John Cornish

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

And the sparks flew: more thoughts on my ATI article

In Uncategorized on May 24, 2011 at 4:21 pm

Wow, what a month it has been. Finals, a trip to New York, a wife in her third trimester, Easter/Good Friday at church…whew. On top of all of that was my last blog post, which turned into something I never would have imagined. What was honestly just a cathartic opportunity for me to write out my story turned out to be an experience only God could have arranged.

As of right now, that blog entry has gotten 4,476 hits and has been shared 843 times on facebook. I spent about 5 hours writing my story last month, and have spent triple that replying to dozens of emails and facebook messages. I actually just now got caught up answering all of those.

What was the response I received? Well, naturally, it was mixed. Comments ranged from former ATI/IFBers thanking me for writing it to current ATI/IFBers accusing me of living in rebellion to God. However, the vast majority of comments were very encouraging.

Many have encouraged me to write more about this issue, and I may from time to time address issues related to ATI and or the IFB. However, my primary calling and gifting is in the area of music and worship, and the majority of my writing on this blog will still be about those and other related subjects. I do participate in a couple of online forums in which ATI/IFB issues are discussed, so I am able to more specifically address issues that affect “survivors.”

Nevertheless, in the process of watching this all unfold, answering e-mails, observing facebook interactions, holding personal conversations, I’ve realized that I have just a few follow-up thoughts. While I stand by the article as it is, there are a few points that I think are worth fleshing out just a bit more so I can be perfectly clear where I stand. Call it an addendum, if you will.


One of the criticisms I received is the typical legalistic response to someone who emphasizes grace: that my acceptance of grace somehow equates to an abuse of spiritual liberty. Some pointed to my life choices (which in their minds are very liberal) as validation of this point.

So let me be clear: the grace of God does not give us freedom to live however we choose. However, it gives us the freedom to know that when we fail, He still loves us and forgives us. As Paul writes in Romans 6, we should not therefore sin simply so we can receive God’s grace, but in response to His grace we should endeavor to please Him.

You see, it’s all about motivation. Legalists are motivated by fear. Christians are to be motivated by love. Gothard teaches that grace is the power and desire to do God’s will. He also teaches that as we obey God, He gives us more grace. This is only partially true, and leads to a cycle of fear and failure. Think with me about how scary this cycle can mentally become: if grace is the desire to obey God, and I get this grace by obeying God, then what happens when I fail God? Obviously, He won’t give me more grace, and I won’t have the power to obey Him.

Now, this desire and power to do God’s will IS a biblical manifestation of grace. However, this desire comes from a heart of gratitude and love for God as He expresses His grace in and through us.


Another criticism I received was from a few IFBers questioning whether it was fair of me to include them in the title, since my personal experience was more with ATI and Gothardism. While I stated in the articles that they are not the same organization, my reason for including both entities in the title and content was two-fold. First, I knew that the IFB issue was on a lot of people’s minds, and I knew it would resonate with a lot of people. Secondly and most importantly, the point of the article was not to expose any group or organization, but rather to expose a mindset that permeates both ATI and the IFB. See, the “ATI/IFB world” as I referred to it is not an organizational structure, rather it is a way of approaching life from a legalistic perspective. The sheer volume of emails I received from IFB members applauding what I wrote is confirmation that this was not an error in judgment.


In my article, I tried to warn of the dangers of ATI. Some people thought I overreacted. One reader commented that ATI could still be used, as long as one kept it in balance. While I personally think that is impossible (ATI has too many requirements to even get into the program), why would one want to play with fire? There are a lot of good things in Mormonism, too, but I’m not becoming a Mormon.

Honestly, I could spend pages writing about the spiritual carnage caused by Bill Gothard. I have spent quite a bit of time on forums created by and for ATI “survivors,” and in comparison to many of the stories I’ve heard, what I experienced was very mild. For every ATI student who survives, there are many more that have left the faith entirely. Bill Gothard has left behind a generation of homeschooled students who are afraid of religion, socially inept, abused, scarred, addicted, and hurt. Yes, many have made it through. Many have not.

Based on what I have experienced, what I know, and what I have witnessed, ATI is extremely dangerous. My heart breaks for the thousands of children who are in it today.


Something that I was challenged on was whether I was fair in my criticism of Bill Gothard. Not his teachings, but who he is as a person, his motivations, etc. While I can never know a person’s motivation or heart, I can know what they do and don’t do. And I have come to several conclusions based on what Bill has not done. These conclusions came partially as a result of a dialogue with someone who knows Gothard personally.

  1. Bill has not publically responded to or accepted the criticism of other theologians, pastors, or church leaders who have challenged him on his interpretation of scripture.
  2. Bill does not surround himself with those who will challenge him.
  3. Bill has never rebuked his followers who idolize him or done anything to deflect the glory, fame, or credit from himself.
  4. Bill has never rebuked his followers who have judgmental spirits and attitudes.

I have also heard a number of accounts from friends who have had personal interactions with Bill that would make your stomach turn.

In summary, I would view Bill in much the same way I view Harold Camping. Did Camping intend to deceive and defraud his followers out of millions of dollars, costing them years of their lives? Probably not. But what he did was still wicked.

Likewise, did Bill Gothard intend to cause carnage within the hearts of thousands of children, causing them years of heartache and spiritual confusion? Probably not. From all accounts, he only ever wanted to help young people. However, he is still accountable for the damage he has done. And the fact that he has never taken responsibility for his actions makes him dangerous still.


So with that, I wrap up this topic for a while. I’ve said what I needed to say, and I hope I’ve brought some clarity to my position. As always, I’m available by email at if you have specific questions.


The Sacred and the Profane: aka Godzillapaper…

In Ministry, Music, Uncategorized, Worship on November 18, 2010 at 4:32 pm

A lot of you know I’ve been working on a term paper on the subject of popular music and worship. Those of you who are interested in reading the fruit of mylabors can read the entire paper here: The Sacred and the Profane. Beware, it is not for the faint of heart (or those with short attention spans).

For the rest of you, here is just the introduction…

The corporate worship of God is a sacred activity. It is a divine occupation that transcends the normal busyness of life by providing Christians an opportunity to engage in dialogue with Almighty God. It is a mystical conversation between God and man in which God reveals some small part of himself and in response we humbly declare his praise. Furthermore, it is an opportunity for believers to join with one another corporately as they speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

Standing at odds with the worship of God in any shape or form is the fallen world in which we live. Although created by God for his glory, our world in its fallen state has failed and continues to fail to intentionally bring him the glory he deserves. Undoubtedly, God’s glory is still manifested in many ways, not the least of which is his creation and in his benevolent dealings with mankind. But on the whole, our fallen world serves other gods, one of the most influential being the god of culture.

Historically and biblically, one of the primary elements of the corporate worship experience is that of music. Music provides a vehicle for the expression of worship that is nothing short of a gift from God. From the earliest wanderings of the children of Israel in the desert through the glorious visions of worship seen by the apostle John in the book of Revelation, the Bible is full of accounts of music being used as a tool in worship settings. As such, it is a sacred tool, given to us by God so that we may more richly and fully engage in the sacred activity of worshiping Him.

The Conundrum

However, as much as one might think such a sacred tool would be inherently separate from any other use, this is not the case. What is such a capable and fitting tool for the service of worship also fundamentally fulfills several other purposes in our world, including communication and entertainment. In fact, it has served a multitude of purposes in all cultures since the dawn of creation. Such is the power of music, and such is its influence in our daily lives.

Naturally, a problem presents itself when we are faced with the fact that those in our world find enjoyment in forms of music that could possibly stand in opposition to the sacredness of worship. If music is a form of communication, then what does a secular culture communicate through music? Surely it does not communicate the righteousness of God. If it is mere entertainment, do the unregenerate find amusement in the things of God? Most certainly they do not. As such, what does the music of a specific culture communicate and how does it express it?

These questions present a number of fundamental difficulties to those responsible for leading worship. What do we do when God’s precious gift of music intersects with a fallen world? What is the result when that which is sacred is mixed intentionally or unintentionally with that which is profane? Should we fight to the bitter end to keep them separate? Should we allow the two to coexist peacefully? Should we seek to redeem one with the other?

The exploration of these issues is the goal of this paper. In all honesty, this discussion will undoubtedly raise more questions than it answers. However, this dialogue must be taking place among those who lead worship in our churches. At the risk of over-generalization, it is my observation that many of the leaders who are responsible for services of worship in America are simply blindly following popular trends and the whims of mass media marketing. Many church leaders are not even aware that there is a potential conflict of interest taking place week after week. My first and foremost goal in this paper is to provoke a dialogue as to what is acceptable for the sacred activity of worship. We owe it to those whom we shepherd to be able to give an educated response concerning our philosophy of music in worship as it intersects with secular culture.

 This paper intends to provoke dialogue by exploring both the terminology and philosophical perspectives needed to hold an informed discussion of this issue. It will also present several possible approaches to the reconciliation of worship music and culture and analyze the strengths and weaknesses of each approach from both philosophical and biblical perspectives. As a framework for this part of the discussion, I will be using H. Richard Niebuhr’s classic work Christ and Culture.

Finally, I hope to encourage humility in this ongoing discussion as worship scholars, worship leaders, pastors, and worshipers wrestle with a deeply divisive issue that has been approached from numerous standpoints throughout the history of the church. As one who has engaged in such dialogues in both academic and casual settings, I am well aware of how intensely personal any discussion is in which validity of one’s philosophy of ministry is called into question. Nevertheless, this conversation is unavoidable. It is indeed possible that there will never be any consensus on this issue, but such is the nature of the body of Christ. Regardless, it is the duty of those in church leadership to develop well-informed responses.