New Covenant people don't believe in hell

What a biblically unsound mess this is



Notice that this is a parody of God. He is portrayed as petulant, begging people to trust him, and that his singular defining characteristic is "love." Yet if one bothers going to the bible, you will find that God's sovereignty is first and foremost, and permeated by his holiness.

In Ezekiel 25, God pronounces judgments on Ammon, Edom and the Philistines. Note these verses:
(Eze 25:5) I will make Rabbah a pasture for camels and Ammon a fold for flocks. Then you will know that I am the LORD.

(Eze 25:11) and I will execute judgments upon Moab. Then they will know that I am the LORD.

(Eze 25:14) And I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel, and they shall do in Edom according to my anger and according to my wrath, and they shall know my vengeance, declares the Lord GOD.

I will execute great vengeance on them with wrathful rebukes. Then they will know that I am the LORD, when I lay my vengeance upon them."

Some who would have you think that God is "nice" miss these verses where God's wrath (ultimately demonstrated upon Christ on the cross for our sin...and yes, in hell for unforgiven sin) is THE medium whereby God makes himself known. A "nice" God most certainly wouldn't say things like those said in Ezekiel. But a holy God whose very person is deeply and infinitely offended at sin would. Here's a refutation of some of the things this "Doctor" says

greatest fool- He states only the greatest fool would believe in hell. I don't think he wants to go where this will take him. Jesus clearly taught a doctrine of hell. This doc says that the Hebrew and Greek bibles do not have the word hell. This is just plain silly. Of course it doesn't have English in Hebrew and Greek. One of the Hebrew words is "Sheol" which can mean a hole in the ground (or cave) as a burial plot, it can mean the unseen underworld of punishment. In Greek the words are Gehenna, Hades, etc. Gehenna referred to the burning garbage dump outside of Jerusalem and was referred to by Jesus in the gospels. Vine's (electronic) Expository Dictionary of New Testament words states,

geenna (G1067) represents the Hebrew Ge-Hinnom (the valley of Tophet) and a corresponding Aramaic word; it is found twelve times in the NT, eleven of which are in the Synoptists, in every instance as uttered by the Lord Himself. He who says to his brother, Thou fool (see under FOOL), will be in danger of "the hell of fire," Mat_5:22; it is better to pluck out (a metaphorical description of irrevocable law) an eye that causes its possessor to stumble, than that his "whole body be cast into hell," Mat_5:29; similarly with the hand, Mat_5:30; in Mat_18:8, Mat_18:9, the admonitions are repeated, with an additional mention of the foot; here, too, the warning concerns the person himself (for which obviously the "body" stands in chapter 5); in Mat_18:8, "the eternal fire" is mentioned as the doom, the character of the region standing for the region itself, the two being combined in the phrase "the hell of fire," Mat_18:9. To the passage in Matthew 18, that in Mar_9:43-47, is parallel; here to the word "hell" are applied the extended descriptions "the unquenchable fire" and "where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched."
That God, "after He hath killed, hath power to cast into hell," is assigned as a reason why He should be feared with the fear that keeps from evil doing, Luk_12:5; the parallel passage to this in Mat_10:28 declares, not the casting in, but the doom which follows, namely, the destruction (not the loss of being, but of wellbeing) of "both soul and body."
In Matthew 23 the Lord denounces the scribes and Pharisees, who in proselytizing a person "make him two-fold more a son of hell" than themselves (Mat_23:15), the phrase here being expressive of moral characteristics, and declares the impossibility of their escaping "the judgment of hell," Mat_23:33. In Jam_3:6 "hell" is described as the source of the evil done by misuse of the tongue; here the word stands for the powers of darkness, whose characteristics and destiny are those of "hell."
For terms descriptive of "hell," see e.g., Mat_13:42; Mat_25:46; Phi_3:19; 2Th_1:9; Heb_10:39; 2Pe_2:17; Jud_1:13; Rev_2:11; Rev_19:20; Rev_20:6, Rev_20:10, Rev_20:14; Rev_21:8.
Notes: (1) For the rendering "hell" as a translation of hades, corresponding to Sheol, wrongly rendered "the grave" and "hell," see HADES. (2) The verb tartaroo, translated "cast down to hell" in 2Pe_2:4, signifies to consign to Tartarus, which is neither Sheol nor hades nor hell, but the place where those angels whose special sin is referred to in that passage are confined "to be reserved unto judgment"; the region is described as "pits of darkness." RV

all sin has been dealt with- This is the standard Universalist claim. It rests on a slippery foundation since it is clear that the Old Testament and New Testament both teach that there will be people, nations cast into the outer darkness, and especially in Revelation, a place prepared for the devil and his angels, where the smoke of their torment arises FOREVER.

What a further penalty says about the judge- The speaker states that this implies God is petty and revengeful. But when one understands the speaker's take on what caused the fall (eating fruit and talking to snakes) he makes a parody of God's holiness. Wrapped around the fall of mankind is the mandate of obeying God. God is not capricious but chose that man should live in relationship with God, in perfect obedience and love. His disobedience (it could have been eating a hotdog or wearing his jeans backwards...the point is that God was disobeyed) is an offense to a perfect, righteous and holy God. God's penalty for sin is death (Rom.3:23, Rom.6:23). Christ died for our sin.

sweet Jesus angry God- He pits Christ against God. Isn't it amazing that "sweet" Jesus said that the religious clerics of his day would "die in their sin" if they didn't believe in him as Savior(Jn.8:21-24). This "sweet" Jesus is an ancient heresy where Marcion rejected the "vengeful" God of the Old Testament. God very clearly states that he loved Jacob, (one of the Patriarchs) and hated Esau.

something sick about a Father like that- There's only something sick if God is not holy. If he is holy then it is we who are sick.

No one would rationally think about such a hell- This is why we have revelation from God in the bible that tells us, very clearly, that hell is reserved for those who reject Jesus Christ as Savior. And this is why Christ died on the cross for our sin.

Let me recommend that not only do you read the bible and what it says about hell, but also recommend Robert Peterson's book "Hell on Trial." I have taken classes from Dr. Peterson and he refutes, point by point, those who would deny hell.

Fear of Islam and PC

It has now been several days since the horrific shooting at Fort Hood. And the media pundits are apparently ganging up on the US Army that they "should have known better" and alerted SOMEONE concerning the alleged psychiatrist Army major. Having been an Army chaplain perhaps I might provide some insight into the issue.

Someone has once said that hindsight is 20/20 prophecy. While that may be true I believe the human mind recoils at the thought of someone going into a crowd and shooting. It most certainly isn't part of our daily experience. Having served with Muslim chaplains (and many other 'faiths') the idea isn't foremost in my mind. Yet there is a political correctness in the Army chaplaincy... as there is in ANY institution. The question is what kind of pc is present. In most chaplain gatherings there isn't a discussion of interfaith theology. This isn't bad or good, it just tends to be that way. But there is a subtle hands-off pressure when it comes to Muslim chaplains and female chaplains. No one wants to appear to be a bigot or misogynist. I have seen female chaplains do highly illegal (financial) things and yet get promoted. I've also seen male chaplains do immoral things and get promoted. I once had a supervisor who was a female Lieutenant Colonel. During my evaluation report review she candidly said she never would know whether she got promoted on her merits as an officer or whether they promoted her because she was a female. That nagged at her and I can readily understand why.

The first question I suppose is whether or not someone had the pc policy in play when they promoted this major. Usually what happens is that one's remarks don't get into the Officer Evaluation Report. There are three people in this chain of reporting. The first is usually the Executive Officer. Next up is the chaplain supervisor, and the senior rater is usually the Commander (for the chaplains). For the Psychiatrist in question his intermediate rater was likely his medical supervisor. If those comments of his did not affect his job performance then they were likely ignored. But curious is that the Major's behavior was apparently full of indicators of suicidal ideation. He began to say good bye to people, he purchased hand-guns, he went to a strip club, etc. By themselves these aren't indicators of suicide. But put them together and one creates a clearer profile of a man who has made some decisions about ending his life. Army life is terribly busy. And likely no one thought to look at these patterns.

The Army right now is likely going through the process of a psychological autopsy. This procedure is done when a person suicides, but can be applied to the living to understand behavior. The Psych's, medical personnel, chaplains, supervisors and commanders that had experience with the alleged shooter are going through the evaluation process to determine what happened. They likely will find that most, if not all, missed all the warning signs. Then they will likely implement a stronger set of training standards to detect this kind of behavior.

The media is also debating the role that Islam played in the tragedy. Some, like Bob Schieffer over at CBS said there are plenty of nuts in Christianity (I wrote them but they deleted the email without reading it- apparently CBS could care less about their viewers- perhaps their advertisers will be more interested). But one commenatator on Fox News, a retired LTC, noted that President Obama said the tragedy was incomprehensible. He was offended at this because he said it isn't incomprehensible- a Muslim shouting the "God is Great" mantra, with a strong background of anti-Army, anti-American sentiments killed 13 people in an act of terrorism, shooting many others. He was commended by a radical Islamic cleric. The LTC stated if this wasn't a religious issue, then why don't we see more Souther Baptist suicide bombers, or Methodists sacrificing themselves in a crowd? It is clear that there is a political agenda that the media wants to avoid. It is clear that the anti-abortionist who killed the abortion provider was called a religious terrorist. It appears then that the media does not want to appear to be close minded. This is simply disingenuous.

We will grieve with the families who lost loved ones to this act of terrorism. But it is important to call it what it is.

The Death of Community

Our church is having a Harvest Festival outreach this next week and yesterday I was going around, asking local businesses if I could put up a poster announcing the event. At a McDonalds (Thank you manager person) they told me they could post it for two days. I went over to another chain market and they did not have a community bulletin board. Neither did Wal Mart, or several others. I had just read John 6 while munching at the McDonalds and thought this doesn't portend well.

Look at the strip malls, shops, stores in your community. I'll bet you they look much like mine- Subways, Nail care places, Wendy's, Hobby Lobby, King Soopers, Albertsons. But what you won't notice is that most of these businesses are not part of the community. There is no community. They are there to do business. Some of the clerks and managers may know you, and are really great people. But there is no interface with the community. That died a long time ago.

In John, the Apostle writes, Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven." (42) They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?Joh 6:41-42 NASB " Those who were following Jesus, up to that point, grumbled because of the contrast between knowing what he was saying (I came down from heaven) and knowing his family who lived up the block. Perhaps several had tables made by Joseph and Son. They saw him at feasts, bar-mitzvah's, and other holidays. In other words, because of the INCARNATION of Christ, they knew him... or so they thought. The point is that the "God with us" incarnation was in community.

Do any reading at all and you'll know that "community" has shifted from geography to data bits- twitter, facebook and myspace all purport to be community. But what is missing is incarnation. We've all lamented the internet nastiness that comes across the data stream in emails and on blogs. Sure, there are cameras but they're grainy and not quite the same thing. (You can sit playing solitaire, looking at the screen and your friend(s) won't know the difference in what you're actually looking at). Some churches have hopped on the satellite bandwagon by not having a second pastor at a second site (at least one who delivers a sermon and sacraments) but pipes in the main sermon and we all watch a screen. In fact, one writer lately noted that in some of the larger churches they have a screen in the main sanctuary that shows the pastor in tandem with him live- but we're watching the screen.

I'm not angry- just a bit sad because I really do enjoy sitting down, having coffee, chatting without a keyboard... incarnating Christ. Creating community is the work of the Spirit of God, taking messy people with messy problems and resting in Christ to work it all out. The risk is that people get to know you. The pop-psych term is "Transparency." And the risk is they may reject you.

Now on your local channel- Blasphemy

Over at Newsbusters.org there is an article about a recent episode of "Curb Your enthusiasm" where one of the main characters goes into the bathroom and splashes urine on a portrait of Jesus. Whether or not we should be making portraits is a discussion for another time. What follows this (literal) bathroom 'humor' is as blasphemous as the act itself.

I don't have cable tv. It isn't because I think TV is bad. It is because I don't like giving that money away when I can be using it for other things. This sacrilege just underscores that commitment.

I have spent over two years in the middle east, both in Kuwait, Iraq, Dubai, Qattar and other locations. I've met with and ate with the most powerful sheiks of western Irag, met with top Immams in the Sunni Triangle. They would go to war over something like this if it had been a portrait of Muhammad. HBO would likely issue an apology...while laughing up their sleeve. One gets the impression that a bank of writers are exorcising their high-school bathroom humor demons and catching up on all the times they couldn't write on the bathroom walls. I'm suprised that Jerry Seinfeld was in the episode. How about if we take pictures of the ovens at Dachau (where I have been as well) or the dead people trying to cross the Berlin wall and make fun of that as well? How about we make hilarity of 6 million Jews being killed in the concentration camps or Crystal Nacht in Germany? You probably won't see that happening.

Christians are fair game and our Savior is the target. The writers, producers and director(s) of this program simply do not care. But they would if people with a conscience, Christian or not, were to not watch the show. Many say, "If you don't like it, just change the channel." Okay- let's do that. Let's change the channel. Better, let's cancel HBO and its affiliate cable channels so that the advertisers have to pull their spots. I've never advocated boycotting before. Its time.

The Apostle Peter wrote, This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, (2) that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, (3) knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.2Pe 3:1-3 ESV. I say,let these people scoff. Let them laugh as hard and as long as they can. It is hard to pray because it appears, "...they DO KNOW what they do."

UFO Family

It is turning out that the ufo boy here in Colorado was a publicity stunt designed by the father to get a reality show. What I'm interested in is what this says about some people. Proverbs 12:9 reads, Better to be a nobody and yet have a servant than pretend to be somebody and have no food.NIV This is a hilarious image- a man all dressed up for dinner, with his guests, waiting for a servant who doesn't exist for food that has not been prepared. Fame is so fleeting- just Google, "whatever happened to..." and you'll get my drift. I wonder what would happen if this man just poured all that energy into his family?

A Hermeneutical Framework

Recently I had the privelege of attending a meeting of the PCA Standing Judicial committee to address a complaint against the Rocky Mountain Presbytery. In the PCA we have three "courts," or arenas in which to address problems and discipline. The first is the session: ruling and teaching elders. The second is the Presbytery: all the elders in a given geographical location. The third is General Assembly: all the rulers in all the areas. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states, councils may err and the ultimate decider is the Bible. So when a session, Presbytery, etc., are perceived to err or make a mistake, Presbyterians can file a formal complaint. This formal complaint then can work its way up the chain.

The nature of the complaint- The RMP ordained a man, after several examinations, that held views that I and some others maintained were not only out of accord with our standards (The Bible, the WCF and the Book of Church Order), but strikes at the vitals of "our religion." This complaint was turned down on the Presbytery level so we took it up the chain to the Standing Judicial Committee (SJC). The SJC was very kind but firm with us. The complaint was straightforward: the Presbytery erred in sustaining this man's exam because his view strikes at the heart of our system of doctrine.

Now this likely is going to get some comments but it is the position of the PCA. We do not ordain women to the office of the elder. This is one of the main reasons the PCA broke away from the (then) PCUS which later became the PCUSA (Presbyterian Church in the United States of America). Though the candidate affirmed that he was complimentarian (that women can use their gifts under the authority of the elders) he redefined that position to mean, "women can teach, lead, mentor and counsel men under the authority of the elders."

The SJC had to determine whether this was out of accord with the constitution of the church. Many will say, "Just quote 1 Timothy 2:12;i.e., "I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over men, but to remain quiet." But the issue is not that simple. There are some recently who have stated that this is a hendiadys.

A hendiadys is a construction where one verb (or noun) is taken to modify the main verb (or noun). So they hold that "To teach or to have authority" means "to teach authoritatively." The most famous one with nouns is "and he has given some to be...pastors and teachers" (Eph.4:11). There are 29 instances in Paul's letters where two present infinitives appear in one sentence (two and sometimes three). In none of these occurrences does a hendiadys appear. If this is a hendiadys then the odds of it being one are 28 to 1- on the whole, really bad odds. Further, no deceased theologians (Calvin, Luther, Warfield, etc.) hold that it is a hendiadys.

When the reader goes to 1 Tim.2:12 he/she finds the two verbs "to teach," and "to have authority." "to teach" never means to preach. It means to convey information in a formal or informal setting; i.e., content and possibly behavioral goals such as "learning how to please God. (1 Thess 4.) But to preach has an entire host of contextual ideas: the call of the preacher, the nature of the office of an elder, the nature of the role of an ambassador and herald that PROCLAIMS God's Word (and therefore the commensurate obedience to be applied. Therefore though the passage does not say "preaching" we have to understand that it MEANS to include preaching, at a minimum (a greater to lessor argument).

The candidate maintained that a woman may teach a man under the authority of the elders according to Acts 18 (where Prisilla and Aquila instruct Apollos) and Romans 16 (where Paul sends greetings, and names Phoebe, a deaconess). Though the candidate was asked 4 times where the elders are in view, he did not answer until pressed, and then admitted elders are not in view. This then raises the question of how one interprets the bible.

Most interpreters, both pastors and conservative Christians, maintain that one interprets the bible from a literal, grammatical, historical and rhetorical framework. In other words, words have meaning, and the author intended a meaning. To arrive at an interpretation one has to take into account the author, the audience, the setting(s) of the book, the type of literature (prophetic, poetic, narrative, didactic). The bible student studies these, the words in their original contexts and associated literature that is outside of the bible; i.e., extra biblical literature such as letters, manuals, etc., written by people in that timeframe. For example, when Jesus says I am the door (Jn.10:7) we know that he is not made out of wood- he is using a metaphor.

One then has to ask, "How 'tight' is one's interpretive framework?" For example, I spent 7 years in the Charismatic movement. In one denomination I was in their statement of faith included, "We believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 2:4, with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, for all who ask for it." Applying our interpretive framework we find that it is important to ask the question, "Does the book of Acts teach this idea?" When one goes to Acts, he/she will find that there are 24 conversion events in the book. 5 of them have miraculous events associated with them and 3 of them definitely have tongues as acommpanying miracles. So one would be forced to say that not all speak in tongues and the book of Acts is not teaching this principle.

This leads us to another issue: when one reads the bible is the passage under consideration to be taken as a prescription; i.e., something that is normative for us to practice or it is descriptive of an event? In Acts we would have to conclude that it is a description of the early church events immediately after Jesus' resurrection to several years beyond it. And those 24 events are not prescriptive.

Bringing this back to the discussion at hand, is Acts 18 a prescription that women may instruct or exposit scriptures to men? One would have to say it is not. Of course, this doesn't settle the issue. One also has to consider all the other passages where this topic is addressed in some form. But let's stretch this out a bit further.

Paul, in the book of Acts takes a Nazarite vow, shaves his head, heads to Jerusalem and circumcises a Gentile. Are these to be taken as prescriptive and practices that we are to do today? Most Christians, in most denominations, would reply, "no." So then, why do some take Acts 18 and Romans 16 as prescriptive? Answer: either they are pushing an agenda or they have a looser hermeneutic than the text allows.

In Reformed circles there is the operative phrase, "Scripture best interprets scripture." A corollary of this is the "Analogy of faith." This is to say that the less clearer passages are interpreted by the more clearer passages. So while there are many questions about the nature of what Priscilla and Aquila did with Apollos (less clear) it most certainly cannot disagree with 1 Timothy 2:11ff, if we believe that all scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim.3:16) and therefore without error in the original manuscripts. It is possible that Paul in 1 Timothy was addressing a local problem and therefore this passage is not applicable to the church at large. But this is not the case, since in 1 Tim.2:13ff Paul reasons from the creation and created order of headship. It is the same argument Paul uses in Romans 5:12ff to demonstrate our connected to Adam and the effects of the fall. If 1 Timothy 2 is a local situation then so much original sin be a local problem in the church at Rome.

Back to the hearing: the candidate affirmed that a woman can exposit the bible to men non-authoritatively under the authority of the session. Let's take this apart. What does non-authoritative teaching look like? One must consider the nature of spiritual authority. By deduction we look at the Book of Church order and it states that the elders (and deacons) have spiritual authority from Christ to oversee the church. This authority is explained in detail in BCO in the Preliminary principles:

Our blessed Saviour, for the edification of the visible Church, which is His body, has appointed officers not only to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments, but also to exercise discipline for the preservation both of truth and duty.

12-5, d:

d. To call congregational meetings when necessary; to establish and
control Sunday schools and Bible classes with special reference to
the children of the church; to establish and control all special groups
in the church such as Men in the Church, Women in the Church and
special Bible study groups; to promote world missions; to promote
obedience to the Great Commission in its totality at home and
abroad; to order collections for pious uses;

We now come to the issue at hand: does this candidate's view violate the BCO? My answer is yes since it challenges and calls into question that authority. If the authority of the elders is merely permission; i.e., you can go ahead and teach but without authority, then is empties the authority of the elders. If that authority is spiritual in nature, coming from Jesus Christ to his church, then it must be, at least, an authorization and endorsement (to some degree) of the process of teaching, the content of the teaching and the goal of the exposition by the teacher. Let me see if I can make this a bit clearer.

For example, the BCO does not say that a woman cannot preach. It does not use those words. It wasn't set up and written that way (by the way, neither does the Westminster Confession). Therefore we cannot approach the issue in that manner, but in the manner that the BCO DOES address the issue. But what the BCO DOES say is that, the elders, "...ensure that the Word of God is preached only by such men as are sufficiently qualified(BCO 4-4, 53-2, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)(12:5e). I was challenged on this point. I failed to make myself clear though. Again, I say, the BCO does not state that a woman cannot preach. What it does say is that the Word of God is preached only by such men...". Here we have the issue: what does it say and what does it mean? It says "men only." It does not say "no women." What it MEANS is that in stating this (what it says) it means "no women preaching the word of God." As I've mentioned above, though 1 Tim.2:12 does not use the word "preach" it at least includes the idea of not preaching, a lessor to greater argument.

One of the arguments offered was that many PCA churches are already allowing men to sit under the exposition of the scriptures by women. And the second point given was we can all learn from them. What a denomination DOES is not the issue. A denomination can be wrong. And as for learning from women, I heartily agree (some will accuse me of being a narrow minded misogynist). But that isn't the issue. The issue is what is the clear, apostolic command given in scripture? It can die a thousand deaths from qualifications but it still is very simple, clear and direct.

Where does this leave us? Firstly, we're not at a point where we just break fellowship with those who hold a differing view. At least not yet. But we must be very careful that not only what we say is important but what we mean by what we say. We are commanded to rightly handle the word of God (2 Tim.2:15). This is not a suggestion. Secondly, it is clear that some in the PCA have an agenda to move the denomination to the approval of deaconesses and likely women elders. This gets into motive and motivation which is a heart issue and I, for one, cannot look into the hearts of these people. They can only be discerned by the results and the constant pressing from many quarters for greater consideration of these issues. Thirdly, there must be a genuine honesty from the men that hold the position of the candidate. I overheard one teaching elder state as an aside, that he agrees with the candidates position. This is simple dishonesty. The PCA has a means to change the Book of Church order. And every ordained elder takes a vow to uphold our constitution. The constitution (except the Bible) may be changed by a procedure of overture and voting throughout the denomination. I strongly suggest that we adhere to this rather than a surreptitious influx of men who say one thing but really mean another.

What about Internment for Faith?

A friend sent me this article from World Net Daily. It basically says the government has ordered a 10 year old girl to stop being home schooled for her Christian beliefs:
Court orders Christian child into government education
10-year-old's 'vigorous' defense of her faith condemned by judge


Posted: August 28, 2009
12:35 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith.

The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was "a step too far" for any court.

The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.
The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards.

In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.

But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."
According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, "If I want her in public school, she'll be in public school."
The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering "the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others."

"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working," said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton.

"The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take."
"The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,'" said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions."

The case, handled in the Family Division of the Judicial Court for Belknap County in Laconia, involves Martin Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (Voydatch), and their daughter.

The ADF also argued that the issue already was raised in 2006 and rejected by the court.

"Most urgent … is the issue of Amanda's schooling as the school year has begun and Amanda is being impacted by the court's decision daily," the court filing requesting a stay said. "Serious state statutory and federal constitutional concerns are implicated by the court's ruling and which need to be remedied without delay.

"It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be 'exposed to different points of view' if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda's best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda's faith, schooling, social development, etc. The court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda."

"The order assumes that because Amanda has sincerely held Christian beliefs, there must be a problem that needs solving. It is a parent's constitutionally protected right to train up their children in the religious beliefs that they hold. It is not up to the court to suggest that a 10-year-old should be 'exposed' to other religious views contrary to the faith traditions of her parents. Could it not be that this sharp 10-year-old 'vigorously' believes what she does because she knows it to be true? The court's narrative suggests that 10-year-olds are too young to form opinions and that they are not yet allowed to have sincerely held Christian beliefs," the ADF said.

"Absent any other clear and convincing evidence justifying the court's decision, it would appear that the court has indeed taken sides with regard to the issue of religion and has preferred one religious view over another (or the absence of religion). This is impermissible," the documents said.

The guardian ad litem had an anti-Christian bias, the documents said, telling the mother at one point she wouldn't even look at homeschool curriculum.

"I don't want to hear it. It's all Christian based," she said.


This reminds me of the position that many Puritans had during the reign of Queen Elizabeth and subsequent rulers. They were called Puritans and Dissenters. Charles Haddon Spurgeon was proud that his grandfather had been imprisoned for "unlicensed" preaching. Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress, was also imprisoned for his Puritan views.

One might try to argue the First Amendment here but that only works if the government actually believes in the Constitution. We are WAY past the view that most hold that the Constitution is "a living document" and can be interpreted according to our present needs. They say that if the Constitution doesn't address the issue then it should have and we have to make it say what we want. This was the central issue, by the way, over Robert Bork's examination by Congress. He was all in favor of integration in the school system but wrote against the Brown vs. the Board of Education decision that integrated busing. When asked by the committee during his hearings whether he believed in integration, he affirmed it boldly. But he stated that it is not in the constitution.

What happens if the young 10 year old attends public school and continues to be "vigorous" in her Christian beliefs? Does she get detention where she has to attend sensitivity training (read: indoctrination)? Does she get expelled? Does she get interred? There are no more frontiers for Puritans like her to seek geographical independence from oppressive governmental regimes.