The Cult Next Door (short film about Bill Gothard)

[mkgal1]

More from another article:

------------>The son of a national home-schooling leader — home-schooled himself — Harris by his mid-20s had become a prominent pastor as well as a best-selling author on religion and sex, despite having no formal theological training. He immediately became a darling of a movement that took off in the 1990s called nondenominationalism, largely made up of conservative evangelicals who view religious institutions and denominations as often lifeless and unopen to God’s spirit.

And for 17 years, Harris preached the power of outsiderdom as pastor of Covenant Life, a 3,000-member church in Gaithersburg that is well-known — and sometimes controversial — on the national nondenominational scene.

That is, until Sunday, when the 40-year-old announced that he is leaving to go to seminary, saying he needs formal education and training and more exposure and connection to other parts of Christianity.~Pastor Joshua Harris, an evangelical outlier, heads to mainstream seminary,<----------


It seems to me the tide may be turning towards groups finding their way back to the historic Church---the Church that was held in contempt for so long.

 

[Dave-W]

I drive by Harris' Covenant Life Church a few times a week.

It is right next door to the New Life SDA church that got shot up a few weeks ago. (story in the SDA folder)

 

[GeorgeJ]

I am unfamiliar with any such custom.

It's not only a Jewish custom, but a custom throughout the middle east. I was stationed in the middle east for over two years.

The reason the left hand is considered unclean has to do with the sanitary practices in parts of the middle east.....they do not use toilet paper. I have been in more than a few public places (restaurants, etc.) that did not have toilet paper in their bathrooms, but rather a water spigot on the wall with a small bucket underneath of it. I don't think I have to go into further detail do I?

 

[mkgal1]

It's not only a Jewish custom, but a custom throughout the middle east. I was stationed in the middle east for over two years.

Thank you, GeorgeJ.

 

[Dave-W]

It's not only a Jewish custom, but a custom throughout the middle east. I was stationed in the middle east for over two years.

I know many people in Israel. I have not heard anything about it at all.

Now I have heard of that in India. And maybe some of the Islamic areas in the subcontinent like Pakistan, but not Jews in Israel.

 

[FenderTL5]

I was coerced into attending the Basic Youth Conflicts Seminar (as it was called then) back in the 80s. {{{shudders}}}

 

[GeorgeJ]

I know many people in Israel. I have not heard anything about it at all.

Now I have heard of that in India. And maybe some of the Islamic areas in the subcontinent like Pakistan, but not Jews in Israel.

I would suspect in earlier times, it may have been a Jewish custom since they were early inhabitants of the mid-east, but as a result of the diaspora, become less of one. Modern Jews in Israel probably have no such custom, but I can assure you it's prevalent in many other areas of the middle east.

 

[Dave-W]

I would suspect in earlier times, it may have been a Jewish custom since they were early inhabitants of the mid-east,

If it were so, it would have been recorded in the Mishnah or Talmuds.

As it is, the ritual hand washing before eating has the left hand pouring water over the right, and then vice versa. Afterward both hands can be used to eat. That IS from the Talmud and is reflective of late 2nd temple period customs. (NT times)

 

[GeorgeJ]

If it were so, it would have been recorded in the Mishnah or Talmuds.

Berachot 62a

 

[Paidiske]

As it is, the ritual hand washing before eating has the left hand pouring water over the right, and then vice versa. Afterward both hands can be used to eat. That IS from the Talmud and is reflective of late 2nd temple period customs. (NT times)

When I was doing some research on ritual handwashing, I found statements by Rabbis that that custom post-dates the destruction of the temple (although not the later NT writings perhaps, those written after the fall of the temple).

I returned that library book, and have no way of knowing if they were right, but it seems your dating might be at least in scholarly doubt.

 

[Zoii]

This whole idea came from Gothard (as far as I know that's where it originated). It's a main teaching of Gothard--and it's seemed to have "stuck" with a lot of churches that believe in a "household order". Gothard takes it even further---that one can NEVER question authority:

I took a deep breath when I saw that picture.

I have an abstract question relating to that picture. Is it possible that God is neither malevolant or paternalistic towards us. That God is a force, a creator, a designer of the laws that prescribe the functions of our universe. It is possible that he doesnt hear our prayers in the way we desire because our collective prayers conflict with each other and he doesnt take sides. To use a graphic example - two men pray for victory in a war. But even something so minimal as praying to get a high mark in an exam - is it possible its not his concern and if you want a high mark you better work for it

I read a lot here and most talk about a personal relationship with God - but is that true. Is it possible he is aloof from that type engagement with us. And if there is a grain of possibility in all of that, is it possible that theres is connectivity between all theist religions which ultimately espouse to an intelligent self actualising universe force.

In writing this if I have offended anyone Im sorry because thats not my intent.

 

[Paidiske]

Philosophically, it's possible.

In Christian terms, though, not really. If God really went to the extreme of emptying himself of godhood, taking on human nature and human flesh, and being born as an infant, in order to be God-with-us, then that's not a distant, dispassionate, uninvolved God.

That doesn't mean God cares about everything we care about, or always thinks we're praying for the right things, though. I'm quite sure there's a fair bit of the celestial equivalent of face-palming, at times.

A bit like this, which has done the rounds on the net:

GENESIS
God: All right, you two, don't do the one thing. Other than that, have fun.
Adam & Eve: Okay.
Satan: You should do the thing.
Adam & Eve: Okay.
God: What happened!?
Adam & Eve: We did the thing.
God: Guys

THE REST OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
God: You are my people, and you should not do the things.
People: We won't do the things.
God: Good.
People: We did the things.
God: Guys

THE GOSPELS
Jesus: I am the Son of God, and even though you have done the things, the Father and I still love you and want you to live. Don't do the things anymore.
Healed people: Okay! Thank you!
Other people: We've never seen him do the things, but he probably does the things when no one is looking.
Jesus: I have never done the things.
Other people: We're going to put you on trial for doing the things.
Pilate: Did you do the things?
Jesus: No.
Pilate: He didn't do the things.
Other people: Kill him anyway.
Pilate: Okay.
Jesus: Guys

PAUL'S LETTERS
People: We did the things.
Paul: Jesus still loves you, and because you love Him, you have to stop doing the things.
People: Okay.

PAUL'S LETTERS PART II
People: We did the things again.
Paul: Guys

REVELATION
John: When Jesus comes back, there will be no more people who do the things. In the meantime, stop doing the things.

 

[Dave-W]

When I was doing some research on ritual handwashing, I found statements by Rabbis that that custom post-dates the destruction of the temple (although not the later NT writings perhaps, those written after the fall of the temple).

The rabbis that wrote the Mishnah and the Talmuds certainly are post-70 ad. The Mishnah was completed and published circa 200 ad and was used as the framework for both the Jerusalem Talmud (pub circa 400 ad) and the Babylonian Talmud (pub circa 500 ad)

But we do have in the Gospel account that the ritual hand washing was done while the Temple was still standing.

Matthew 15:2
“Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”​

It may be that the specifics on how to do it was not uniform until after the destruction, but the tradition itself goes back before that.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, that was the interesting thing. It was exactly that dispute I was researching, and one of the rabbis I was reading said that Jesus' day was too early for that dispute, because ritual hand washing was not established yet. But, he said, by the time Matthew was writing, after the fall of the temple, it was becoming established. So he thought that Matthew had connected some words of Jesus with a dispute that was happening between Matthew's community and the local synagogue community, and projecting that back into Jesus' time.

I can't speak to the accuracy of that statement (and I've since returned the library book, so I can't even give you the source details), but I thought it was an interesting idea, given what we now understand about the development of Judaism and Christianity post 70 AD.

 

[Dave-W]

The handwashing ritual is in the Passover Seder liturgy. Most of that was put together at the end of the first century bc by Rabbi Hillel. (grandfather of Gamaliel, Paul's mentor) It is unclear if that part of the liturgy has changed over time, (we know it has in other areas) but it seems likely that it was there in some form.

 

[Dave-W]

and one of the rabbis I was reading said that ...

LOL!!!

In the Mishnah and even more so in the Talmuds, one rabbi's word is never taken as authoritative. Indeed, the Mishnah is set up in such a way that an issue is listed and you may have 5 or 6 rabbis (often writing in the name of their own mentors) putting down 5 or 6 different responses.

There are listed in the Mishnah and Talmuds over 100 areas of dispute on doctrine and practice between Rabbis Hillel and Shammai. Both of their positions are recorded.

So I would not put too much stock in what "one rabbi" says.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

That's what I thought you meant

It's just interesting that the same verse is used in a much broader sense against women (discrediting their "authority"/dismissing her thoughts...words).......but with men, the definition of "deacon" gets more specific (does that make any sense?).

Yes.....I'm aware of the sexual nature of the charges brought against him. What I think may probably be worse is that this went on for so long (with people *knowing* what was going on). It's been several years since I've read up on all this.....but one thing I'm remembering is that girls were often sent across state lines in order to be in the few states that have very young age of consent. Another thing that happened was (IIRC)....if girls accused men of raping them.....it was the girls that had to go (literally) in front of the congregation and confess themselves for being "impure". It was all very twisted and dark (but people were so heavily brain washed...they bought into it all). It really caught fire with the homeschooling crowd.....with so many of the teachings based on "be not of the world" the isolation allowed for distorted--and unchecked-- thinking (I believe).

No it does not make sense to me either. In the 70's I kept noticing he took verses out of context in his works which I threw away as useless.
I could not get his ego. Ten years ago, someone tried to introduce his teachings into a church I was at. I was asked to teach from one of his books. So, I would first find misquotes. Have people in the class read the passages in context, then I would have them read a few passages from his book where the misquotes stood out. I would get puzzled looks. At which time I would point out that He was taking Scriptures out of context. His materials were withdrawn for use in Sunday School, but I was also asked not to be a teacher anymore. When new materials were introduced, I would search them for misquotes and as a student point them out. I do not remember what those new materials were. But, the church put together a committee to pretest materials for misquotes and for misinformation. Another committee was formed to write their own materials which the second one examined. I was often asked to examine the newest materials for errors.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

read to here, I had something to say but forgot.

 

[mkgal1]

I took a deep breath when I saw that picture.

Sorry, Zoii. This whole thread needs a major trigger warning.

 

[mkgal1]

No it does not make sense to me either. In the 70's I kept noticing he took verses out of context in his works which I threw away as useless.
I could not get his ego. Ten years ago, someone tried to introduce his teachings into a church I was at. I was asked to teach from one of his books. So, I would first find misquotes. Have people in the class read the passages in context, then I would have them read a few passages from his book where the misquotes stood out. I would get puzzled looks. At which time I would point out that He was taking Scriptures out of context. His materials were withdrawn for use in Sunday School, but I was also asked not to be a teacher anymore. When new materials were introduced, I would search them for misquotes and as a student point them out. I do not remember what those new materials were. But, the church put together a committee to pretest materials for misquotes and for misinformation. Another committee was formed to write their own materials which the second one examined. I was often asked to examine the newest materials for errors.

Wow.....I think you were really ahead of the "gang" (so to speak) for recognizing this back in the 70's. I was new to the evangelical protestant church in the late 80's-early 90's and I think that's when all this really got some roots (do you think that's a correct timeline?). We also enrolled our child in the private school at our church (and a few years later began home schooling)....so I was in that "bubble" of isolation for many years---not recognizing what had seeped in until it got to a pretty extreme level.

Good for you for encouraging people to possibly see for themselves how the Bible can be taken out of context. That seems like a confused response to your teaching though. From reading this.....it seems like they knew something was "off" but they weren't sure where.....and out of fear asked you not to teach any longer. I'm glad they included you in --at least--looking over the materials for errors.