Reasons Why I Am an Expository Preacher

 

Audio Version

     A Life Changing Encounter. There I was, standing in the vestibule of the first church that I pastored, having a conversation with another much more seasoned preacher who had stopped by for a visit. I was in my early 20’s and had absolutely no clue what I was doing. Not to mention the fact that I was on the verge of burnout. Between working a full time job, taking care of a family with two small children and pastoring a church, sermon prep seemed like an impossible Everest every week. 

     My preacher friend, seeing the weight upon my shoulders, began to gently prod me to share with him what was wrong. I dropped my head and said “I am really struggling to know what to preach week in and week out. I spend more time trying to come up with a topic and a text than I do actually studying the text. How can I know what I am supposed to preach each week?” My friend gently put his hand on my shoulder, and the answer that he gave me would change my life forever. “Why don’t you just preach the Bible?” I looked at him like he was crazy. Was he being sarcastic in my moment of weakness? “No, I am serious”, he said. “Preach through books of the Bible. Each week you will already know what text that you are preaching from and all you have to do is study in order to dig out the treasures within the text. You will find that both you and the church will grow together in ways that you never thought possible.” 

I was floored. What a novel idea. Just preach the Bible, as it was written by the prophets and apostles. I have now been preaching expository sermons for over fifteen years and I have found it to be one of the greatest joys of my life. And although I do believe that there is a place for other types of preaching (i.e. topical and textual), I am convinced that in a pastoral setting over the course of time, these other types of sermons are simply inferior for feeding the flock of God when compared to expository preaching. Here are some reasons why I am a committed expository preacher. 

Expository preaching is Biblical preaching. Before too many people get mad and pull their hair out, we must be quick to define our terms. The word “expository” simply means to explain or describe. Therefore, it is possible to preach an expository sermon from a particular text or texts without necessarily preaching through books, verses by verse. But if our preaching doesn’t explain the text, then we aren't preaching biblically. Explaining the text is biblical preaching. Therefore, in this sense expository preaching is biblical preaching. However, it has been my experience as a pastor of over 15 years that true biblical exposition (certainly for pastors who are preaching in the same place from week to week) goes hand in hand with preaching verse by verse through books of the Bible. So for the purposes of this blog, when I talk about expository preaching I am referring mainly to preaching through books of the Bible. (As a side note, it’s important to understand that expository preaching doesn’t ignore tota scriptura. It also doesn’t mean that the pastor can never break away from the schedule and hit on specific things if necessary. These are false caricatures.

Expository preaching makes the pastor a servant to the Scriptures. Before I became a dedicated expository preacher, I would always agonize over what topic and text to preach. This led to a very subjective practice of trying to feel God out or “listen to the Spirit”. I was always trying to find “something that would preach.” However, what I found is that no matter what text or topic I went with, I eventually ended up preaching my hobby horses anyway. Expository preaching forces us to serve the text, not allowing us to use the text for our own purposes. The pastor will be preaching more of the bible and less of himself. 

Expository preaching forces the preacher to deal with hard texts. There are just some hard texts that given a choice, we would never choose to tackle. This forces the pastor to dig deep and exposit these hard texts, which forces him to grow. This also helps the congregation because they have without a doubt wrestled with these hard texts as well. Expository preaching has forced me to wrestle with the consistency of my own doctrine, and as a result caused me to believe in things that I was taught to hate and vice versa. This will almost never happen with a man who consistently takes his presuppositions to a topic or preselected text.  

Expository Preaching Connects the Narrow Emphases With the Broader Context. I cannot accurately put into words how the years of expository preaching have connected the doctrinal dots for me. This is something that topical or textual preaching simply cannot do consistently over the course of time. Last year I visited a church while traveling out of state. The pastor was a topical/textual preacher and his message came from the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15. His whole message was based on the false premise that the elder brother represents saved people who lose their heart for sinners. While the pastor might have said some true things in his sermon, he completely missed the broader point of the text. If he had been preaching through the book of Luke verse by verse, he would have realized that at the beginning of chapter 15 Christ began sharing these parables in front of the Pharisees because they were scoffing at the fact that Jesus accepted publicans and sinners. So when Jesus was giving the parable of the prodigal son, he was condemning the Pharisees as being the elder brother (something they would have easily picked up on). Although they appeared to be better than the prodigal, their hearts were wicked, and they were worse off than sinners who had humbled themselves before the Father. This pastor didn’t know that because his study was limited to one text, separated from its broader context. He had taken his own thoughts and read them into the text of Scripture. Expository preaching greatly nullifies this problem. 

Expository Preaching causes the Pastor and the Church to grow together. The bible was not written in a topical fashion. Therefore, expository preaching brings out the context and authorial intent in ways that are much more difficult for a topical/textual preacher. Consistent expository preaching teaches a congregation how to be expository readers. Each week I am not just teaching my people how to listen, but how to study the bible on their own. Every biblical sermon should answer the following questions; What is the text saying (culture, background, speaker, broader context, etc.), what does the text mean (how would the original audience have understood the message), how can this text apply to my life, and how does this text connect with the gospel. This is very difficult to do when bouncing around from place to place. 

Our congregation knows the general text that I will be preaching from each week. Many of them get ahead of me and study it out. Since they already have an idea of what’s on the menu, this puts pressure on me to put the sheep food out there. I believe that this is one of the greatest reasons that expository preaching is so hated by so many preachers. It leaves very little room for laziness. It doesn’t take that much effort to go to a concordance and hand pick half a dozen verses on the same topic in order to fill up a 30 minute time slot. On the other hand, it takes great dedication to dig out the truth of a text, in context and with authorial intent. 

Expository Study Sustains the Pastor. My preaching would get so stale, dry and repetitive if my sermon ideas always originated with me. Expository study of the Scriptures keeps it fresh and new in my heart. Each week I am digging into the word of God to see what He has to say. Through the trials that my family and I have had to endure over the past several years, I can say without any hesitation that the grace of God and the expository study of the Scriptures have sustained me. 

Expository Preaching Allows the Pastor to Preach the Whole Counsel of God. When a pastor preaches expository sermons week in and week out it means that he will be dealing with issues and doctrines with the same frequency and order as the writers of Scripture. It’s a built in way of avoiding hobby horses and using the pulpit like a Gatling gun in order to straighten out certain problems and people within the church. 

A Perfectly timed war. Far be it from me to insert myself into someone else’s Twitter war but….I had already outlined this blog when I just happened to cruise through my Twitter feed and find the podcast war between the Fundamental Baptist Podcast (hosted by David Baker) and the Starving for Truth Podcast (hosted by Chance Summers and Austin Weist). It just so happens that their fight is over the issue of expository preaching. SFT recently did a podcast on expository preaching. In that episode, Weist admitted that expository preaching led him to become a Calvinist. Baker did a podcast rebuttal in which he called Weist a heretic (although he did not call him by name). Not only that, he made it a point to say that sometimes expository preaching turns people into heretics. This spat gives me a perfect opportunity to deal with some of the common (and not so common) arguments against expository preaching. And also to expose in real time, some of the flaws of topical/textual preaching. 

In order to lay some groundwork, I have never met any of these men. When it comes to the SFT podcast, I have listened to a few episodes. I agree with much of their content, yet disagree with much of their IFB broad brushing. However, I think they are spot on when it comes to this issue of expository preaching (here I am yet again defending the RFP broad brushers, I’m not sure if it’s grace or stupidity, but here it goes).

I am not that familiar with Mr. Baker, but I did listen to his podcast response to SFT. I would like to respectfully confront his arguments against expository preaching (and his promotion of topical preaching). 

As a side note, I really don’t like the spirit of division within the professing body of Christ, I don’t care where it comes from. I completely understand that there are some hills worth dying on, but Mr. Baker pulled out the infamous H-word (I’m talking about heretic) to describe Mr. Weist. Why you might ask, because Weist is a Calvinist. I would like to ask Mr. Baker if this means that Mr. Weist isn’t saved, or that he just really gets on your nerves? Would you use the term “heretic” to describe Calvinists like Spurgeon, Bunyan, Whitefield, Edwards, the KJV translators, or the writers of pretty much every well known Baptist confession prior to the BFM of 1925? Are they heretics too, or is that just for living Calvinists? Honest Question. 

Were Jesus and the Apostles topical preachers? Mr. Baker argued that Jesus and the apostles were topical preachers. This is unsound logic for a few reasons. For starters, we don’t know exactly what they preached, at least not in detail (I am referring to their actual sermons, not their inspired writings). It is doubtful that the biblical account gives us a word for word transcript of their sermons. The longest sermon in the New Testament is the Sermon on the Mount (assuming for the sake of argument the unlikely scenario that this was one continuous discourse). The average reader can read the sermon on the mount in less than four minutes. It’s hard to believe that the entire discourse that Christ gave on that hillside lasted a grand total of four minutes. It’s equally as difficult to believe that Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, Stephen’s discourse before the Sanhedrin or Paul’s plea to Felix were all just a couple of minutes apiece. 

Something else to consider is that we have at least one clear example of Christ engaging in expository preaching from the Old Testament Scriptures (Luke 4:16-21). He stood up in the synagogue, read through Isaiah 61:1 and explained it (this day is the Scripture fulfilled in your ears). 

Also, the inspired writings of the apostles are clearly expositional in nature. When a pastor preaches through what they wrote to the church, verse by verse, their congregation will be hearing what the apostles wrote in the order it was written, in the context it was written and for the purpose that it was written. So I’m not exactly sure what Mr. Baker’s point is. We all know that using the book of Acts in a purely prescriptive way leads to all kinds of heresy. 

No, expository preaching doesn’t create heretics, proof texting does. Mr. Baker called Mr. Weist a heretic due to his podcast comments about how preaching through John 6 (most specifically verse 44) turned him into a Calvinist. Mr. Baker made the point that preaching verse by verse caused his confusion and if he had just studied this topic it would have led him to John 12:32 where it states that if Christ was lifted up on the cross that he would draw “all men” unto himself. This gives me the PERFECT opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of expository vs topical preaching. Let’s break down these two texts and see if Mr. Baker’s argument holds up. 

John 6:36-44- “But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

I am going to do something that Mr. Baker did not do in his podcast, and that is walk through this text in order to find out the context. Jesus was dealing with the problem of unbelief. In this case the people had seen him perform all kinds of miracles. They had also had the privilege of hearing the incarnate Word, preaching the Word. And yet they still didn’t believe. However, unbelief is a universal human problem. In fact, if those thousands rejected the message even after encountering God incarnate, then what chance do any of us have of being saved? Are we just better than them, smarter, more humble or less sinful? Of course not. Christ gives the answer to human unbelief here in the text; the drawing of sinners by the Father, and the giving of them to the Son. Even Jacob Arminius understood that this text was talking about total depravity and the necessity of God’s initiation in salvation (although he had a different view on how this plays out than Calvin and the Reformers). You don’t even have to be a Calvinist in order to see the point of what Jesus is saying. John 6 gives the context of John 6, you don’t have to jump to John 12 in order to give context to John 6. Jesus’ audience didn’t have to wait until the events of John 12 in order to understand what he was saying to them in John 6. Jumping to chapter 12 isn’t an honest attempt to explain John 6, it’s an attempt to explain it away. This is proof texting 101. 

Now let’s break down John 12 in its context. 

John 12:20-32- “And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: 21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. 22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. 23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. 26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour. 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. 29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”

In the context, some Greeks had crashed this Jewish feast in order to hear Jesus. This would not have gone over well as the Jews viewed them as dogs. When Jesus said that when He was lifted up would draw all men unto Himself, it was literally in response to the Greeks being in their midst. He could have very easily been pointing at them when He said it. So He wasn’t talking about drawing every single person without exception, but every kind of person without distinction, all kinds of people. He was speaking of the world of Jews and Gentiles. For anyone who would argue this point I have a few simple questions. Does God draw people unto salvation apart from them hearing the gospel? Of course not. Does everyone hear the gospel in their lifetime? Of course not. Then how does God draw every single individual unto salvation if every single person doesn’t hear the gospel?  It’s a basic deductive argument. However, it’s not even necessary because both John 6 and John 12 present their own respective contexts. There is no need for proof texting. 

Has the reader seen in this short exercise the superiority of expositing the scriptures in context vs building a doctrine by jumping around “topically” from place to place? Proof texting is a cult leader's dream. I live and pastor in the heart of Mormon country Utah. I love to have LDS missionaries in our home so that my family and I can feed them and talk about the gospel. The LDS have no problem quoting verses from the Bible in order to try and prove their point. However, when I make them open up to that particular passage and walk them through it in context I can visibly see them start to squirm. This is because a text without context is a pretext. The Bible in its context destroys their position.  

Some closing thoughts. I really didn’t even scratch the surface of this issue. Certainly more can (and has been) said by much greater minds than my own. However, I do hope that Mr. Baker reconsiders his stance on expository preaching, as well as the “heresy” of fellow believers. I also hope that this has been a help to the pastors who have become a slave to the idea that somehow the Bible isn’t enough. That somehow God needs your feeling the wind of the Spirit in order to keep things exciting. As if the Spirit inspired Scriptures aren’t exciting enough. Expository preaching has transformed my life, doctrine, study habits, relationship with God, family and church, and I am convinced that it will do the same for anyone who is willing to put in the work. 

SDG, Brandon Vaughan, @realbrobrandon

Shiny Happy People; A Lesson in Cults

                                                                      

       Audio Version

     Like millions of others, I watched the “Shiny Happy People '' docu-series this week. There were parts that were very difficult to get through. The details of Josh Duggar’s depravity were nauseating. Hearing from the victims of both Bill Gothard and his brother, Steve, were heartbreaking. Seeing some of the Duggar children (now adults) talk about the deception and hurt that they experienced from their father made me angry. If these things don’t upset us, there is something wrong in our hearts. I grieve for the victims of both sexual and spiritual abuse. 

This blog article will be different from many of my other reviews in that I am assuming that the reader has already seen the series. Therefore, I won’t be giving a detailed review. Although I will give commentary about certain things in the series, my goal is to focus on a response based on answering the questions of “how did this happen”, and “where do we go from here?” Here are my scattered thoughts.

 

What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Imagine this scenario; a man who has never even pastored in a local church acquires pope-like influence in hundreds, if not thousands of churches across the country for decades. Sound crazy? What about this same man, who has never been married, writing books on marriage and hosting sold out marriage conferences all over? Seem a little far-fetched? Ok, ok, what about this same man, who has never had any children, writing books on parenting and hosting sold out family conferences everywhere? Not to mention building a homeschool empire that would amass millions of dollars. I mean, what could possibly go wrong? Enter Bill Gothard. 

“Security” Over Freedom. I was saved and discipled in an IFB church. I first became acquainted with Bill Gothard around 15 years ago, but not in the way that you might think. There was a family singing group passing through our area. Our pastor, having heard of the group, asked them to come and sing for us during a Sunday evening service. After the service was over the mother of the group began passing out Bill Gothard’s material to some of the ladies in our church. When this news got back to my pastor he went around and gathered up all of the materials that had been passed out and threw them in the garbage can (thank God for my pastor). Needless to say, that singing group never set foot in our church again. 

I learned two things that day, my pastor had a disdain for Gothard, and Gothard was a man of great influence. The question is how? How could a man rise to such fame and influence in an arena in which he didn’t have enough credentials to work in the concession stand? I believe that the answer to that question can be found in one word, security. 

Gothard rose to prominence in the middle of the sexual revolution of the 60’s and 70’s. The church was engrossed in a culture war that it was clearly losing. Societal norms like the nuclear family and the marital confines of sex were under a full scale assault. Illicit drugs were making their way across the border at an unprecedented rate. Rock and roll music was taking the youth by storm. Parents were afraid for their children. Grandparents were afraid for their grandchildren. Pastors were afraid for their churches. And in walks this soft spoken, polished man who seemed to have all of the answers. 

These answers came in the form of rules. There were rules for dress, rules for hair styles, rules for authority, rules for finances, rules for business practices, rules for marriage, rules for having children, rules, rules rules. The overarching message was clear, do what Gothard says and everything will be alright. God will bless you and your children will turn out right. Do this and God will do that. Gothard often spoke about what he called, “Staying under the umbrella of God’s protection” through the keeping of these rules. It reminds me of Grug from the movie “The Croods” saying, “the rules keep us alive! Never not be afraid!”  

It’s important to understand that this comes from an old playbook; the fear of the masses leading to control of the masses. We see this in Amish culture (the world is so evil that we must isolate ourselves from it and we will be ok). It’s definitely in Mormon culture where I live and pastor (the church and the bible have been corrupted but we can trust our church leaders and their ordinances). We also see it in communist countries (life is hard and scary but we can trust our government to take care of us). Sadly, we even see it within certain sects of the “Christian” church (we might be saved by grace, but we have to earn God’s blessing and protection by keeping the rules). 

 I am continually amazed at the tendency of the human spirit to be inclined to choose supposed security over freedom. I recently read a book by Yeonmi Park entitled In Order to Live. Yeonmi was born and raised in the tyranny of North Korea where she faced unspeakable oppression from the communists. As a teenager she managed to escape to China, only to be kidnapped by sex traffickers. After two years in that horrible situation she was able to escape and finally make it to South Korea. She was granted citizenship and for the first time in her life experienced the taste of true freedom. She could do whatever she wanted, get a job, go to college, get married, etc. However, Yeonmi wasn’t used to this freedom at all. She recognized that she would be responsible for her choices and the ensuing consequences. At times the freedom of choice became so burdensome that Yeonmi stated, “some days I actually wished that I had a dictator to make all of those choices for me.” In the world of American Evangelicalism, Bill Gothard gladly volunteered for the position. However, born again Christians know that both freedom and security come through the gospel of Christ. 

Fundamentalist or No? Language is always evolving. There are certain words that mean something totally different than they did even a hundred years ago. One of these words is “fundamentalist” (as it pertains to Christians). A hundred years ago, a fundamentalist was simply a person who believed the fundamentals of the Christian faith. By that definition I am a glad fundamentalist. But that’s not what the word means anymore, it just doesn’t. Today the word “fundamentalist” refers to a crazy, cultic sect of Christianity. It’s now seen in the same way as fundamentalist Muslims who strap bombs to their chest, or fundamentalist Mormons who practice polygamy. The question is, do we continue to fight for and use this word to describe Bible believing Christians or do we just let it go? One thing is for sure, the producers of SHP tried their best to lump all of us together (more on this later). 

Let’s just pretend for the sake of argument that we have let that word go. It now means a crazy cult. What makes fundamentalism a cult? Why do so many cults seem to share so many similarities? I believe that the same type of recipes make the same type of cake. Let’s look at this cultic recipe. 

Unquestioned Leadership. In the cult 101 handbook, page 1 (I am being facetious), you will find that without a cult leader(s), you can’t be a true cult. In order for someone to rise to the level of cult leader they have to rise above any external standard. In other words, there can be no standard higher than themselves. In Mormonism, the modern day “apostles” supposedly get messages straight from God. This cannot be vetted, therefore they cannot be questioned. And because God is always progressing it doesn’t even matter if they contradict other Mormon apostles of the past (check). Jehovah’s witnesses are not allowed to read and interpret the bible or any Christian literature on their own. They have to have one of their leaders interpret it for them (check). Let’s be honest. How many of us have sat in a Baptist church and heard a Baptist pastor say things like, “The Lord told me”, or “the Lord laid this message on my heart”, or “the Lord gave me this message.” I was guilty of this as a young preacher. I was parroting what I had heard. However, as someone who pastors in a culture full of mysticism and subjective truth, I am pleading for it to stop. If we can’t simply say, “the Word of God says” then we need to stop preaching. 

What’s interesting about Gothard’s case is that he wasn’t even a preacher per se. He certainly wasn’t a pastor, and yet his para-church organization (IBLP) had an unbelievable influence upon so many churches. It makes me wonder where all of the pastors were and what they were doing at the time. On a personal level, this is something that has always disturbed me about the Duggars. There have been extended periods of time over the years in which they did not belong to a local church. Instead they would have "family church" and listen to messages by Gothard. This is a huge red flag for me.

Another thing about Gothard (and we have to get this) is that while he didn’t use any extra biblical revelation like Joseph Smith, he butchered the Bible so badly that ultimately Gothard’s own thoughts were the standard. This is known as eisegesis, where a person comes up with their own ideas and tries to cram those ideas into Scripture. There are pulpits all over the country where this takes place every week. When this happens, the Word of God isn’t the standard, the preacher is. True biblical interpretation comes through exegesis, where the preacher pulls the meaning from the text, in context with authorial intent. This is why I am a huge proponent of expository preaching over purely topical. But that is another blog for another day.

Here is the crazy thing about cultic evangelicals. They would never admit that a man is above the Word of God, and yet many buy into the mindset that the MOG (Man of God) would never do anything wrong and cannot be questioned. I recently read a report about a pastor/Christian School principal who had sexually abused a teenage girl for over a year. During school hours he would have this girl come alone into his office for “counseling”, and shut the door. He also had his secretary who was just outside the door turn on a white noise machine to drown out any noise coming from his office (are you kidding me). Not only that but this man also bought this girl a cell phone that everyone knew about. The staff knew something wasn’t right, but they felt guilty for questioning the MOG. This is occult 101. The FBI often uses the code DLR (Doesn’t Look Right). When you see a preacher or pastor commit a DLR, in the name of all that’s good and decent, ask questions, speak up. Any man who isn’t willing to clear up a misunderstanding is a snake in the grass. (See Wolves Among Lambs by Stacey Shiflett)

A Playground for Predators. In all my years of pastoring I have never come across a true blue cult that didn’t have sexual predators in it, not once. I think there are some factors that contribute to this. First, once a group of people have placed a leader(s) above God’s word then they are at the mercy of that person. And if that person has intentionally placed themselves in that position of power, then we already know everything that we need to know about their character. 

The second major factor has to do with boundaries. As a father of three (two of them being girls) I am intensely aware of the fact that one of my greatest responsibilities as a parent is to instill within them a sense of healthy and appropriate boundaries. Wolves can sense a weakness in the boundary line and will exploit them given an opportunity. 

In a culture like IBLP the system is designed for the exact opposite to take place. Instead of healthy boundaries being built up, they are actually being torn down. When young women and girls (and boys for that matter) are so browbeat about everything, they lose their sense of value and worth, as well as personal space and ownership. This ultimately gets rid of their “NO”. I have counseled people who were sexually abused as a child, who were also abused even as an adult. The story is always the same, “I don’t even feel like my body belongs to me, therefore I had nothing to protect in that moment.” They had lost their “NO”. 

It then comes as no surprise that the wolves would be attracted to a flock with no fence. This is why I was so flabbergasted by the fact that Gothard was allowed to surround himself with vulnerable young girls as his “assistants” even after hours when the building was empty. There was even a joke around the office about Gothard choosing all of the blondes (lost sheep to shepherd, we’ve got a DLR  down at the IBLP headquarters, over). This also illustrates another point, wolves place sheep in positions of leadership around them which is why nobody seems to do anything. And years later we all watch documentaries like SHP with our jaws on the floor, wondering how something like this could happen. 

Compliance Over Submission. This blog has already gotten longer than I had hoped and I’m planning on writing another blog on this one issue, so I will be short here. I will simply say that many of our churches have confused submission with compliance. An armed robber gets compliance from the bank teller when he shoves a gun in her face and demands money. This is not the same as submission. Submission is the loving desire to follow someone that has earned their respect and trust. In this way, submission cannot be demanded any more than love, it must be earned. People like Gothard and IBLP don’t really care about earning submission, they only want to demand compliance. And there is a huge difference between those things. This is another highlight of cult 101. 

Reformed or Reborn? There is a big difference between unity and uniformity. Unity is made up of different types of people with a mutual love, respect and cause (i.e. unity in Christ). Uniformity is everyone being coerced into looking, talking, dressing and acting the same way (the rules). Uniformity only goes skin deep. It doesn’t change a person’s heart. This is an attempt to reform those who haven’t been reborn, or as we used to say in the South, "putting lipstick on a pig." 

One of the hallmarks of the Pharisees was that they were concerned with “shining the outside of the cup, but inside they were full of deadly poison” (Shiny Happy people right?). Personally, this is one of the saddest things about false religion and cults in general. All people are born slaves to their own sin nature anyway. Instead of teaching them the gospel of grace in which a person can be forgiven and made a new creature through repentance and faith in Christ and His finished work on the cross, they are repressed by rules. So instead of someone being set free from their sin, that sinful nature is repressed and caged. It’s like shaking up a Pepsi bottle and expecting it not to blow. I believe that this is one of the greatest causes of the deconstructionist movement. This brings me in for a landing. 

Recognizing a Trojan Horse. I can appreciate the producers of SHP for giving these victims a voice. They need to be heard. The wolves need to be exposed for what they are, absolutely. However, for anyone paying attention, the implications were clear, this is Christianity and Christianity=Bad. I am not upset at the documentary as a whole. I think for those that are, you are actually feeding the narrative. The only way that people will know a difference between true Christianity and false cults is to be different. This is why I want to make it clear that I wholeheartedly reject Gothard and the IBLP. They teach and preach a false gospel and have horribly misrepresented biblical Christianity. I wish they would remove all of their books, sell all of their buildings, publicly condemn their leadership and repent in sackcloth and ashes. I am an Independent Baptist and I want to scream from the rooftop that they don’t represent me or my Christ. 

One Ditch is Not Better Than the Other. I couldn’t help but notice that some of the journalists and experts scattered throughout the series are openly atheists and/or LGBT+ affirming (this wasn't brought out in the series, but I know them through their other work). I would like to point out a couple of ironies here. First, from an atheistic perspective, they have abandoned any standard of absolute truth and therefore have no way to even define right or wrong, good or evil. The consistent and honest atheist has no basis or justification in which to condemn Gothard or Josh Duggar for anything. Evil by what standard? Wrong by what standard? Vile by what standard? Atheism isn’t the solution. 

I also want to point out that the whole trans experiment is a VERY recent phenomenon. I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet but it would not surprise me at all if years down the road we will be watching documentaries about the horrible damages done to children who were made to be guinea pigs in this awful experiment. Unbridled sexual fantasy isn’t the answer. 

What is the Solution? SHP is a documentary slamming Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar for their affiliation with Gothard and the IBLP. But ironically, the solution comes from another Duggar that received very little attention in SHP. I am talking about Jinger Duggar Vuolo. She recently wrote a Book entitled Becoming Free Indeed, My Story of Disentangling Faith From Fear. I will let Jinger give us the solution in her own words. “Perhaps you are reading this book and you are not a Christian. Maybe you reject the strict, conservative religious community that raised you, and you picked up this book hoping I was going to tell you that I had turned my back on my faith. You were imagining a story of enlightenment: a religious girl raised to always wear skirts and never kiss boys became an atheist or agnostic and now believes the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fairy tales. Sorry to disappoint you. That’s not my story. My faith is as strong as it’s ever been—not because Christianity tells me the right way to live or unlocks some “key to success” but because I can find no one more compelling, more lovely, more hopeful than Jesus. When I look at the man-made rules I put so much hope in when I was young, I see only emptiness. More emptiness and hopelessness would have greeted me if I turned to the world, just as they’ve greeted so many who have gone down that path. There is only one place to turn for the kind of hope that never fails: Jesus Christ. I can’t leave Christianity because only there can I find Christ. He is worth it. If you’ve left man-made religion, don’t replace it with a religion of your own choosing. Replace it with a person. Jesus. He is all that’s left—and all I will ever need—at the end of my story of disentanglement.”

There it is. The solution isn’t more rules, or no rules at all. It’s not a dead religion or deconstructionism. It’s not in a man or an organization. The solution is Jesus Christ and His death, burial and resurrection for sinners! Sin has many masks, including religion and atheism, and neither one is better than the other. Mankind’s greatest problem is sin, therefore his greatest need is a Savior. 

Some Final Thoughts on Cults. Cults come in all shapes and sizes. They don’t have to be large organizations. I have seen cultic Baptist churches with less than 30 members. Just remember the hallmarks of a cult, unquestioned leadership, extra-biblical revelation, man made rules as a means of personal holiness, constantly tearing people down instead of building them up, a lack of focus on the finished work of Christ, all grit and no grace. 

Last but not least, Jesus was always compassionate to sinners, but he was always firm with the false teachers who were enslaving the sinners. I think that this is a great lesson when it comes to examining groups like the IBLP. The leaders have been exposed and that is a good thing. But we need to remember that within such a large group there are no doubt good people who have been taken advantage of. No one joins a group like IBLP with the intention of things turning out like they did. It is very possible for any of us to be sincerely wrong. We must extend grace and compassion while speaking truth. We must remember that hindsight is always 20/20. My children aren’t grown yet, but one day they will be. Everyday I try to parent with this in mind. One day my parenting will be reviewed by my adult children. I believe that it will be ok if I recognize that The Lord is reviewing me now. I want to raise my children in such a way that they are independent of me and dependent upon Christ. 

SDG, Brandon Vaughan, @realbrobrandon

P.S. if you are concerned that you may be in a cult, or if you have been the victim of sexual or spiritual abuse, my wife and I WILL be an advocate for you. You can reach me at preacherofgrace@yahoo.com

Resources for consideration:

Wolves Among Lambs, Stacey Shiflett

Finally Free Indeed, Jinger Duggar Vuolo