An Evaluation of Gothard’s Twelve Hearts seminar
It was on the invitation of a couple of men at church that I attended the Institute in Basic Life Principles (from here on IBLP) conference for ministers and leaders. It was held at the Cathedral of Faith, 2315 Canoas Gardens Avenue in San Jose, California on April 28, 1998. Mr. Gothard himself gave all but one lecture, beginning around 9:30 AM. The all-day session concluded around 5:00 PM.
In 1971 and 1972, I attended two of Bill Gothard’s Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts conferences. That was the name before it was changed to IBLP. Being a new Christian, what he presented seemed good. I kept the well-known red binder of seminar notes and his character sketches until 2001. Gothard would warn people who purchased the binder not to share it with anyone because it was special teaching from God and unless a person attended the seminar, he would be confused by it. My copy of the IBYC notes ended up in the fireplace.
Right after graduation from seminary, a new church plant in Salinas, California called me as the evangelist. That’s the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s term for church planter. One of the aspiring elders was a former Lutheran who had joined the new Presbyterian church. It turned out, he was the regional director for Gothard’s ATI homeschool organization. He and a couple of other Gothard enthusiasts raved about Gothard’s life-changing teachings and urged me to attend the conference for church leaders and pastors.
However, I also heard from those who have been confused or hurt by his teachings. I purposed to attend the special leadership conference with an analytical mind. One of the many good things I took from seminary is the skill to use the Bible to test what is said. Since then, I enter seminars with a skeptic's mind. It was my intention to glean what I could but also to critique the seminars at the conference.
Seated about three rows from the stage in the mega church’s auditorium, I could see and hear very clearly. I failed to bring a notebook or pen but when he started off with a heretical statement, I asked the woman next to me for some paper and a writing instrument. She was gracious to give them to me. What was the heretical thing he started with? “Don’t be like Jesus when he disobeyed his parents!”
Part of my technique included writing down the speaker's words verbatim, not merely his lecture points. It is on this basis that I wrote the following critique. Mr. Gothard's own words betray some vital concerns I have as a pastor, as do his notes that he later supplied. I have not included everything which was said at the seminar in this paper. That does not mean that I selected things out of context. Being careful as to not misrepresent his teachings I was most willing to be corrected.
As it turned out, after I finished my assessment of the first session (see below), I sent a copy to Mr. Gothard for his input. Shortly after he received it, he called me at 5 AM one morning to tell me the paper was a total misrepresentation of what he said. Surely, I must have misunderstood him. He told me the booklets were not available for the day I attended but he would send me a copy of the seminar notes. They would show I was wrong. He did send them, but they only validated what I had written.
Very little of my evaluation changed. I was actually amazed that what I wrote down from the session was almost identical to and some was verbatim what was in the booklet. After a few minor changes, a copy of the revision was sent to him. Except this time, my conclusion was harsher. I had time to review the other seminars I attended, which upset me quite a bit. At best, he was teaching nonsense. At worst, his teachings were false and legalistic.
This critique begins with his first lecture of the day which was about the importance of having all twelve hearts about which the Bible supposedly declares true, Christians must-have. Gothard started out by stating that what he was about to present was, "The most important study I've ever done... " By the way, part of the challenge in taking down his words is that he often would speak with incomplete sentences. In any case, what he was about to teach us was “the most important study he had ever done.”
Well, okay. We can take him at his word. That means we must give him our undivided attention. After all he's been studying since the 1960's.
An Evaluation of Gothard’s Twelve Hearts Seminar
Too many superlatives like a salesman
Mr. Gothard regularly uses superlatives (most, greatest, best, etc.) Not that superlatives are always bad. However, in his case, they are all too common. It certainly has the effect of getting one's attention. It has the effect of demonstrating that his particular teaching is indeed true, or too important not to believe or practice. What is implied by his frequent use of superlatives is that his teachings are superior and more profound than what you might find elsewhere.
Using such adjectives to qualify what is going to be said or what was said is a marketing technique that salesmen employ to impress others that their product is the best, regardless of what the facts might support. It seems that rather than qualifying his materials from the careful exegesis of the Scriptures (not that there is a need to do so at every turn), he uses superlatives and testimonials for proof. On occasion, he will refer to a scientific study, but without citing the source for verification.
After all, who can argue against a superlative and/or a testimonial? It's too subjective.
Understand the twelve hearts or your ministry will fail!
Mr. Gothard then flashed "Twelve Hearts" upon the overhead screen, and continued with, "If you don't understand these different types of hearts people have then your teaching ministry will fail, your counseling ministry will fail..." (he pauses). "We fail (speaking to pastors and leaders) because we judge the outward heart...If we don't become skilled at looking at the heart of people then our ministry will come far short of what God intended for it."
A number of things raced through my mind because of what was implied, as well as what was said.
· First, what did he mean by fail? According to what standard?
· Unwittingly, he indicted his own ministry. If this was the most important study he had done, and this is a recent study, and he had not known this material or practiced this material beforehand, was not his own ministry a failure up to this point?
· My immediate response had me thinking that perhaps my ministry was a failure, or at least not what it is supposed to be. Now, I've got to listen because after this I (supposedly) will no longer have less than the optimum ministry. Or so he promised.
· What was disturbing by this statement was that Mr. Gothard was making an extra-biblical pronouncement. In effect, he prophesied that all of our ministries will indeed fail if we do not come to grips with this one new teaching from God. Teaching that has until this day, not been revealed to any other godly man throughout the history of the Church!
"Where does the heart fit in (the soul and spirit scheme)? I've asked that question for years. The heart links with the spirit, the heart affects the spirit, and the spirit affects the soul," Mr. Gothard went on to explain. "There are twelve hearts," he says while systematically revealing each point and sub-point with the overhead projector.
This indeed is something new. What he communicated here, whether intentional or not, is that there are twelve different hearts every person must have in order to be complete.
a. This seems typical of IBLP's teaching. He and the Institute maintain there are methods for sanctification. There is a sort of spiritual stairway to heaven. If one climbs these steps or realizes certain secrets, or performs certain activities then he will become holy, complete, whole., and successful. Part of the challenge with his methodology is that every new seminar adds more steps. What exhausting work these steps are. Where is the grace of God? Where is the work of the Spirit and the Word?
b. In addition to all the other things one must do (presuming you are on the right course using the materials from IBLP's Basics course), you must now understand and obtain all twelve hearts.
c. But why? Gothard said, "What a dynamic thing if your people had these hearts...!" Yet there was no mention that these were the hearts of Christ, in order to be like Jesus Christ. There is only mention that if the leaders did not understand these hearts, they would fail. He has given an unjustifiable imperative, a command Scripture does not give.
d. Gothard declares this is biblical. But is it? If so, then it is only now being revealed. However, if one was to do even a basic study of the Scripture's use of heart, he ought to be able to discover that Gothard has his own doctrine running counter to Scripture.
· Much of the problem comes from his method of interpretation and exegesis; something to which he has been rebuked by a number of biblical scholars throughout the years. Primarily, he is an atomist. By that, I mean that he breaks things down into minute and constituent parts. Scripture does not operate that way. That is the method of 19th and early 20th-century industrialism applied to Bible study. It is a worldly or scientific method, which on appropriate occasions has value.1
· Simply, the definition for heart in Scripture is the center of human life. Heart is used as a synonym for soul. It is also synonymous with the mind, emotions, and the center of one's volition. There is only one heart, not two, not twelve. It is the heart that must be regenerated and renewed. For the believer, we have the hope that our own sinful and depraved heart (Gen. 6:5-6; Psa. 53:1; Jer. 17:9; Lk 6:45) is being renewed after the image of Jesus Christ who has the perfect heart (Romans 6, Ephesians 2: 8-10; 4:17-24; Colossians 3:10; etc.). Any quality word tool such as a lexicon, theological wordbook, or biblical dictionary, will point this out. Gothard's teaching runs counter to centuries of biblical scholarship.
The point is, man has one heart, not twelve!
Evaluating some of his points on the Twelve Hearts
1. You must have a clean heart versus a wicked heart.
The Purpose? Salvation (John 13:10)
I was not clear as to what he really meant by purpose in each of these twelve points. Granted, one can only have a clean heart before God through the work of Christ in salvation. This, Gothard admits, is God's work (Psalm 51:10).
He also said that daily cleansing comes by God's Word (John 15:3; 17:17). We must clean our hearts every day. He went on to say that husbands need to cleanse their wives by the Word according to Ephesians 5:26. How do husbands do this? "As we get specific rhemas from God then we will be able to cleanse our wives... I've been asking God for rhemas for many years... when He gives a rhema, success occurs. He is giving direction. The most important thing for every man is to get rhemas from the Word-logos."
A complete evaluation on this part alone is warranted on this point alone, but this will be saved for a later paper. Yet a few points are made here:
a. This appears typical of Gothard's exegetical approach. He would be hard-pressed to find a good Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic linguist or biblical scholar who would support his approach.
b. His supporting text, Ephesians 5:26 is a reference to the work of Jesus Christ, not the work of the husband. It is the work of Jesus Christ for His Church that Paul writes about, not the required work of the husband for his wife.
c. Words have synonyms. What Gothard does is take these synonyms and exploit one particular definition for each of the words in order to create a doctrine. In many instances, he springboards teachings off of individual words; words that are used out of context. For example, Gothard makes many points out of the synonyms for Law: precept, teaching, statute, etc. Rather than looking at each of these terms contextually, with flavorful nuances and as synonyms, he sees them as distinguishable terms from which we can derive steps, principles, or rules for living. He does the same thing by making the two synonyms for "word" completely independent terms with completely independent doctrines. This is not a careful use of Scripture.
d. Linguistically, the Greek terms rhema and logos are synonymous. To take them otherwise is to make something out of nothing; which is what he does. The contexts will bear out the meaning for each. Instead, Gothard reads his definition into the text.
This leads him to faulty conclusions. One such conclusion is to say that God speaks personally to you through the Bible by means of rhema (intuitive, spiritual communication that is perceived by one's feelings). Sadly, this places him in the company of cult groups who practice the same technique.
e. A simple reading of the Scripture, let alone any detailed study, will tell you that Scripture nowhere tells you to cleanse your wives by hearing God tell you what to do through some mystical speech.
· This is extra-biblical language.
· This is an extra-biblical requirement.
· This denudes the wife's personal responsibility to learn from the Word of God.
· This also sets up the man with an authority beyond what he is entitled to have. Is the rhema he receives from the Bible God's revealed will for the wife? What if that contradicts a most reasonable or even biblical principle of life? What if that contradicts a rhema she would receive? Is hers illegitimate? Less authoritative? What this sets up is a foundation for spiritual browbeating. I could give testimonials of this very thing happening, but I won't.
f. In addition, what does he mean by cleansing? What does it look like? What is the result? How does it happen? Spiritually? Physically? Morally? Gothard leaves that to assumption.
g. Allow me again to point out the superlative, most in "the most important thing for every man is to..." That is not what the Bible says. What’s more, why spend so much time talking about the man’s duty to clean his wife and nothing said about the man’s duty to clean himself?
2. A pure heart vs. double mindedness
Purpose: to be in God's holy presence (Psalm 24:3-4).
It is not clear how he sees double mindedness as the opposite of a pure heart. There are several antonyms to purity. Only one issue will be made of this, though more could be said on his view of purity and holiness. Gothard's view of holiness is not unlike other cultic views of holiness, or revivalist C. Finney's view of holiness, that is, Christ's work is sufficient for your sins, up to a point, but the rest of the spiritual work is up to you.
3. Wise heart vs. Foolishness
Purpose: for skilled leadership (Exodus 36:2)
Wisdom is not merely for skilled leadership, though in the context of this seminar, what he said was appropriate.
Mr. Gothard had a decent digression on the purposeful and wise use of words and their definitions. He gave an illustration of our cultural use of "choice" and "pro-choice." What he said was helpful. Yet he ought to heed his own advice and be careful in his own use of terms.
4. Broken heart vs. Hard heart
Purpose: is to draw closer to God.
"How do you get revival?" he asks after elaborating a few points here. He quotes the famous revivalist Finney and then says "I made a careful study about what are those laws for revival... They worked in Illinois, so I said 'I'm gonna try these same steps in South America. If I'm right, then revival should start in four days.' Sure enough... What was the key? There is one verse (which he doesn't give) that is the amazing foundation for revival. It works! I knew that when I could get five testimonies, one for each principle (taught in his basics seminar), then you will have revival. Why you get one heart broken up and give the testimonies, for by two or three witnesses a thing is established... then you will have revival. It happens every time!"
This too could be a subject for analysis. Some have already done so. Clearly, Mr. Gothard presupposes that revival is a mechanism that if done correctly will produce the intended effects. This is classic Finneyism at its best.
There are many psychological, sociological, but especially biblical problems with this. I will give only a few:
· Such methodology is manipulative. By this I mean he uses a particular method as a means for achieving an intended result. It is the technique of sales rallies. There seems to be a dynamic of a crowd that has a remarkable influence on the psyche of a person. Many have heard testimonials that are heart-wrenching and moving in multi-level marketing meetings. Sales and recruitment soar during these meetings. Often in such cases, the end result (increased sales, sign-ups, or conversions) supposedly prove the legitimacy of those meetings. They don't.
· What this method does demonstrate is that a person's will can be relaxed, persuaded, or broken during an emotional event. But it also shows that at such times people are much more open to accepting the presentation of the leader(s).
· Can the Holy Spirit make use of such meetings with God’s Word? Without a doubt. But, is it true that doing it this way guarantees true biblical revival? Not necessarily. There is a great danger in presuming too much upon the Lord here, or giving Him credit for things in which He may not be involved.
5. Tender heart vs. unforgiving
Purpose: to be heard by the Lord (II Chronicles 34:27).
Mr. Gothard did not elaborate too much upon this point. Certainly, we are to have a heart that is tender, humble, and forgiving. And while our sin hinders our temporal walk with the Lord, He still hears us. Further, God continues to do His holy will.
6. Meek and lowly heart vs. Proud
Purpose: to be conformed to Christ (Matt. 11:29).
We are to be conformed to Christ, and a meek heart is required for this. But this particular verse doesn't directly make this point.
7. Circumcised heart vs. Deceitful
Purpose: to remove secret impurities (Deut. 10:11).
Gothard defined circumcision as "cutting away that which hides impurity.”
"A circumcised heart means the cutting away that which hides impurity. The purpose is to remove all your secret impurities. You must expose all your secrets to God (Jer. 4:4), and then God will circumcise your heart (Deut. 30:6)..."
Is that the biblical definition of circumcision? No!
a. Mr. Gothard frequently starts with his ethical notions and brings them to bear upon biblical words. For example, he uses his understanding of the necessity of good moral character and virtuous qualities to define what circumcision means.
b. Simply put, circumcision is cutting off the foreskin of the male genital organ. While practiced by many ancient and modern cultures, biblically it was a specific sign and seal of the gracious covenant which God made with man, particularly with Abraham on behalf of God's people (Genesis 17). See also Gen. 17:12; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer.4:4; 9:25,26; Luke 2:21-24; John 7:22; Acts 15:1; Rom. 2:25; and Gal. 2:3; Col. 2:11.
c. Circumcision speaks to or represents several things:
· It was an initiatory rite for believers and their children (Gen. 17:10-11; Ex. 12:48; Lev. 12:3), separating them as His people to Himself.
· It represented union and communion with a holy God (Gen. 17:7; Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6)
· It represented genuine biblical repentance (Jer. 4:4; 9:25; Lev. 26:40-41).
· It represented a heart cleansed by God (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Isa. 52:1)
· It indicated a separation from those outside the camp of true Faith (Ex. 12:48).
If Gothard's definition is correct, then what shall we do with the circumcision of Jesus Christ? For He had nothing to hide and nothing impure to cut away (Psa. 2; 45; 110:1; Isa. 9; 53; Heb. 1. Compare also John 8:46; 1 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5).
d. Further, circumcision of the heart is an act, which is done by God. Something God required of his people to have, but couldn't do on their own (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4). Circumcision of the heart was promised by God as His activity in the New Covenant (Ex. 36:24-28; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 11:17-20 cp. John 6:45; 1 Jn. 2:27).
· It is a gracious work of God, not our work of exposing hidden things of the heart.
· It is impossible to truly circumcise our hearts on our own. What's more, it is impossible to expose our secrets to God. God knows all things, nothing is hidden from Him - not even our secrets (Psa. 44:21). Yet, our hearts are so depraved that we don't even know the worst that is within us.
o In Psalm 19:12 we see how the Psalmist asks God to cleanse those secret faults and presumptive sins.
o Psalm 90:8 also says that God has revealed our secret sins. They are all ready and always exposed. There is nothing hidden from Him. Yet when we are revealed these sins we are to confess them (Psalm 51 cp 1 John 1:9).
o Ecclesiastes 12:14 demonstrates that God will Himself judge those secret things!
8. Enlarged heart vs. Selfish
Purpose: to give the world God's love (John 3:16)
What the teacher presented here was rather encouraging. It was a good exhortation to bring and demonstrate the love of Christ to the world.
9. Faithful heart vs. fearful
Purpose: is to claim great exploits for God (Neh. 9:8).
However, the Bible informs us the purpose is not to claim great exploits for God in a faithful heart, but rather to glorify God in all things.
His view presents some challenges to the Bible's clear teaching. For one, faithfulness is a response of belief and obedience. It is a commitment to God (Rom. 4:24; 1 Pet. 1:21) and to His work of redemption through Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:22, 26; 4:20; 10:9 1Jn 51), which is the Good News (Mk. 1:15 cp 2 Thess. 1:10).
Faithfulness may or may not deliver "great exploits for God." God's purposes might be many, but may not necessarily include great things for Him.
· Gothard tends to align himself with the camp within modern Christendom which believes that only those great and dynamic or miraculous things are signs of faithfulness or indications of God's pleasure upon a person or people.
· However, sometimes faith and faithfulness did result in miracles (Matt. 17:20f; 1 Cor. 13:2). Sometimes miracles or great things happened without faith (Matt. 7:22f; John 5:1-9; 1 Cor. 12:9).
· This sets up a sense of defeat and guilt if one were to really accept Gothard’s view at face value. What if my ministry were rather mundane, normal, without great accomplishments? What if I were not among the few through whom God works incredible and mighty things? What if I were - average? Then, by his definition, I am not faithful. This is a ludicrous and unbiblical proposition. I am faithful because it is what God wants me to be. I leave the great exploits up to Him.
Then Mr. Gothard continues, "Faith comes by hearing the rhemas-word of God, NOT the logos-word of God! Romans 10:17....By the words that God gives you, not the Logos, but through the Bible... For example: " Gothard gives an example when he was asking God to give him specific direction about youth work. He was reading the passage in Isaiah when God told him through this Bible verse, "From the rising of the sun to the going down... God was saying to me to go to New Zealand because that's where the sun first rises... And sure enough, I get a call from New Zealand..."
Again, many things need to be said about his view of Scripture and the dichotomy he places between the synonyms of logos and rhema. Here I present a few concerns about this statement:
a. He uses Romans 10:17 to say something it does not. This is terrible exegesis and not faithful to the Word itself. The context of Romans 10:12ff is that without commissioning and sending men to proclaim the Word, the Word does not go forth. In 10:14, Christ is the whom, Christ is the One Who speaks through the preached Word. So faith comes by hearing Christ speaking through the preached Word, not through one's own mystical hearing of God's directives from a private encounter with the Bible. That's the point of this text, not Gothard's view of rhema.
b. He also removes Isaiah 59 passage far from its context and the Holy Spirit's intended use. The Holy Spirit did not put that text in there to tell Bill Gothard where he was to initiate or perform youth ministry.
c. This method he employs is the method of cult groups.
d. This method on its own terms justifies the person's interpretation of Scripture and his activities in life. Herein is the danger - who is to tell Mr. Gothard or anyone else that what he is doing is wrong if indeed God has spoken to him so explicitly and specifically through the Bible? On the other hand, how does he really know these are truly from God? If you say he knows because it is confirmed by experience, then experience becomes the higher standard by which we judge what God says.
e. Gothard, and others, have not demonstrated from the Bible itself that this is how God desires for us to use His Scriptures - like some magic formula. Instead of this practice, the Bible tells us that the propositional Word as it is in its written form is sufficient for all things pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3ff).2
f. Gothard's view is not too dissimilar from Karl Barth's, which, simply put, said the true word of God was that word personally given to a particular person at a particular time.
(1) This understanding sets up two levels of the Bible: one that is objectively factual and one that is truly relevant. The relevant (which is the subjective) becomes a higher priority and goal to attain. The other is only a basic necessity, if that.
(2) This also implies even at a practical level that all the Bible as the inscripturated Word is not sufficient for life and godliness. He teaches that only the higher, spiritual voice from God spoken to me personally is the genuine Word.
10. Perfect heart vs. Lukewarm heart
Purpose: to show God's power (2 Chron. 16:9)
He was not clear by what it means to have a perfect heart. Does he mean perfect in the sense of sinless? Does he mean perfect in the sense of being without blemish of flaw? Does he mean perfect in the sense of complete? Further, how is a perfect heart the opposite of a lukewarm heart?
11. Sound heart vs. deceived
Purpose: to be right in doctrine.
Here was a brief interlude of refreshment. Gothard discussed some good, biblical items, but I would encourage him to take his own medicine with regard to being correct in doctrine.
This was the first time in the seminar he used "scientific research" to prove his point. For some reason, he believed it was necessary to look to medical science to demonstrate the need for a sound heart. All one needs to do is read and study the pastoral epistles of the New Testament to understand the value and importance God places upon sound doctrine.
Instead, Gothard told us that physicians show that a body that is slumped and not upright contributes to an unhealthy and bad heart. Good posture and remaining physically upright will produce a good heart. Rather than saying this is an analogy to an upright heart, he says this is "why God tells us an upright heart is a healthy heart." The physical organ in the chest cavity is hereby confusedly equated with the soul.
One could expand upon this to develop some strange teachings. Does this mean that the soul-heart is within the physical heart? If so, then would a diseased heart make a sinful heart? Could someone with heart disease ever be spiritually upright? You can see the implications.
12. Merry heart vs. discouragement
Purpose: to be joyful to God and to others.
God requires a pastor to have twelve hearts!
Mr. Gothard summarizes this portion of the conference with: "Now, what a dynamic thing it would be if your people had these hearts! God requires a pastor to give account of the souls of his people so you must see into their hearts! This is what they must have! This is what you must do."
Such comments were perhaps some of the silliest, yet dangerous statements Gothard made. He began this teaching on the hearts with a warning that to not understand the necessity for each person to have all twelve hearts would bring failure and he now warns and exhorts pastors and leaders that they MUST know the internal hearts of their people or they will fail.
This is categorically wrong and the attempt to do so is sinful. He himself used to teach that to judge a person's heart was wrong. Matthew 7:1ff tells us it is wrong. All we can do at best is discern the outward words and life of a person and measure that against the standard of the Scriptures. The implication of Romans 14:1ff is that we have no business to evaluate, criticize or judge another's motives or matters of conscience. In fact, only God has that prerogative, not man (1 Cor. 4:5; Jas. 4:12).
No man can ever judge another person's heart. Not even a pastor or spiritual leader. Indeed, of the list of duties belonging to elders and deacons not one is listed in Scripture that requires anything resembling what Gothard requires!
The text he uses from Hebrews 12:17 is distorted to say something it does not say. Those with spiritual oversight will give account, not for the hearts of their people over whom they watch, but they will give account for how faithful they were as overseers who keep watch over their flock; NOT for how they look into their hearts to make sure they have all twelve hearts!
I’m alarmed
His followers say Mr. Gothard has so much to offer, and positive things have come out of his seminars and materials. If this first session of this leadership seminar is any indication of his overall ministry, then I am alarmed. His teaching needs to come under the close scrutiny and examination of the Word of God. While I have only scratched the surface (each one of his points could be analyzed and studied in greater depth according to Scriptures) my basic conclusion is that he is quite off the spiritual and doctrinal mark. In the end, this material may very well counter what he hoped it would accomplish. What was presented in this session has given me great concern for those who unwittingly and without strong discernment accept what Gothard teaches.
Rev. D. Thomas Owsley
___________
1 To the reader I recommend Dr. D. A. Carson's excellent paperback, Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984.
2 J.I. Packer's God Has Spoken. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979 (1993).
Note: This was edited December 2020 for clarity.