Bill Gothard on Visualization as “One of the Most Basic Aspects of Faith”

Gothard teaches that God had three primary purposes for instituting human authority:

“To [help us] grow in wisdom and character;”

“To gain protection from destructive temptations” (as outlined above); and

“To receive clear direction for life decisions.”

To prove his point, Gothard writes: “The only recorded incident in the life of Christ between the ages of two and thirty was a discussion with his parents, which involved authority. This occurred when He was twelve. Should he follow His spiritual calling and be about His Father’s business (Luke:2:49And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
See All...), or should he become subject to His parents and leave His ministry at the temple? He did the latter, and the following verse reports, ‘And He increased with wisdom and stature, and found favor with God and man” (Luke:2:52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
See All...).

Here Gothard took a story from Luke, designed to illustrate the identity of Christ as the Son of God and Messiah. But in his hands, it becomes a story about internal conflict within the Lord Jesus over whether to obey the parental authority of Joseph and Mary so he can fit it into his system. However, there is nothing in Luke:2:41-52 [41] Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. [42] And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. [43] And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. [44] But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. [45] And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. [46] And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. [47] And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. [48] And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. [49] And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? [50] And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. [51] And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. [52] And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
See All... that even remotely implies that Jesus was struggling with the issues Gothard mentions here. He reads these ideas into the passage, giving unwary readers the impression that they are in the text itself. As illusionists quickly distract their audiences from what they are actually doing, Gothard quickly moves on without providing readers with a verse to back up his assertion.

He apparently doesn’t realize the theological problems that result from this sleight-of-hand. If Gothard’s interpretation is correct, Jesus deliberately remained behind in the Temple against what He obviously knew (since He was God) to be his parents’ wishes as His authority. This would mean that even before the boy Jesus had resolved His supposed “inner-conflict,” He had already sinned! This, of course, directly contradicts biblical teaching on the sinless nature of Christ.

The notion that this is a story about Jesus resolving His own internal conflict is also at odds with its climactic scene (which Gothard oddly omits). Luke records this in verses 48-49: “And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, “Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.”

And he said unto them, “How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”

This sure doesn’t sound as though Jesus decided against being about His Father’s business! He clearly stated He must be about it! Why does Gothard contradict Jesus’ words by stating He chose against being about His Father’s business by being subject to His parents? And where does the text teach that being about His Father’s business and being subject to His parents are incompatible so that He cannot do both at the same time?

Luke’s climax also does not uncover any sort of “inner conflict” Jesus may have experienced. On the other hand, he portrays Joseph’s and Mary’s inner conflict quite vividly. We can read and re-read this passage countless times, but we’ll never find Gothard’s teachings— however, we may find Luke’s.

Fortunately, Luke is telling this story instead of Gothard. And as Luke tells it, the sinless Christ, at age twelve, answered His parents’ question with His own questions: Don’t you know who I am? And don’t you know that who I Am dictates where I am? So the basic issue was: Why didn’t they think of coming to the temple first? It would have saved them a lot of unnecessary worrying!

So this story has nothing to do with any conflict within Jesus over whether to stay in the temple or go home with His parents. Jesus was not contemplating entering the ministry at age twelve! Additionally, since Gothard’s view is that not being in submission is rebellion and therefore sin (it is “as the sin of witchcraft”), we do not see any way for him to avoid the conclusion that Jesus was a sinner, based on his explanation of the passage. According to Gothard’s explanation, Jesus had to make the difficult decision of submitting, which means He was not submitted under His parents’ umbrella of protection at that time. They came looking for Him to bring Him back into submission and Jesus, by choosing to submit, must have ceased from His rebellion and sin. Certainly, Bill Gothard would never overtly say such a thing, but his mystical understanding of this passage doesn’t leave any apparent escape from this dilemma. When we asked him this question in one of our meetings, he was quite befuddled and offered no solution to this conundrum.

Since this is not a story about Jesus making the tough choice to “leave His ministry at the temple” to submit to His parents, neither is it about how His choice to submit was why He “increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man.” It wasn’t the point of Luke’s story. Luke was simply describing the progress of young Jesus’ life. He didn’t write, “Therefore Jesus increased in wisdom and stature. . . .” Luke did not even imply the cause-and-effect relationship between submission to human authority and character development that Gothard forces upon the text. There are many people who have submitted in this way but have not “increased in wisdom and stature” nor “in favor with God and man” (e.g., the followers of Peoples Temple leader Jim Jones and Branch Davidian leader David Koresh).

It is always possible that biblical stories can be making other points besides their primary ones. But in such cases, it is obvious from the text. In this case, Gothard invents a meaning that opposes the passage’s point—specifically, that Jesus is the Son of God. And we know from other Scriptures that the Son of God does not sin!

https://midwestoutreach.org/2023/11/30/bill-gothard-on-visualization-as-one-of-the-most-basic-aspects-of-faith/