This page briefly looks at twelve different ways the Family misuses the Bible. It is an application of the book Scripture Twisting by James W. Sire. Excerpts from this book may be found on the internet here and here. It is well worth purchasing, as it contains far more detail and explanation than is possible to include here. This page is intended to be a summary of the ways the Family twists Scripture, not a summary of the book itself, which may be found at Amazon here. All quotes on this page are taken from Appendix I, A Brief Definition of Twenty Reading Errors. All direct quotes from Scripture Twisting are set in a different coloured font, and are numbered, although the numbering on this page does not correspond to the numbering in the book.

The Biblical Hook: A text of Scripture is quoted primarily as a device to grasp the attention of readers or listeners and then followed by teaching which is so nonbiblical that it would appear far more dubious to most people had it not been preceded by a reference to Scripture.

For example, the founder of the Family (Berg/Dad) quoted John 15:13:

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. KJV

He then paraphrased the verse by saying: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his wife for his friends.” There are obvious sexual implications here.

The intention here is two-fold. First, quoting Jesus’ words gives greater weight to a non-biblical teaching than would be possible otherwise, and second, this paraphrase places strong emotional pressure upon those who are reluctant to engage in extra-marital sex: people feel guilty if they do not participate.

Ignoring the Immediate Context: A text of Scripture is quoted but removed from the surrounding verses which form the immediate framework for its meaning.

This is very common within Family theology. For example, Galatians 5:14 is often quoted as proof that any action motivated by love is legitimate in the sight of God, including extra-marital sex:

Gal 5:14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself” NIV

However the immediate context is never consulted as an aid to the correct application of this text. For if one were to read this verse as part of the chapter in which it is located, it would soon become apparent that the Family application is specifically prohibited only four verses later!

Gal 5:19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; NIV

For more on Galatians 5, click here.

Collapsing Contexts: Two or more verses which have little or nothing to do with each other are put together as if one were a commentary on the other(s).

For example, the ‘All Things Tree’ is an early Family compilation of all the verses in the New Testament that have the words ‘all things’ appearing in them. There are 171 such texts in the King James Version of the Bible. This has been used primarily to support the Family’s doctrines on sex, as though the sheer number of verses quoted proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that extra-marital sex is lawful before God. For example, ALL THINGS are lawful (1 Cor 10:23), Christ is the head of ALL THINGS (Eph 1:22), ALL THINGS were created by Him (Col 1:16), and so on. The truth is, of course, that these 171 verses are not topically related to each other. Some are connected, as for example in Phil 3:8, where the phrase ‘all things’ appears twice. However it is a gross misuse of Scripture to imply that these 171 texts may be used in conjunction to justify a non-biblical doctrine such as extra-marital sex.

Overspecification: A more detailed or specific conclusion than is legitimate is drawn from a biblical text.

For example, the Family has built a major doctrine around Matthew 16:19:

Matt 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven NASU.

The Family teaches that the ‘keys’ that Jesus mentioned here are actually a powerful spiritual entity available to Family members to enable them to gain victories and work miracles. Family members have been taught that there are ‘keys of supply,’ ‘keys of healing,’ ‘keys of strength’ and so on, all of which are available through ‘calling on the keys.’

None of this is in the Bible, and is, at best, an over-specific application of this verse.

For more on the Keys, click here.

Speculative Readings of Predictive Prophecy: A predictive prophecy is too readily explained by the occurrence of specific events, despite the fact that equally committed biblical scholars consider the interpretation highly dubious.

For example, the founder of the Family long claimed that certain specific passages in the Bible that bore his name actually referred to himself, as for example, Ezekiel 34:23. He went to great lengths to explain that it originally wasn’t his own idea, but he then taught it so emphatically that it became a core Family doctrine.

Regarding Ezek 34:23, a study note from the NET Bible says: “The messianic king is here called ‘David’ (see Jer 30:9 and Hos 3:5, as well as Isa 11:1 and Mic 5:2) because he will fulfill the Davidic royal ideal depicted in the prophets and royal psalms (see Ps 2, 89)”.

Most Bible scholars explain this verse as referring to the coming Christ, the Messiah, and it misuses Scripture to appropriate this verse for the private use of any one group or person.

Selective Citing: To substantiate a given argument, only a limited number of texts is quoted: the total teaching of Scripture on that subject would lead to a conclusion different from that of the writer.

For example, the Family teachings on the existence and operations of spirit helpers are supported with reference to Heb 12:1 (examined here), the messenger in Revelations (examined here), and the Transfiguration (examined here). The strong scriptural admonitions against all contact with the dead (Deut 18:9-14, Deut 26:14, Isa 8:19) are either brushed off or completely ignored. Family teaching is therefore highly selective.

Confused Definition: A biblical term is misunderstood in such a way that an essential biblical doctrine is distorted or rejected.

In Family terminology, there is a distinction between ‘full-time disciples’ and ‘ordinary Christians.’ Full-time disciples are those, like Family members, who do not hold secular employment but who devote their entire time to preaching the Gospel. Ordinary Christians are regular believers, perhaps not as dedicated as Family members, who hold secular jobs, thus preventing them from working for God ‘full-time.’

However, the Bible makes no distinction between Christians and disciples (Acts 11:26). There are no special categories of Christians, and what the Bible says to one, it says to all. An ‘ordinary Christian’ who is not a disciple is no Christian at all, and a ‘full-time disciple’ who does not conform to elementary principles of Christianity is no disciple at all.

Ignoring Alternative Explanations: A specific interpretation is given to a biblical text or set of texts which could well be, and often have been, interpreted in quite a different fashion, but these alternatives are not considered.

For example, 2 Corinthians 6:8 is used in the Family as justification for various policies, in which the honesty is questionable. For instance, the Family lives secretively, produces and markets products for sale under pseudonyms, and has a less than forthright approach to governmental authorities.

2 Cor 6:8 As deceivers, and yet true KJV

There has never been any Family-published research into the actual meaning of this verse, and no alternative explanations are ever considered. This verse is considered in detail here.

The Obvious Fallacy: Words like obviously, undoubtedly, certainly, all reasonable people hold that and so forth are substituted for logical reasons.

For example, Family members have been taught that when publicly challenged on their sexual beliefs, they should respond aggressively by retorting, “Well, everybody likes sex! God made sex! Sex is a natural part of life! Don’t you like sex?”

This argument is designed to focus the discussion on the personal attitude of the one questioning the Family, instead of on the more relevant issue of biblical support for the doctrine.

Virtue by Association: Either (1) a cult writer associates his or her teaching with those of figures accepted as authoritative by traditional Christians; (2) cult writings are likened to the Bible; or (3) cult literature imitates the form of Bible writing such that it sounds like the Bible.

As an example of (1), the founder of the Family (Berg/Dad) often likened his life, attitude and writings to those of Martin Luther. Luther’s determination, strength of character, attitude towards the Catholic church and so on are cited, with the intention of creating the image of Berg/Dad as a modern-day Luther. An example of (2) is the way that Family writings are referred to as the “Word.” Thus, reading Family publications (a mandatory daily activity) is called “Word Time.” The intention of doing this is to assign divine qualities to the writings of man. An example of (3) is found in a number of Family writings in which ‘prophecies’ received by Berg/Dad or other Family members are printed, in which the message is given in old English, mirroring the King James Version of the Bible. This tends to add elements of authority and mystique to the message.

Supplementing Biblical Authority: New revelation from postbiblical prophets either replaces or is added to the Bible as authority.

Berg/Dad differentiated between the kinds of letters he wrote. Many were intensely practical, dealing with matters such as finances, schedules, camping, filming, sales and so on. Other letters are doctrinal, or contain ‘revelations’ he received, and he claimed that these letters were on a par with the Bible. In other words, letters containing a ‘new revelation’ or doctrinal teaching were to be treated as though they carried the authority of God.

This attitude continued unabated following Berg/Dad’s death. In fact, as a general rule, Family members spend far more time studying Family writings than they do the Bible.

Rejecting Biblical Authority: Either the Bible as a whole is rejected or texts from the Bible are examined and rejected because they do not square with other authorities − such as reason and other revelation − do not appear to agree with them.

For example, many of Paul’s writings are viewed as either outdated or coloured by his Jewish heritage. In particular, almost anything that Paul said concerning sex or women is outright rejected. Family teaching is that Paul began to experience freedom but was unable to abandon his roots and therefore did not go far enough.

There is, however, a strong argument that the only reason Paul’s teachings are neglected in the Family is because they specifically contradict Family doctrine.

References

The NET Bible

Scripture Twisting, JW Sire, 1980, Intervarsity Press.

Home