“Biblical principles” and extrapolating new commands.

In my early 20s I went to a conference presented by youth pastor turned lifestyle guru Bill Gothard. He didn’t speak at it himself, in person; we watched videos projected on a very large screen. Gothard’s organization, the Institute in Basic Life Principles (formerly Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, formerly Campus Teams) goes round the United States to teach young people “basic biblical principles” meant to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Bill Gothard. Wikipedia

Gothard ran it till 2014, when he stepped down ’cause he was accused of grooming young women who worked for him. He suffered a heart attack in June, and is reportedly in a coma. Meanwhile the Texas Supreme Court ruled a lawsuit against IBLP over its teachings, which the plaintiffs say encourages sexual assault, may continue.

Gothard is hugely popular among Fundamentalists, who promote him ’cause his teachings are right in line with conservative Christian culture. He doesn’t just teach people to memorize bible verses, pray, and go to church. He claims the bible says we should obey our parents no matter what. And women should obey their husbands no matter what. And everyone should revere the authorities over them. Plus rock music is of the devil, public schools are hopelessly corrupt (so homeschool your kids!), Christians need to dress not just modestly but conservatively, Christians should have loads of kids, and Christians should never borrow money.

In this article I’m gonna pick on Gothard a lot. But he’s far from the only guru who does this. Financial gurus like Dave Ramsey claim they also get their ideas from the bible. Leadership gurus like John Maxwell say much the same thing. Political activists on both the Christian Right and Left claim the basis of all their thinking comes from bible. Hey, if you’re an Evangelical, our ideas should be grounded in bible, right? (And even if we’re not Evangelical.)

Because Gothard taught debt is pretty much the same as sin, I actually left my Fundamentalist church. They wanted to take out a loan so they could hire two pastors. It was a bad idea for lots of reasons, but my outrage came from believing Gothard. When the congregation voted for the idea, I concluded, “Well they’re not following God,” shook the dust off my feet, and started going to my sister’s church.

Where in the bible are we commanded to never borrow? Well we’re not. In fact we’re commanded to treat people fairly and graciously when they borrow from us, Ex 22.25, Lv 25.37, Dt 15.8, 24.10, Lk 6.35 which indicates God is okay with them borrowing… which means he’s likewise okay with us borrowing, under many circumstances. Can’t quite pay the rent this month? If you can pay it back with your next paycheck, borrow. People in bible times did it; people today do it.

So how’d Gothard convince me it’s not acceptable? He claims it’s a biblical principle, an idea which isn’t explicitly stated in the bible, but supposedly it’s implicit. It’s there if you dig for it. There’s no command which says “Thou shalt not borrow.” But the accumulated proverbs discouraging us from borrowing, means the bible actually does teach this. We just gotta dig up those proverbs.

Not one of the “biblical principles” of Christian gurus are actual biblical commands. ’Cause if they were, the gurus could quote them! “Thus saith the LORD”—same as they do when they point out the LORD forbids murder, theft, and adultery. There’s no one bible verse to back up their teachings. But, the gurus state, there are tons of proof texts which suggest the authors of the bible implicitly believed these principles. And maybe we should believe these principles.

Two major problems here.

First, these gurus aren’t historical scholars. They have no idea what the underlying principles of ancient peoples were. I do, ’cause I majored in biblical history; I was trained to be an historian, and historians learn and teach this stuff. Crack open a history book sometime. You’ll learn tons.

What gurus know—and all they care to know—is they have a principle they wanna teach, and think they can prove it with biblical proof texts. Some of these texts are quoted in their proper historical context, but far more often, not. They’re interpreted as if they weren’t written by ancient Hebrews and Christians, but by 19th-century Americans. (Yes I know it’s the 21st century, but most Fundamentalists are stuck in a 19th century mindset; hence all the patriarchy and sexism.)

Which brings us to the other major problem: Does God approve of these biblical principles? Or was he actively trying to do away with them?—and these gurus are selectively choosing to ignore how God wants them gone?

See, patriarchy and sexism are in the bible. They were part of ancient Hebrew and Judean culture; they’re part of the worldview of ancient western Asia. So was polygamy, polytheism, racism, and slavery. They come up a bunch, because peoples’ biases will come up from time to time in the bible. And because they’re cultural principles found in the bible, this makes them—no surprise—biblical principles.

But God was trying to mitigage them in the ancient culture. They’re not God-ideas. Never have been. Just because they’re in the bible, it does not mean the Holy Spirit endorses them. They’re fleshly.

Like the bad advice of Job’s friends, it’s okay for us to be aware these attitudes exist. But we’re meant to use our heads, and reject these principles as ungodly. Not distill them and teach them as if they’re biblical commands, and in so doing, lead Christians astray.

How to deduce a biblical principle.

Y’know how there are laws of nature?

They’re not literal laws. Nobody decreed ’em. Scientists deduced them: They looked at nature and determined there are certain fundamental, foundational truths by which basic physics works. Like gravity—what comes up must come down. Or to state it more accurately: Every object’s mass distorts spacetime, causing masses to attract one another; the object with a greater mass is less likely to move from its position or trajectory in space; hence it appears smaller masses “fall” towards larger ones. (I used to teach science, y’see.) All things being equal, what goes up must come down. And since it’s generally true across the board, we call it a “law.”

As I said, nobody decreed the laws of nature. There are certain Christians who claim God decreed ’em: When he created the cosmos, he didn’t just say “Let there be light,” Ge 1.3 but must’ve muttered under his breath, “And let there be gravity”—plus all the other “laws of physics” which determine how the universe works. They’re not the way things work on their own; they’re the way things work because God decided that’s how they work.

To me, this idea makes it obvious these Christians know bupkis about science. But they really like the idea of God’s sovereignty, and decided to explain science with it. It’s no more scientific than Galen of Pergamon’s beliefs about how bodily humours govern our personality types. But if you don’t respect science any, junk science and sciency-sounding ideas will do for you. As Galen of Pergamon’s ideas did for Tim LaHaye.

Yes, God made a complex universe. But it doesn’t operate by divine decree—as demonstrated every time God defies the “laws” of nature. When Jesus was raptured into heaven or walked on water, gravity didn’t matter. And when we defy gravity—by using the principles of aerodynamics to defeat it with our airplanes, helicopters, and drones—God’s hardly gonna punish us for breaking “his” rules. Contrary to what some Christian preachers actually proclaimed in the 1800s—including, amusingly, the father of Orville and Wilbur Wright—it’s no sin to build flying machines!

(Remember that, by the way. It’s a point I’m gonna return to in a bit.)

God never spelled out the laws of physics. Scientists had to deduce ’em. Likewise God never spelled out any of the “biblical principles” which many a Christian preacher bases their sermons on, and many a Christian guru bases their books and seminars on. Christians had to deduce them. And sometimes they deduced them accurately… and sometimes not. And sometimes they deduced God approves of them… and in some cases, no he does not.

But unless we double-check to make sure these preachers did their homework and quoted the bible properly, we won’t know which is which. And sad to say, Christians seldom bother to double-check anything. We accept teachings because they sound good to our itching ears. Not because we know the scriptures well enough to say amen—or not.

In his seminars, Gothard shared the principles he deduced. Claimed they’re totally foundational to the moral universe. Christians learnt ’em, and now base their lives on them. They treat these “basic life principles” as if they’re biblical commands. Just like I did with not borrowing. (I still go out of my way to avoid borrowing. It’s that ingrained in me.)

But whether God actually created such “principles” or not—whether Gothard accurately detected the ancient west Asian worldview, and whether that worldview comes from the Holy Spirit and not from fallen, selfish men—I remind you God deliberately did not make them explicit commands. And same as the law of gravity, he didn’t decree any consequences if we bend or break these “principles.” They might have natural consequences, but just as we can defy gravity with flying machines, we can also defy those consequences with other clever inventions, like bankruptcy laws. It’s not sin to defy them.

Lemme write that again, and you can read it as many times as you need to so it can sink in: It’s not sin to defy them. Might be unwise; might be culturally inappropriate. But if God doesn’t call them sins, don’t put words in his mouth.

Yet that’s not at all what Gothard taught about ’em. He made a point of warning his listeners: When we violate biblical principles there totally are consequences. He’d share testimonies of people who violated them, and the awful things which befell them. He’d quote proof texts which indicate we’re in deep doo-doo with God if we violate “his” principles.

And culturally conservative parents love this about Gothard. That’s why they send their kids to IBLP conferences. They wanna perpetuate conservative Christianism, and scare their kids into behaving themselves by dangling the wrath of God over ’em. Fear’s a really useful motivator. It’s not of God, but still.

Debt is a bad idea. Not a sin.

Fundamentalists respect the bible. It is God’s word y’know.

Problem is, sometimes they respect it so much, they fail to recognize the bible’s not just a book of instructions or commands. Not every verse in the bible must be followed as if it’s law. Commandments certainly do; whether it’s the Law of Moses or Jesus’s teachings, we oughta obey them. Genealogical charts… not so much. (What’s to obey?)

But must we obey every command? Like the commands for ritual cleanliness? I would say no. But of course, Christians disagree.

• Some say we absolutely should. They’re in the bible. They’re commands. God said ’em; we do ’em.
• Some say we don’t need to, because they’re Old Testament commands and Jesus nullified them with grace. (He did not, and they don’t know how grace works.)
• Some point out (myself included) that since the Holy Spirit indwells believers, he makes us ritually clean, not the commands. We don’t need to be pure for temple because we’re God’s temple, 1Co 3.16 and therefore the cleanliness commands have become optional in the Christian Era.

Those are the top three interpretations; there are others. Some are well-thought-out. Some are purely selfish justifications for irreligion, and as such it doesn’t matter whether they stumble into the right answer; their motives are evil, so they’re sinning. But I digress.

Most Fundies are fully aware not every bible verse must be obeyed like law. But many Fundies aren’t. New Christians and young people—you know, like those who attend Gothard seminars—aren’t. So when Gothard starts listing proof texts for why his “biblical principles” must always, always be followed, Christians aren’t always aware these texts aren’t commands… but advice. You know, like Proverbs.

Gothard quotes an awful lot of Proverbs. Hey, there’s a lot of good stuff in there! But proverbs aren’t commands. They’re wisdom literature, which means we gotta use wisdom to determine whether they apply to our particular circumstances. ’Cause sometimes they do… and sometimes they don’t. At all. But Gothard’s not teaching situational ethics; he’s teaching principles. Stuff you must always live by. Stuff that’s not optional depending on circumstances. Lifestyle rules which you obey.

Commands, laws, and rules are the stuff we aren’t really meant to debate; we just do as Jesus teaches and the Father decrees. We can study the rules so we can understand God better, but still: Do as God says. Whereas wisdom is the stuff we should debate, and figure out with our commonsense. But Gothard isn’t teaching how to practice wisdom. He certainly thinks he is, but he’s perpetuating an old but popular Christianist misinterpretation of wisdom: “Just obey God. You’re wise if you do, foolish if you don’t.”

In Proverbs, Solomon comments a borrower is a lender’s slave. Pr 22.7 He didn’t just mean it figuratively; the ancients were regularly sold into slavery to pay debts. The consequences for debt back then were dire. The consequences for debt today? Well, the United States abolished debtors’ prison, created bankruptcy protections, banks have insurance in case people default, and as a result Americans can still get credit cards even if we default on million-dollar mortgages. Does Solomon’s verse even count in the United States anymore? Absolutely it does… but Americans take debt so casually, “slave” is now hyperbole.

Yeah, I realize in saying this, older Fundies are gonna erupt in fury. “It’s God’s word! His word won’t return void!” And so on. “When you go into debt, you’re still doing damage to your good name!” Well, you really aren’t when everybody is in debt, and just about everybody is. Even if I personally owe no debts, the United States government owes trillions of dollars to everybody who bought T-bills. And as much as Fundies like to pretend they and the government are wholly different entities, I remind ’em that (ironically enough) it’s a biblical principle that God judges nations as a whole.

Gothard decided it’s a “biblical principle” to avoid debt. And yeah, voluntarily going into debt is certainly not the wisest course of action when we could, say, exercise patience. Save up for purchases instead of buying now and paying later… and paying ridiculous interest. My coworkers are stunned I can pay cash for automobiles; I point out they could do it too if they just took the bus for a few years. If we’re patient and wise with our money, we might actually keep more of it; it won’t be a struggle to live from paycheck to paycheck; we might even be able to practice generosity for once.

But sometimes debt is unavoidable. If you have a government job, but the government shuts down and your paychecks stop coming—yet the president orders you to go to work anyway—you haven’t the time to get a second or third job to pay your bills. As much as you’ll try to avoid it, you’re gonna go into debt. And if you’re convinced debt is sin, you’re gonna feel like you’re forced into sin, and no you weren’t. Sometimes life takes a downturn. Economies shrink, famines and recessions happen, jobs get lost, people get sick. We live in a fallen world, so life is suffering. But suffering isn’t sin, nor do we suffer because we sinned. Our sinless Lord Jesus suffered too. To everything there is a season, Ec 3.1 and sometimes suffering’s the season. We’d know this if we read wisdom literature… instead of mining it for out-of-context proof texts.

“Biblical principles” which aren’t of God.

Back in my Fundie childhood I was taught about God’s “umbrellas of protection.” God, they taught, is like a giant umbrella, keeping all sorts of woes off the men who follow him, like umbrellas keep away rain. (Unless the rain’s coming at you sideways. But don’t stretch this simile too far; it falls apart easier than most.) So long that the man stays directly under God, he stays dry.

The “umbrellas of protection.” It’s not in the bible, but man alive is it a popular teaching with sexists.

In fact the devout man also becomes an umbrella, keeping all sorts of woes away from his wife and children so long that they stay under him. And like I said, the simile falls apart easily: What is God’s umbrella not deflecting, which necessitates the husband to be an umbrella? Or maybe God’s umbrella is a sexist umbrella and only works on men. I dunno; I just know no umbrellas in the world work this way. Hey, I didn’t invent this illustration. But Fundies use it all the time. Gothard has it in his books.

We Fundie kids were taught our place was under the Mom-umbrella, and she was to stay in God’s good standing by being under the Dad-umbrella. Since my dad’s an atheist, I realized rather quickly the umbrella diagram doesn’t describe my family at all. Thankfully, instead of leaping to the conclusion I was royally screwed, I realized it’s the diagram that’s stupid. But not every Fundie is so discerning.

We were taught this “umbrellas of protection” folderol is a biblical principle. It’s not. Not just ’cause the word “umbrella” isn’t found in the bible whatsoever: God never assigned child-rearing solely to women, but to both men and women. Pr 1.8 God never insisted only men work outside the home; in fact the idealized woman of Proverbs works outside the home! Pr 31.13, 14, 16, 24 God expects men to love their wives, Ep 5.25, Cl 3.19 and wives to keep their husbands’ will in consideration, same as they do with Jesus’s will. Ep 5.24 But God never threatens to withdraw his protection from spouses who don’t meet the 1950s American ideal of working dad and stay-at-home mom.

See, that’s what a lot of sham “biblical principles” are actually about: Promoting traditional values. Like sexism, racism, nationalism, resistance to change, and authoritarianism. Making people think they’re God’s ideas, secretly tucked away in the bible for discerning gurus to figure out.

Like the “biblical principle” which condemns rock music: It’s not based on a valid reason, like when songwriters write immoral lyrics. It’s Gothard’s claim the backbeat (the rhythm found not in every rock song, but definitely in 1950s rock) is the inverse of the human heartbeat, and is inherently anti-human. Seriously; he teaches this. And if it’s anti-human, yada yada yada, it’s not of God, so don’t listen to rock. Listen to what Gothard prefered to listen to: Hymns.

And don’t get me started on all the bizarre “biblical principles” Darbyists use to support some really crazy End Times theories.

How can we know whether a “biblical principle” really is taught in the scriptures? Simple: Double-check all the preacher’s proof texts. Are they quoting bible accurately, or bending it to make their case? Are their interpretations of scripture reasonable, or are they stretching the verses’ meanings beyond commonsense? And can you find other biblical commands, wise sayings, or apostolic teachings, which actually go against these principles? Because when Fundies start promoting sexism and racism, there absolutely are proof texts which condemn them for it.

I know. Sometimes we’re gonna love their conclusions, and be perfectly happy to accept their “principles” because they suit all our prejudices. Don’t. That’s how they get away with it. The end result is they promote their made-up traditions instead of God’s Law, exactly like Pharisees did in Jesus’s day. And for all the same reasons: Power and control. A false sense of righteousness. Comfort. Convenience. The illusion of religion without really following God. And of course hypocrisy.

So any time someone claims “It’s a biblical principle,” make sure it truly is one. If the bible verses they quote sound unsuitable, or misused, examine those doubts. ’Cause it may very well be the Holy Spirit making you doubt. Always follow the Spirit.