In all likelihood, the current myth that “Heresy is getting Jesus wrong,” which pops up from time to time, can be traced back to the Second English Act of Supremacy of 1558 (sometimes titled 1559, the year of its approval), which was part of the Elizabethan Religious Settlement under Elizabeth I which reestablished Protestantism as the faith of the Church of England following the reign of Mary I (Bloody Mary). It declared that anyone acting under the authority of the monarch…shall not in any wise have authority or power to order, determine, or adjudge any matter or cause to be heresy, but only such as heretofore have been determined, ordered, or adjudged to be heresy, by the authority of the canonical Scriptures, or by the first four general Councils…or such as hereafter shall be ordered, judged, or determined to be heresy by the High Court of Parliament of this realm, with the assent of the clergy in their Convocation.14

In his 1978 speech, “How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later,” science fiction writer Philip K. Dick (who wrote the book that became the movie Blade Runner) wrote, “The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words. George Orwell made this clear in his novel 1984.” Forty-five years later we find ourselves living in a world where perhaps most of the conflicts in public discourse are somehow connected to the manipulation of words.
Suddenly, words like “gender,” “racism,” and “equity” don’t mean what they used to mean. Meanwhile, our ears and social media accounts are bombarded by new terms like “microagression,” “intersectionality,” and “cultural appropriation.” If it seems as though other worldviews are wrestling for control of the English language’s steering wheel that’s only because they are.
“Haven’t You Heard It’s a Battle of Words?”
It should come as no surprise that today’s word manipulators gravitate to terms that carry maximum impact on hearts and minds. This is true whether they’re coining new terms or plundering old ones. As Robert J. Lifton explained long ago, people who practice this, whom he called “totalists,” “live in an environment characterized by the thought-terminating cliché.”2 They conscript words and phrases into the service of their ideology, strip them of their former identities, shave their heads, and put them in new ideological uniforms. In the war of ideas, words are the boots on the ground. They must be drilled into disciplined troops.
Does the reigning ideology require that the LGBTQ+ agenda be accepted by Christians? Then positive, inviting words like “affirming” must be drafted into service and applied to those churches who cooperate with that agenda. Those who don’t are obviously “haters” and “bigots.” (These are but early assault troops paving the way for the full-on invasion of elite forces like “gender non-conforming,” “transphobia,” and “lived experience,” thus signaling that the occupation is fully underway.)
But what if the other side mobilizes its own time-tested terminology in defense of its opposing beliefs? For example, how does the ideology defend itself against a word like “heresy?” Obviously, that word must be captured, re-educated, if you will, and assigned to its appropriate place on the battlefield.
“LGBTQ+? Where Do the Early Creeds Even Mention That?”
One of the most common ways of doing that with the word “heresy” is to limit its firepower. To slightly mix metaphors here, throughout church history “heresy” has served as a kind of “military assault weapon,”3 if you will, in theological battles. In a far less tolerant time, countless people were executed, often rather gruesomely, for heresy.
Of course, for the past few centuries the worst thing that can happen to most people accused of heresy is that they might have to find another place to go to church. Even so, that is now considered cruel and unusual punishment in the rhetoric of today’s ideologues (who will gladly “cancel” you out of your career and social circle if you step out of their prescribed verbal line).4
So, in recent years, many have tried to retool the weapon of the word “heresy” to degrade its functionality. They realize they can’t scrap it altogether, so they try to rebuild it with a much shorter range and less ammunition capacity, mainly so that it can’t be effectively used against them.
Perhaps the most popular way of doing this has been to limit the number of doctrines that “heresy” is able to target by insisting that it can only be applied to a limited set of doctrines—specifically, those doctrines that were established within the first half-millennium of the Christian church concerning the Deity of Christ and the Trinity, specifically at early church councils like the one that produced the Nicene Creed, which is still recited in many churches. This way, they can claim that current controversies over issues of sexual morality have nothing to do with heresy.
I once had a pastor in my own denomination tell me, “Heretics deny Nicea, not Westminster,”5 the Westminster Confession of Faith being one of our denominational standards affirming such things as the sole authority of Scripture and justification by faith alone, which are not found in the Nicene Creed. He couldn’t be more wrong.
If they can fool educated, conservative, Bible-believing Christians into accepting this canard, they will have effectively disarmed them of an important weapon in the battle over the teachings of God’s word.
A Recent Example
Several days before I wrote most of this on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, i.e., X, Megan Basham called out LGBTQ+ “affirming” pastor Kevin M. Young for “his heresies regarding sexuality.”6. Two minutes later, Christian and Missionary Alliance pastor Ben Marsh upbraided her, telling her to “get a life.”7 Less than a half-hour later, Basham asked Marsh to tell her “whether what Kevin Young teaches about homosexuality and transgenderism is heresy, which led to the following exchange a few minutes later. 
Read More
Related Posts:

Gothard says we can transfer ourselves back into Satan’s realm at any time, not by, say, apostatizing from the Christian faith, but simply by getting “out from under” our “umbrella of protection,”8 by which he means things like disobeying our bosses or our parents. While Paul says, “But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one,” (2 Thessalonians 3:3 ESV), Gothard says if you don’t remain under your “umbrella of protection,” God will stop guarding you against Satan and allow him to rain down “destruction” upon you.9

I’ve spent a fair chunk of my life researching Bill Gothard, interviewing him, warning others about him, and debating him and his followers. So, when someone comes along and accuses a well-known Christian of teaching Gothard’s concepts, it tends to get my attention, especially when said Christian has been in the public eye for more than 40 years. It’s an extraordinary claim—and a sobering one—that makes me want to look into it.
Recently I learned that, two days before I published my article titled, “Hi, Megan! About those tweets from Rachael Denhollander…,” Denhollander’s husband Jacob tweeted about “Bill Gothard’s ‘Umbrella of Authority’ concept.” He was trying to use this concept to establish a direct link between Bill Gothard and John MacArthur.
Actually, he was claiming more than a “link.” He asserted that MacArthur’s teaching on “male/female relationships” is conceptually identical to Gothard’s, that he was “using” Gothard’s “concept.”
Again, this was an extraordinary claim. If there was any truth to it, I really wanted to know.
Jacob Denhollander’s Allegation
This is what he tweeted above a screenshot of a web page containing one of MacArthur’s sermons from 1986:1
Here’s John MacArthur using Bill Gothard’s “Umbrella of Authority” concept–his unique and extremely influential way of explaining male/female relationships.
The commonality is there for anyone with any familiarity, regardless of how formal it was.2
Denhollander’s wording is important. He claims that when MacArthur said that a woman “is to be under the umbrella of male protection, provision, authority, and direction,” he wasn’t merely using Gothard’s “umbrella of authority” language, but his “umbrella of authority” concept.
Gothard’s preferred way of stating his concept is that “authority is like an ‘umbrella of protection,’”3 rather than simply calling it an “umbrella of authority.” And in 1986, MacArthur used language that is at least formally similar to Gothard’s: “umbrella of male protection, provision, authority, and direction.” But as Denhollander himself seems to note, the only thing his citation of MacArthur proves is formal similarity. His allegation of conceptual identity (not mere similarity) can’t be demonstrated from the text alone. It requires “familiarity” with the teachings of both men.
So, precisely what is Gothard’s concept—his unique and extremely influential way of explaining male/female relationships—that Denhollander alleges MacArthur “used?” I think I have some familiarity with it.
First of all, let’s get one thing clear…
Gothard’s “authority is like an ‘umbrella of protection’” concept is not simply his way of explaining male/female relationships. It’s his way of explaining everyone’s relationships: a wife’s relationship to her husband, a child’s relationships to his parents, a man’s relationship to his boss (women shouldn’t work outside the home, according to Gothard), a couple’s relationship to their pastor, a citizen’s relationship to his government, people’s relationship to God—just about every relationship outside of siblings and friends. Wives are not the only ones subject to it, nor are men exempt from it. It is all-inclusive and does not discriminate on the basis of sex.
Now, in every theological error, there is usually an element of truth. Gothard’s errors are no exception. If you’re going to explain God-established human authority in terms of an “umbrella of protection,” it makes perfect sense from a historic Protestant perspective to apply it to all of our relationships and not just one kind since historic Protestant teaching locates the source of all legitimate human authority in the fifth commandment. We see this, for instance, in the Westminster Larger Catechism of 1647:
Q. 124. Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
A. By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.4
The Christians of the Reformation and their successors poured a great deal of work into establishing the biblical basis for what the catechism says here, which is that all relationships that entail authority and submission, whether found in the family or in one of society’s hierarchies, are governed by the commandment to honor our parents. This may sound strange to most people today, but it was a common Christian understanding several generations ago. The catechism I just cited contains a lot more on this subject than the part I quoted here. You may find it helpful to consult its context.5
Evangelicals today who insist that marital and family relationships should bear no trace of submission to authority are signaling their decisive break with (and perhaps ignorance of) historic Protestantism on this issue. Most of them are probably okay with that, but all this is simply to say that on this narrow point—the existence of authority and submission in human relationships—Gothard has not broken with historic Christian theology. He is, in fact, in harmony with it. And so is MacArthur.
But if the problem with Gothard’s “umbrella of protection” is not with the fact that its view of authority is so all-encompassing, what exactly is the problem with it?
“Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.” —Dorothy, The Wizard of Oz
What does Gothard specifically mean by “authority is like an ‘umbrella of protection’” that makes it so bad? What specific theological content does he pour into his figurative umbrella that makes his use of these terms so toxic? Once you start reading his literature, the answer isn’t hard to find. In his Basic Seminar textbook, Gothard wrote:
Authority is like an “umbrella of protection,” and when we get out from under it, we expose ourselves to unnecessary temptations which are too strong for us to overcome. This is why Scripture compares rebellion to witchcraft – “Rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft.” (I Samuel 15:23) Both terms have the same basic definition – subjecting ourselves to the realm and power of Satan.6
And in supplemental materials to the Basic Seminar, Gothard reinforces his concept:
The “umbrella of protection” symbolizes the fact that as long as we are under God-given authority, nothing can happen to us that God does not design for His glory and our ultimate good. (See Romans 8:28-29). 7
It’s difficult to imagine a more subtle and effective theft of the believer’s comfort and assurance than the one Gothard pulls off in these few words. With an utterly reckless disregard for context, he takes the unconditional promise God makes to all His children in Romans 8:28-29 that all things will work for their good and makes it conditional upon submitting to human authorities.
To be clear: Christians cannot “subject [themselves] to the realm and power of Satan.” Salvation in Christ makes this a spiritual impossibility because,
¹³ He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, ¹⁴ in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Colossians 1:13-14 ESV)
Gothard’s word “realm” and Paul’s word “domain” (ἐξουσία, exousía: “authority,” “jurisdiction”) are both functionally synonymous with each other here and functionally synonymous with Paul’s other word, “kingdom,” although Paul’s “domain” is more comprehensive in the sense that it excludes believers from being under Satan’s power in any way. This is what Paul means when he says we’ve been rescued from Satan’s kingdom and given full citizenship in Christ’s kingdom (cf. Ephesians 2:19; Philippians 3:20). Keeping all this in mind, let’s stick with Gothard’s word, “realm,” since it’s his concept we’re discussing.
While Paul says believers have been decisively delivered from and transferred out of Satan’s realm and into Christ’s realm so Satan no longer has any claim over us, Gothard says we can transfer ourselves back into Satan’s realm at any time, not by, say, apostatizing from the Christian faith, but simply by getting “out from under” our “umbrella of protection,”8 by which he means things like disobeying our bosses or our parents.
While Paul says, “But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one,” (2 Thessalonians 3:3 ESV), Gothard says if you don’t remain under your “umbrella of protection,” God will stop guarding you against Satan and allow him to rain down “destruction” upon you.9
While the Apostle John repeatedly assures born-again believers that we have already overcome “the evil one” (1 John 2:13-14) and that the God who indwells us is greater than Satan (4:4) who therefore “does not touch” us (5:18), and thus the primary motive for confession of sin (1:9) is to restore a close relationship with our loving Father (3:1), Gothard terrorizes Christian consciences by teaching confession is necessary to “reclaim the ground that we have given Satan the ‘legal right’ to occupy.”10
Even though you’d never guess it from reading the whole epistle to the Romans, according to Gothard, the promise in 8:28-29 that everything works together for the good of believers is contingent on staying under your multiple “umbrellas of protection.”
Little wonder that Jinger Duggar Vuolo, who grew up on this teaching, writes:
Gothard didn’t teach me to be in awe of who God is and what He’s done, especially through Jesus Christ. Instead, he taught me to focus primarily on God’s punishment. I learned to fear what God could do to me. While the Bible affirms that authority has a place in our lives, Gothard turned obedience into a matter of terror. If I misstepped in any way, I was removed from all protection, and Satan would have full access. “As long as you are under God-given authority, nothing can happen to you that God does not design for your ultimate good,” Gothard said. This implied that if I stepped out from under the umbrella—knowingly or unknowingly—anything that happened would not be for my ultimate good.11
For reasons I’ll soon explain, Gothard did more than imply the possibility of stepping out from under the umbrella unknowingly and losing God’s protection. That idea is foundational to his system.12
Read More
Related Posts:

Our culture is telling us that it’s “okay to be gay,” and that virtually every kind of “sexual orientation” should be affirmed. It’s telling us that “gayness” is unalterable, except perhaps when it’s not because of “gender fluidity,” and it’s increasingly hostile to “heteronormativity.” By now, it should be clear to anyone who takes the Bible and Christianity seriously, the real issue is, to flip the terms in Niebuhr’s first category, “Culture Against Christ.”

[Note: This article is Part 1 of a projected series.]
Currently, a battle is being waged for the soul of my home denomination. In the theologically conservative Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the question is being asked: What did Paul mean when he wrote, “such were some of you,” and how should we apply it in the life of the church?”
On one side are those who say, “This truth must govern how we both think and speak about ourselves. We are no longer ‘sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers.’ True, those were things that dominated the cores of our beings before we came to Christ. They were even things that people called us. So, they became de facto names for us—i.e., how people identified us. But they are no longer who we are. It was who we were but is not who we are, and we should no longer identify ourselves by any of those terms.” (1 Cor. 6:9-10 ESV)
On the other side are those who say, “Wait a minute! We still struggle with these things. The temptations have not gone away. We doubt they ever will. So, we think we should speak as if we still are those things—as if they identify us. And besides, we want to communicate the Gospel to our culture in a winsome and welcoming way. We want to be like Jesus, and didn’t He identify with sinners? So, why can’t Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction while remaining celibate refer to themselves as ‘gay Christians?’”
These are the two sides in the battle or at least the two most vocal ones. I hope I’ve represented them accurately. If not, I’m sure someone will let me know.
Perhaps at one time, this was a cordial debate or even a minor fraternal squabble. It seems those days are now past us. I will spare you the details, but on various fields, the calls have gone out, the troops have been marshaled, and the battle has been joined.
“Haven’t you heard it’s a battle of words?”1
One of the first objections many conservative believers raise in response to the idea of anyone identifying as a “gay Christian” is, “We don’t allow people to identify as ‘adulterous Christians,’2 so why in the world would we let them identify as ‘gay Christians?’ Why would believers think they can make sin part of their Christian identity?”
Those who raise this objection would say 1 Cor. 6:9-10 teaches that all Christians who came to Christ out of homosexuality are fundamentally “ex-gay,” just as all who came to Christ out of a pattern of adulterous behavior are “ex-adulterers.” As Al Mohler put it, “The larger problem is the idea that any believer can claim identity with a pattern of sexual attraction that is itself sinful.”3 Regardless of how much we continue to struggle with temptation, our union with Christ is what identifies us now and that union entails a decisive break with sin—a past-tense crucifixion of it, in fact: “…those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” (Gal. 5:24, ESV, italics added, cf. Rom. 6:6.) Those things no longer represent us.
Triggered
As we might have expected, comparing “gay Christian” to “adulterous Christian” has generated pushback from the other side. One “LGBTQ Christian leader,” wrote, “Please, please, please don’t use this analogy. I know what you mean, but this one really ticks gay people off, and it gets you nowhere.”4
Read More

↑1
“Us and Them,” song by Richard Wright and Roger Waters, from Dark Side of the Moon, by Pink Floyd, 1973.

↑2
Examples could be multiplied here: “promiscuous Christians,” “pedophile Christians,” “drunkard Christians,” “thieving Christian,” “murderous Christian,” and so on.

↑3
R. Albert Mohler Jr., “Torn Between Two Cultures? Revoice, LGBT Identity, and Biblical Christianity,” August 2, 2018, https://albertmohler.com/2018/08/02/torn-two-cultures-revoice-lgbt-identity-biblical-christianity.

↑4
Justin Lee, “Questions from Christians #5: ‘Isn’t calling yourself a gay Christian like calling yourself an adulterous Christian?’” August 5, 2013, Geeky Justin, https://geekyjustin.com/questions-from-christians-5-isnt-calling-yourself-a-gay-christian-like-calling-yourself-an-adulterous-christian/.