There is an Amazon series being aired that is an expose (with an agenda) of the Duggar family drama, and the ministry behind the Duggars—the Institute in Basic Life Principles—founded by now disgraced (as determined by the leadership of the ministry he founded) Bill Gothard. My understanding is that it falsely ties all of biblical fundamentalism to this movement. I have not watched the series—yet. I wanted to write this before I might be influenced by it.

The Gothard movement was much broader than fundamentalists, and many who sounded the alarm early were fundamentalists.

The relationship between Gothard and Independent Fundamental Baptist has been complex. Some followed him closely. Others, like Dr. James Singleton, who was my pastor for most of my life, held him at arm’s length at first and eventually rejected him as unbiblical. E.R. Jordan, founder of Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in Lansdale PA where I attended, called “Gothardism” (his term) a dangerous cult. He wrote a 14-page paper around 1980 (my copy has no date), in which he said this about Gothard,

“After having read Bill Gothard’s book through fourteen times and having had a personal three hour and fifteen-minute interview with this man, it is my unwavering conviction that this man is one of the most dangerous men in the country to true fundamentalism.”[i] 

As early as 1981 the FBFI was sounding a word of caution regarding Gothard.

1981 Resolution #16 REGARDING BASIC YOUTH CONFLICTS

The FBF expresses concern over the ministry of Bill Gothard and Basic Youth Conflicts and calls upon Fundamentalists to exercise caution in condoning or cooperating with a ministry that has never identified with the cause of Biblical separatism.

Sadly, the FBFI response in those early days only focused upon the ecumenism of IBYC—which truly was a problem—but did not go deep enough into the problem teachings of Bill Gothard. One thing should be very clear, Bill Gothard and IBYC/IBLP was not a fundamentalist group. It was a broadly evangelical ministry.

In the early 1970’s hundreds of thousands of people flocked to giant seminars held by Gothard. His organization was called Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts. Many fundamentalists went to these as well although it was far from a fundamentalist movement. These ecumenical gatherings included fundamentalists, evangelicals, Catholics, and many others. Christian people and conservatives were struggling with the cultural earthquake that was the 1960s and were desperate to protect their children from the immoral, God-rejecting, drug culture that was claiming lives and souls.

Gothard offered very clear answers to complex cultural and spiritual problems. Adding intense structure to the home (combined with the Christian School movement) was the first line of defense. People assumed that if they could get their children out of the corrupt public school system, they could retain their children in their faith. By the early 1980’s cracks developed in the Christian School plan, and many turned to homeschooling as the answer. There are commendable aspects to both Christian schools and home schools but they are not easy institutional fix-it answers to the lures of the culture.

There were theological aspects of the Gothard movement that were extremely concerning. We will note just a few of the primary ones here. It was a movement of extremes. There seemed to be no ability to judge context or balance within biblical commands.

Spanking or abuse

Many contend that Gothard taught spanking to the point of abuse. Gothard taught corporal punishment as the Bible does, but also advocated spanking children until they cry softly (like Susanna Wesley did).[ii] Somehow, this morphed into spanking children until they are silent, which will certainly lead to abuse if practiced. While I am not denying that Gothard taught spanking until the child is quiet, I have been unable to document it. I have heard many followers of Gothard say that if a younger child is misbehaving, its because parents are not spanking hard enough. Some children can have a high pain tolerance or just be stubborn.  If you simply increase the intensity in those situations, it can easily become abusive.

Submission or sin 

This was the major parting point with Gothard for James Singleton, Jordan, and many others. Gothard held such rigid view of the chain-of-command, that believers should follow the commands of those above them in the chain to the point of disobeying the will of God. His reasoning was that if you follow your authority, even though the demand they are making is against God’s will, eventually God will bring them around to agreeing with what is right or show you where you are wrong.[iii] While Gothard’s argument seems reasonable and full of faith, scripture cannot justify it.

We must never sin for anyone. The Apostles in Acts 4:18-20 and the commendable character of Abigail (1 Samuel 25) are clear examples. Situations do not always work out favorably. Like the three Hebrew children, sometimes you have to step into the fiery furnace rather than bow down. Based upon IBYC principles, Peter would have stopped preaching, Abigail would have let David murder Nabal, and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would have bowed down. When we must choose between obeying God or obeying a human authority there is only one biblical answer.

Family and maybe church 

As Gothard became more entrenched in the homeschool movement, the role of the family almost completely supplanted the biblical role of the church. This led to house churches, family churches, and the complete disregard for the biblically historic practice of age-graded teaching within local church ministries. While there is room for differences of opinion on this subject, what became known as the Integrated Church Movement (“integration” in this case was all about age had nothing to do with race) arose out of Gothardism in the early 2000s and proved destructive and divisive in many churches.

In 2006, the issue became such a problem that the FBFI addressed it in Resolution 06-03: Concerning the Integrated Church Movement

While recognizing that the family is under attack in our nation and in many churches today, and recognizing that choice to have (or not have) age-graded ministries is the prerogative of individual local churches as God directs them, the FBFI denounces the doctrinally errant and schismatic teaching characteristic of the Integrated Church movement for the following reasons: 

• It encourages schisms in local church bodies by encouraging its adherents to change the theology and philosophy of the churches of which they are members.
• It does violence to local church authority, calling on local church members to leave their churches when the church does not bow the philosophical demands of the movement.
• It espouses an ecclesiology based upon the family that is not based upon the New Testament but rather is an adaptation of Old Testament patriarchy.
• It falsely lays the claim that the destruction of the family in the US is the solely the fault of age-graded ministries in local churches. We contend that this is a simplistic and therefore false accusation.
• It espouses a postmillennial theology that is contradictory to a dispensational understanding of Scripture.
• It is oddly inclusive, basing fellowship on a particular philosophy of ministry rather than the great fundamentals of the faith.

This movement is most prominently represented by Doug Phillips (Vision Forum) and R.C. Sproul Jr., among others.

The Prosperity Gospel family style

The biggest problem with the Gothard movement was that it presented formulaic answers that would seem to assure family or spiritual success. In that sense, it was like the Prosperity Gospel except that the prosperity part was not financial/health success, but good families and personal happiness. Biblical family practices do have a significant impact, but they are no guarantee. We obey God because that is what He demands of us.  We want to be holy because it pleases Him, not as a means of manipulating our children or spouses. We can do everything right and our children can still choose to walk away from God unless God Himself does a wonderful work in their hearts.

Such a formulaic approach leads to all sorts of unintended consequences. If children show signs of disobedience or rebellion, it must be because parents did not do something exactly right—so parents double down on corrections or restrictions. There is a huge personal shame for parents when their children rebel because it must be the parent’s fault. Fear of public shame can lead to extreme correction, cover-ups, anger, and anxiety, and drive children to exasperation. Shame keeps parents from seeking the true help they need.

Certainly, not everything Gothard taught was wrong, but there was enough error to do damage to young people, especially in the homes led by parents who just follow the rules implicitly without being led by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

There is more, but this was enough to sound the warning bells regarding Gothard and his movement. It is a reminder to us all to carefully examine the claims of any popular leader against the plain teaching of the word of God. For us in the FBFI, we are also reminded that our evaluation of any ministry cannot be by only one standard (in this case, a violation of separation principles) but by the entire body of work expressed by an individual or an organization.

The Duggar story is a matter for another day.

---

Listen to this article on the Proclaim & Defend podcast.

____________________________________________________________

[i] “Why Fundamental Baptists Should Not Cooperate with Bill Gothard’s Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts,” E. Robert Jordan (Pastor, Calvary Baptist Church, Lansdale PA), n. d.

[ii] https://www.reddit.com/r/DuggarsSnark/comments/sfhdwo/tw_spankingchild_abuse_basic_seminar_clip_gothard/

[iii] Institute In Basic Youth Conflicts seminar notes, “Chain-of-Command” pages 1-9.