at his conferences as they had the scripture sorted out and were actually living it already.
0 x
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3975
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Cult Next Door Movie

Post by ken_sylvania »

Wade wrote:Authority can be expressed in many different ways and just because it is applied differently doesn't make one actually less authoritative as far as I would understand...?

Could someone please clarify for me what is meant by authoritarian?

I am confused because I have heard more taught about submission in Mennonite settings than the impression I got from Gothard...?

Even though headcovering is a biblically defined application that should be followed, Gothard didn't teach headcovering because it is an application rather than a principle - by principle I mean something internal and that you just can't take on and off. Gothard wasn't being authoritative about most any applications as far as I understood it?...

I just natural combine authority and submission together so when any church requires extra-biblical standards to join them; that requires submission, which I would then view that church as authoritative. But I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way at all and want to submit to a church that has authority and structure to it.

It seems like a contradiction and very much confuses me, when those supportive of, or going to Plain churches with extra-biblical standards say that Gothard was authoritarian?
What am I missing?
One difference that comes to mind is that Gothard wasn't doing this under the auspices of a church, and really wasn't submitting himself to anyone. The Mennonite style of church government tries to shy away from "Kingmaking." Bishops are called by the church, not set up by themselves, and generally they would be subject to the authority of other bishops in the same group.
And even though there are standards and applications required by Mennonite churches, I think it's fair to say that even in the most ultra-conservative churches there is a significant degree of freedom allowed.
0 x
ABC 123
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 4:51 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Cult Next Door Movie

Post by ABC 123 »

A couple thoughts:

Gothard's authority teaching is illustrated with an "umbrella of protection". God over man, man over women and children. Stay under the umbrella and you are safe. Step out and you are not. Dad has sin, he creates holes in the umbrella that make the wife and children vulnerable to Satanic attack. (The manifestations of that are numerous and complex.)

He teaches a high priesthood role for the family fathers.

I posted a link upthread to his Life Purpose Power Teams teaching. Any thoughts on that?

His 49 character quality teaching is pivotal in his seminars. He has (had?) a rebranded Character First curriculum that is (was?) taken into public schools. It is stripped of the religious language and essentially attempts to teach Christ-like behavior without Christ. Does this raise any questions to anyone else?

It was mentioned earlier about bloodlines with regards to adoptions. He does not recommend adoption. For those who have adopted he recommends a thorough research to locate birth families to find out what sins need to be renounced and prayed over.
0 x
Post Reply