Since the Reformation, the Christian world has splintered exponentially. The 2001 edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia records 33,830 distinct Christian denominations across the world. One of the largest categories of Christians–in fact, second only to Roman Catholicism–is "Independent." The 386 million self-described Independent Christians outnumber Protestants by more than 40 million adherents.
The rise of such independency, which embraces a "post-denominational" model of ministry, reflects a growing appreciation for the Anabaptist wing of the Reformation, commonly called the Radical Reformation to distinguish it from both the Lutheran and Calvinist Magisterial Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation. Anabaptists reject both Catholic and Reformation institutional hierarchies, attempt to recover the so-called pure worship of the early church, and grant to individuals the kind of spiritual authority usually reserved for the institutional church. In America, this trend is most noticeable in the strength of parachurch organizations that often operate beyond denominational bounds under only the oversight of self-appointed boards.
The assessment of independency generally and of parachurch ministries in particular hinges upon important questions of ecclesiastical authority and responsibility. There may be good reasons to favor the work of a particular parachurch organization or to engage in ministry that the organized church is either unable or unwilling to pursue. Yet the danger of unchecked authority–especially if it resides in a charismatic leader–and the lack of churchly oversight often leads to abuses of power, false theology, and a general disdain for the visible institutional church.
Some churches have been able to construct relationships with independent parachurch organizations as a way to provide accountability to the organization's staff while they are working with a particular church. But those situations are rare. It is far more common for parachurch organizations to operate outside the visible church. What, then, is the relationship between the visible institutional church-as it is expressed in the actions of the church and her officers-and these independent parachurch organizations that are part of the invisible church although they have no organizational ties to the visible church?
These questions may seem quite abstract but they take on a more concrete aspect when a parachurch organization is accused of financial malfeasance, doctrinal error, or other sin. One example is the controversy surrounding the Institute for Basic Life Principles (IBLP) founded and led by popular evangelical teacher Bill Gothard. Gothard and the IBLP have been the subject of intense scrutiny for the past five years by Midwest Christian Outreach (MCO), an apologetics and counter cult organization. Don Veinot, the president of MCO, and Ron Henzel, its director of research, have published A Matter of Basic Principles (Twenty-first Century Press, 2002), which details their concerns about Gothard's theology, organizational leadership, and ethics. (In a phone call subsequent to the meeting, Bill Gothard stated that a book refuting MCO's claims was currently being edited for publication.)
On August 20, 2002, Bill Gothard and several of his associates met with Don Veinot and Ron Henzel to discuss eleven points of concern drawn up by MCO. These points detail what MCO believes are significant errors in IBLP's teaching. The meeting, held at a suburban Chicago hotel, was moderated by Norman Geisler, who is president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and a noted Christian apologist. Modern Reformation was invited to observe and report on the proceedings.
The eleven points of concern constituted the basic agenda for the meeting. They are:
1.Is there a biblical basis for Gothard's teachings on "umbrellas" of authority?2.Is there a scriptural foundation for Gothard's teaching on "the iniquities of the father"?3.Is there a biblical basis for Gothard's teaching on the order of the worship service?4.Is the purpose of the Gospel account of the centurion (see Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10) given to teach Gothard's view on authority or to teach who Jesus is and the importance of faith in him?5.Do Cabbage Patch dolls prevent the birth of children?6.Does Gothard's teaching on authority imply that Jesus is a sinner?7.Does the phrase "one interpretation, many applications" allow us to have Scriptural applications that are not based on or that are even contrary to the one true interpretation of a given passage of Scripture?8.Is it proper to impose Levitical ceremonial restrictions on sexual intercourse within Christian marriage?9.Is it proper to impose circumcision as a biblical mandate for Christians today?10.If a Christian leader changes a significant teaching because it was shown to be unbiblical, should he not make a public retraction of that teaching to his followers?11.Is it biblically proper to say that grace is earned?
The meeting began with each of the Gothard associates reading prepared position statements in response to MCO's eleven points. The representatives of MCO were then given approximately one hour to make a statement and respond to the IBLP statements. These initial presentations were followed by counter-responses from each organization.
The participants quickly realized that hermeneutics–that is, how one interprets Scripture–was foundational to their disagreement. MCO complained that Gothard's stated practice is to apply one passage of Scripture to many different circumstances ("many applications, one interpretation"); and some of these applications, MCO believes, do not take into account the original purpose or context of the passage.
This concern was especially related to the ninth question posed to IBLP, "Is it proper to impose circumcision as a biblical mandate for Christians today?" Gothard's position is that physical circumcision has health benefits both for New Testament believers and for men today. He supports this position by appealing to Scriptures such as Col. 2:11 and Rom. 3:1-2. In a published Basic Care Bulletin entitled, "How to Make a Wise Decision on Circumcision," IBLP states that physical circumcision is "strongly commanded and reinforced in Scripture" and that by circumcising their sons on the eighth day, contemporary parents are fulfilling their calling "to follow in the footsteps of Christ." But the passages Gothard uses to defend this position actually assert, in their proper contexts (see Rom. 2:25-3:31 and Col. 2:6-23), that circumcision has no value apart from the saving work of Christ. God did not command Abraham to circumcise his male children and servants for health reasons. And Paul, in Colossians 2:11 states that the only circumcision that is of any benefit to the believers is a "circumcision made without hands."
Gothard denies that circumcision is required of believers for salvation; but he does say that the "Old Testament law–as interpreted by Jesus' command to love God and neighbor-compels us to practice circumcision." By trying to proof text his position from Scripture Gothard actually raises concerns about his own orthodoxy. By employing his own hermeneutic of "principial application," Gothard confuses law and gospel, calling into question his understanding of the relationship of Christ and the church to the Levitical laws.
Concerns about Gothard's understanding of grace are aggravated when reading his "Definition of Grace," published in 2000, by IBLP. There he states that Old Testament saints like Noah, Moses, and Gideon "found grace" from God because they "possessed qualities that merited God's favor." Gothard also says that "unmerited favor" is a faulty definition of grace because (among other reasons) it is too general; it is more applicable to mercy than to grace; it is not a true definition in all cases (here he cites Genesis 6:29 and Numbers 12:3, explaining that both Noah and Moses received favor from the Lord based on their own righteousness), and so on. Gothard has revised that paper at least two times in response to questions posed to him by Veinot and MCO. The most recent revision now uses the word "unmerited" to describe grace and no longer refers to various Old Testament saints as earning grace based on their own righteousness. But in this latest revision (which represents, Gothard says, what he has taught for the past thirty-nine years) as well as in a companion paper entitled, "The Dynamic of Grace," he continues to confuse the issue by calling grace a works-enabling substance, namely a "power that God gives to do his will."
This same confusion is also at the heart of another accusation against Bill Gothard–that he is legalistic. For example, the eighth point of concern asks, "Is it proper to impose Levitical ceremonial restrictions on sexual intercourse within Christian marriages?" Gothard answered with a vigorous "No." But disagreement surfaced when copies of a Basic Care Bulletin, published in 1991 by Gothard's Medical Training Institute of America, were circulated at the August 2002 meeting. In that pamphlet, Gothard's organization argues that Christians violate Hebrews 13:4–"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous"–when they do not practice periodic abstinence in marriage as outlined by Leviticus 15:19, 25; and 12:2-5. The pamphlet goes on to state that such violations can lead to "physical, mental, emotional and spiritual difficulties experienced by both men and women." A promise, in the guise of a warning, is given at the end of the pamphlet, that "those who keep His Word"–that is, those who do not violate this Levitical commandment–will not suffer the diseases with which the Lord plagued the Egyptians (see Exod. 15:26). The Christian's failure to keep the Levitical commands will result in punishment akin to the diseases with which the Lord punished Egypt, according to Gothard.
In spite of both parties' best intentions, the August 2002 meeting ended without any resolution. MCO was hoping for a retraction from Gothard; but they didn't get one. On the other hand, Gothard was hoping to quiet his critics' concerns about what he asserts are fairly minor details of his teaching; but he failed to convince them that he was interpreting Scripture in an orthodox manner. The more important questions that this meeting raised were, Who speaks for the church? Who holds leaders of parachurch organizations accountable for their teachings? The entire conversation was, in some respects, an exercise in futility. Except for appealing to the other party to do the right thing, neither side could claim either implicit or explicit authority over the other. Don Veinot could appeal to Bill Gothard as a brother, but because neither of their organizations is part of the visible institutional church, no form of church discipline could be undertaken or enforced. Neither man, in spite of each man's love for the Body of Christ, could claim to be operating as part of that Body. And that left both men in essentially the same position: ministering on behalf of the church while yet beyond any oversight by or accountability to the visible church.
This is not to say that there was no merit in the discussion. Any time questions of legalism and the meaning of grace, among other items, are raised Christians should hasten to clarify their views in accordance with Scripture. Bill Gothard, in spite of his obvious passion for Christians to think and act rightly, has confused serious theological issues. His teachings are characterized by an interpretation of Scripture that no other Christian organization shares. His changing or modifying teachings that he still refuses explicitly to recant does not mollify his critics. Some of Don Veinot's criticisms concentrate on relatively minor matters, but there are significant points of confusion and error in Gothard's teaching.
Don Veinot shares with Bill Gothard a commitment to the same model of independent parachurch ministry. This leaves him vulnerable to some of the same kinds of errors that he believes Gothard has embraced. MCO, like IBLP, operates outside the visible institutional church; and so Veinot runs under the same temptation to amass unchecked power in his own organization and illegitimately to assume that he is able to exercise some sort of legitimate authority in the wider church.
In some respects, this problem is shared by all parachurch organizations, including the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, which publishes Modern Reformation magazine. For although the staff, council, board, and supporters of the Alliance are members in the visible institutional church, the Alliance itself, as an independent organization, answers only to its own council and board. Should we, then, as an independent organization be allowed to assume the task of calling for repentance and confession of false doctrine from others or is that exclusively the task of the visible institutional church? We have tried to mitigate this tension by operating as a Christian organization that produces resources for pastors and churches to do the work of the ministry rather than as a parachurch ministry that itself does the work of the church. But the dangers are still there for the Alliance, just as they are for Midwest Christian Outreach or the Institute for Basic Life Principles.
The ongoing dialogue between Don Veinot and Bill Gothard is indicative of the continuing problems of evangelical parachurch ministries. There are reasons for favoring a parachurch approach to ministry. When we wish to circumvent a moribund church bureaucracy, or take advantage of skills and people not associated with our own denomination, or provide a service that the institutional church is unable or unwilling to provide, a parachurch organization will often succeed where the church falters. But if the church's work is supplanted by parachurch organizations, then the church's authority can no longer be relied upon. Then, when faced with persecution, accusation, or condemnation, parachurch organizations often have no ecclesiastical recourse. There are no courts of appeal for those doing the work of the church beyond the church's authority and responsibility. The trend toward such ministry models is primarily born out of American individualism and pragmatism and has little in common with the theology of the church as confessed by both Luther and Calvin. For purity in doctrine and practice to take root in the broader church, Evangelicalism needs to embrace a healthy Reformational doctrine of the church that grants only to the institutional church that Christ established the power and authority that too many evangelicals want to take to themselves.
