Government Schools: Ever heard of Everson?

Like it or not, all education is by its very nature "religious." By religious, I mean it teaches a specific worldview. It could teach this worldview explicitly, or implicitly, but it teaches it nonetheless. As Bruce Shortt writes:

"There is no such thing as metaphysical neutrality. If a society or an institution rejects the Bible's teaching about the nature of God, man and the universe, then it necessarily accepts, implicitly or explicitly, some other worldview, whether it be materialist metaphysics of secular humanism, the cosmic humanism of the New Age religions, or something else. Government schools are no exception."

Perhaps you disagree, or think: "Well, there are some subjects that can be taught religiously neutral, like Math, or Geology..." Even if I would grant that (and I don't) that leaves all the other subjects being taught as not religiously neutral. Or perhaps you are of the mind that all courses can be taught in a religiously neutral way, kind of like spraying anti-bacterial religious spray on a course so all dangerous "religion" is disinfected prior to teaching. Let's look at some others and their position on this topic.

First, this principle was communicated by Jesus Christ in Luke:

"A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher." - Luke 6:40

Seems pretty straightforward; Christ understood that those that were taught, ended up being like their teachers. (Putting this in context, Christ has just asked the people: "Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch?" To which we could respond about our government schools: yes, both teachers and students have fallen into the ditch)

Second, this principle was also understood by Marxist and social-engineer extraordinaire, Adolf Hitler:

“When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."” - Adolf Hitler [quote]
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." - Adolf Hitler [quote]

Third, this principle was and is understood by prominent secular humanists:

"[T]he battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classrooms by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity...These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith..." - John Dunphy, The Humanist magazine. Jan/Feb 1983, p 26

"[E]ducation is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?" - Charles F. Potter, signer of the first Humanist Manifesto, Humanism: A New Religion, 1930, p128

"Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends to lean toward the elimination of religious superstition" - Paul Blanchard, humanist author, as quoted by Blair Adams and Joel Stein, Who owns the Children?, 1984

"[P]ublic education is the parochial education for scientific humanism" - Joe R. Burnett, editor of The Humanist, 1961

From those quotes can anyone really honestly hold the absurd position that "education is religiously neutral?" As my friends from the country would say: "That dog just don't hunt!"

The part that complicates most people is the use of the word "religion." Over the years, that word has been re-defined to mean: belief in God, or gods. Because of that narrow definition, it is possible for a person who "doesn't believe in God or gods" to state truthfully: "I'm not very religious." However, originally the word "religion" did not have that narrow of a meaning; originally the word meant: "to go over again" or "to consider carefully" or "to reconnect" or "a system of faith and worship." Given that broad a definition, when you see the word "religion" you should replace it in your mind with the word "worldview." This replacement in your mind is critical, because as I stated earlier, in our culture today it is acceptable for a person to claim to "not be religious" but it would intellectually dishonest for a person to claim "I don't have a worldview."

So if you are sending your children to a government school, the question you should be asking yourself is: What worldview (or religion) are they teaching?

Enter Everson v. Board of Education, 1947.
As background, recognize that the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits, among other things, both "the establishment of religion" and interference with "the free exercises" of religion by the federal government. As a negative document, the Constititution does not grant powers to the Congress or federal courts to interject themselves into state actions affecting religion.
This meant that states could do what they wanted regarding religion and remain unaffected by the federal government; this was as intended.
Everson was a simple case. A New Jersey school board resolution was passed that stated that all parents whose children must ride public buses to school (not school buses), had to be reimbursed for the amount of the fares. The problem was that some parents were sending their children to Catholic parochial schools. The plaintiff, Arch Everson, claimed that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (we will ignore the fact that Arch Everson was a member of the Junior Order of United American Mechanics, an organization closely tied to the Klan).
In Everson, the Supreme Court ruled that while the Establishment Clause had not been violated, it found that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment applied to the states as a result of the adoption of the 14th Amendment. It was in this landmark case that Justice Hugo Black laid down the well known doctrine that the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to erect "a wall of separation between church and state." (I suppose we can also ignore that Justice Black had been a member of the Klan prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court).
Attorney Bruce Shortt explains the impact of this ruling this way:

"As a practical matter, Everson made the federal courts the arbiter of what the states could and could not do in the area of religion. Never mind that for the roughly eighty years following the adoption of the 14th Amendment no federal court had claimed or noticed that it had this power. Never mind...that the Congress rejected a proposed Constitutional amendment known as the Blain Amendment, which had as its express purpose the application of the religion clauses to the states.
Whatever reasons given by the Supreme Court for its actions in Everson, the truth of the matter is that the Court simple decided that it was time for the federal courts to force the transformation of American culture and its institutions -- including the government schools....A transformation in which Justice Black's 'wall of separation' language was to be intepreted eventually as requiring the elimination of all traces of a Christian worldview from government schools and, more generally, the public policies of the federal government and the states. In effect, Everson made the thorough secularization of government schools a mission of the federal courts."

Next time a person proposes that we need to "reform the public school system" remind them that it is currently the mandated mission of the federal court system to vehemently resist and thwart any such "reform" that would bring back "Christianity" into the public school system.

Curious as to how that "mission" has manifested itself in the policies of the government school system? Following are the guidelines as outlined by a report produced by the American United Research Foundation entitled: "Religion in the Public School Curriculum: Questions and Answers."

• The school's approach to religion is academic, not devotional.
• The school strives for student awareness of religions, but does not press for student acceptance of any religion.
• The school sponsors study about religion, not the practice of religion.
• The school may expose students to a diversity of religious views, but may not impose any particular view.
• The school educates about all religions, it does not promote or denigrate any religion.
• The school informs the student about various beliefs, but it does not seek to conform students to any particular belief.

What the above represents is what should be expected from the Establishment Clause: religious indifference.
But is it? As any teacher or student could attest, overt hostility toward Christianity is common in todays government schools. Currently, Department of Education attorney, Brian Jones, is trying to "bring some clarity to the perceived fuzziness in the law" which is legal-speak for: "do our best to halt some of the egregious hostility toward Christianity in government schools across the country." As expected, liberal groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State are opposed to such "reforms."
So to recap, the current federally mandated "mission" is to achieve "religious indifference," what we have is "overt hostility to Christianity" and our current attempts to return to "religious indifference" are now being viewed as controversial by liberals. It is to this place that 85% of Christian parents send their children?

So what is the "worldview" being taught? We know it isn't Christian, but what is it?
The two most common are: secular humanism and New Age.
As you look at the two descriptions below, see if you recognize any of their "beliefs" in what you know is being taught at your child's government school.

Secular Humanism
The worldview of secular humanism is fairly easy to define because they defined it for us. The following are some of the key points of this worldview as outlined in the Humanist Manifesto (now in it's third revision).

• Regarded the universe as self-existing and not created
• Believed that man is a part of nature and that he emerged as a part of a continuous evolutionary process.
• Held an organic view of life and rejected mind/body dualism
• Rejected as scientifically unacceptable any purported supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values
• Were convinced that the time had passed for religious views such as theism and deism.
• Considered the complete realization of human personality to be the purpose of man's life.
• Advocated establishment of a "socialized and cooperative economic order."
• Asserted that the purpose and program of humanism is the intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of all associations and institutions for the fulfillment of human life.

Currently, it is not considered a violation of the Establishment Clause to teach any of the above components of the Humanist worldview in the government school system, in fact, Darwin's theory of evolution even enjoys legal protection against competition thanks to a 1987 Supreme Court decision.


New Age
New Age is largely a worldview that stems from the work of such psychologists as Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. Their views of "transpersonal psychology" mixed with eastern mysticism and the occult created the worldview that we commonly call: New Age. Wikipedia describes New Age this way:

The New Age (also known as the New Age Movement, New Age spirituality, and Cosmic Humanism) is a decentralized Western social and spiritual movement that seeks "Universal Truth" and the attainment of the highest individual human potential. It combines aspects of cosmology, astrology, esotericism, alternative medicine, music, collectivism, sustainability, and nature. New Age spirituality is characterized by an individual approach to spiritual practices and philosophies, while rejecting religious doctrine and dogma.

There is a general and abstract idea of God, which can be understood in many ways; seen as a superseding of the need to anthropomorphize deity. Not to be confused with pantheism.

Gods, angels, Ascended Masters, elementals, ghosts, faeries, Spirit guides and extraterrestrials can spiritually guide a person, if they open themselves to their guidance.^[24]

As you can see, the New Age worldview denies the existence of our transcendent God. In the New Age worldview, "all is god" or "all is becoming god." The New Age worldview will not lead your children toward the truth, it will lead them away from it by confusion and obfuscation.

The current basic practice of New Age is to deceive parents into accepting their theories by merely changing the terminology. As Dick Sutphen, a prominent New Ager, has written:

"One of the biggest advantages we have as New Agers is, once the occult, the metaphysical and New Age terminology is removed, we have concepts and techniques that are very acceptable to the general public. So we can change the names and demonstrate the power. In doing so, we open the New Age door to millions who would not be receptive."

A blatant example of the introduction of "New Age" thought into the public school systems is the adoption of the Waldorf curriculum, a curriculum based upon the New Age doctrines of Rudolph Steiner. The Waldorf curriculum has its roots in "Anthrosoposphy." In Anthrosopophy, Lucifer is regarded as the "god of light," his nemisis is Ahriman, the "god of darkness." According to Steiner, Christ came to earth as a sun god to balance the forces of light and darkness. The following is a snippet from The Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide:

"Most of that which contributes to our work as teachers, preparation work, artistic work, even meditative work, is under the guardianship of Lucifer. We can become great teachers under his supervision, for he is responsible for much that has blossomed in the unfolding of the civilization and culture in the past."

A reporter researching the "Waldorf School Curriculum" sat in a government school in California and observed some of the more chilling components of the Waldorf liturgy. Before meals, children recite the following: "Earth, who gives to us this food, sun who makes it ripe and good. Dear sun, dear earth, by you we live, our living thanks to you we give."
Does this sound like teaching "religion" to you? It does to me, and yet the Waldorf program is considered by most school boards to be "non-religious" and has been spreading in government schools primarily through the charter school movement. WaldforfAnswers.org contains a list of the more than 35 Public Waldorf schools in America (3 are in Oregon).

And if it's not "Waldorf" it might be "Earthkeepers" quoted by one mother as being "more like a three-day introduction to Wicca and Deep Ecology than a program about environmental science."

Again, Bruce Shortt provides insight:

"Are you still convinced that sending your children to government schools is harmless? Is it plausible to think that given Wiccans, secular humanists, Gaia worshipers, and sundry purveyors of Easter religions or Islam the opportunity to proselytize your children through classroom instruction, textbooks, assemblies, field-trips, peer-pressure, extracurricular activities, and adult example for at least 35 hours a week makes no difference to their faith?
Evidence that Christians have failed to transmit their faith and values to their children is everywhere. Within two years of graduation from high school, between 70% and 88% of teenagers from evangelical families stop attending church."

Consider a study by the Nehemiah Institute that found a significant difference between those children attending government schools and those attending private Christian schools. For example, only 35.3% of the Christian children in government schools strongly agreed that "the foundation of all government is self-government under God," while 67.4% of the children attending private Christian schools strongly agreed.
The following contrast was even more disturbing: "Because human nature is constantly changing, values and ethics will also change. Therefore, each generation should be free to adopt moral standards appropriate to their preferences." 74.3% of Christian children attending private Christian schools strongly disagreed, which is still sad. But only a shockingly low 14.7% of Christian children attending government schools strongly disagreed with that statement!

If you still think there is nothing wrong with sending a child to be educated for 28,000 seat-hours by godless secular humanists you are either not paying attention, or are not being intellectually honest with yourself.
Ask yourself this simple question: Who benefits more by you sending your children to a government school: you or them? (if it helps, create two columns and chart the benefits for each).

When Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy, he wrote:

"No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier." - 2 Tim 2:4

We are in a battle, and the stakes are high. Isn't it time the church took a stand on the issue of childhood education and began instructing its members on the dangers inherent in "entangling ourselves with the affairs of this life?" Or will the church continue to be silent, and allow another generation to fall. In that same letter that Paul wrote to Timothy, he also wrote the following:

"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, ^25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, ^26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will." - 2 Tim 2:24-26

As servants of the Lord, we "must not quarrel" with our brothers and sisters in Christ who blindly send their children to government schools being unaware of the dangers, but we instead "must be gentle to all" and "correct those in opposition" alerting them to the dangers, educating them to the truth, that all education by its very nature teaches a "worldview", so that "they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will." Only by doing so will be obedient to the commands of the Lord.

Charlie Rose Interviews Timothy Geithner

Timothy Geithner was on Charlie Rose on May 6, 2009.

Here are some comments he made:

TIM GEITHNER: A financial crisis reflects an unwillingness by the private sector to
take risks because of uncertainty and things they just can’t do. And
that’s why governments have to step in, in financial crisis and take risks
the market would otherwise not be prepared to make.

Duh! If the private sector won't "lend" or "take risks" that means it is likely a *bad idea* because it is a poor investment with a poor return on investment!
Since when do people believe the gov't can do a better job of predicting future value? (If you are unsure, see: Social Security; Medicare/Medicaid...)


CHARLIE ROSE: By definition some banks that hold these toxic assets
will say, “Thank you very much, Mr. Geithner. We choose to keep them and
not sell them.”

TIM GEITHNER: Right. And some will want to do that, but we’re going
to try to make it compelling to them to clean up their balance sheets and
put themselves in a position where it’s going to be easier in the future to
raise private capital.

Whenever you heard the word "compelling" from a Statist like Geithner, just break it down to its root: compel.
So he is saying if they don't want to sell, they will be "compelled" to sell. With what force Mr. Geithner? With threats like you leveled against GM and Chrysler? Like you leveled against BofA?


CHARLIE ROSE: Are you saying to the American taxpayers for all of
this money we’re pouring into these banks, the likelihood is that they will
get on their feet and be able to pay back all of the money that this
government has given them?

TIM GEITHNER: Well, what we’re going to do is to make sure, and this
is our obligation. My obligation is to protect the financial security of
the American people, and to ensure that this financial system does what it
needs to do to help get recovery back on track.
And everything we do is guided by that basic purpose. So where we put
assistance in it’s because that we think that is necessary and essential to
try to make sure there’s more lending capacity so that recovery can get --
can get traction quickly. That’s what’s going to guide our approach going
forward.

Note he did *not* answer the question. When asked very bluntly: Can the American Taxpayers expect to be paid back? He hedged. That is because their real goal is *not* payback; it is control.


CHARLIE ROSE: OK. But are these banks, 20 banks too big to fail?

TIM GEITHNER: Charlie, these banks account for the vast bulk of
lending in the United States. And we have a rich diverse financial system,
9,000 banks.

CHARLIE ROSE: But these 20...

TIM GEITHNER: These, they control between two-thirds and three
quarters of the banking as a whole now.


And if you check, you will also find that these banks (and organizations they support, such as PACs, Associations, Lobbying Orgs, etc) provided 70+% of *all* the contributions to the House & Senate re-election campaigns...so, we are bailing out the same organizations that gave us the wonderful 19% approval rating Congress that created the policies that allowed them to get us in this mess in the first place (and that is on *both* sides if the "aisle", an "aisle" that is appearing smaller and smaller as the days unfold). (For more detail on this, watch the videos here: http://www.ourcaucus.org)

But here is where the conversations starts to get just a bit *CREEPY*

TIM GEITHNER: Absolutely, 100 percent. And the president believes
strongly in this. And you saw him in the campaign lay out a set of very
ambitious proposals for reform.
...
But at the same time we have this great obligation to lay out for the
American people and the world a commitment to the kind of comprehensive
reforms so that a crisis like this never happens again. And we’re going to
move as quickly as we can on both those fronts.

CHARLIE ROSE: Can you give me some idea of what it will include?

TIM GEITHNER: Absolutely. You have to start by bringing a much
stronger set of oversight over all institutions that propose risk of damage
to the system.

What!? "by bringing a much stronger set of oversight over all institutions that propose risk of damage to the system."
Okay, I don't like the way that sounds...but maybe I misheard...

CHARLIE ROSE: Gordon Brown was in to see the president last week, and
he suggested that what is needed is global enforcement. Because this was a
crisis which started here and spread around the world, hardly any country
has not been affected.

TIM GEITHNER: Exactly.

WHAT!? "Global Enforcement"???!!! So what I am hearing is not only do we get "stronger oversight" but now I'm to understand the "oversight" is going to be "Global"? (Can anyone say: "trans-nationalism"?)

Okay, maybe the "global" is just our "friends"...so maybe it won't be so bad...but then they continue...

CHARLIE ROSE: We have gone from G-7 to the G-20, which means that
Brazil and Russia and India and China are now included.

TIM GEITHNER: Right.

HUH!? The "Global Enforcement" is to include: "Brazil and Russia and India and China"...oh, they're all our friends...does this sound like the screeching wheels of a train on a track about to crash to anyone else but me?

And then there is this little tidbit:

CHARLIE ROSE: The Chinese now hold more American debt than any other
country on the face of the earth. Are they still at this time, aggressive
about taking -- about American debt?

Yes, we are now beholden to China...outstanding!

Then Charlie helps him out with one of the biggest criticsms facing the administration today:

CHARLIE ROSE: On the other hand you get arguments that go like this,
this economic crisis is so huge and so threatening that the focus just
ought to be on the short-term. It ought to be getting credit flowing,
getting people back to work. And we can worry about long-term issues of
education, healthcare, and the environment at a later time.

TIM GEITHNER: As you know, the president doesn’t share that view, and
I think he’s right.
...
It is fiscally responsible, because we have a better capacity to live
within our means in the future and finance -- to make sure that we are
improving our capacity to grow in the future, and there is a basic moral
obligation in many of these areas again to provide better education
opportunities and out comes to all Americans so they can participate in
this economy fully, and to make our healthcare system deliver better
results and lower costs to businesses that Americans are suffering from the
burden of this healthcare system.


I cannot believe he used the word "basic moral obligation" as if these people even know what "morals" are anymore!
But he slipped up when he said: "because we have a better capacity to live within our means in the future and finance..."
Last time I checked, the *definition* of "living within your means" was contraring to "financing" anything.
Do people who "live without their means"
have to "finance" things? Can't they just pay cash?

If you have stuck with this so far...the Statism continues...

CHARLIE ROSE: I have read where you said that, we need to get back to
an economy in which people live within their means. Tell me what you mean
by that.

TIM GEITHNER: Well, you know, this crisis is caused by lots of
things. It’s caused by a bunch of very irresponsible judgments by the
financial system. But it’s also...

CHARLIE ROSE: By individuals.
TIM GEITHNER: Individuals, too.
CHARLIE ROSE: Not a system be but an individual.
TIM GEITHNER: By individuals running these institutions.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

TIM GEITHNER: But if you look at the amount the American people were
borrowing relative to income, you just had a huge unsustainable rise in the
basic debt obligations to the American people.

CHARLIE ROSE: That’s what the president said, in fact, I think, at
the normal (ph), that we all, the whole range of people, bear
responsibility for this.

TIM GEITHNER: Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Most of all the people in the financial sector, but
others somehow had a contributing effect.

TIM GEITHNER: Right. You know, people borrowed and spent beyond
their means. Governments borrowed and spent beyond their means. And, you
know, we’re now dealing with the consequences of that.

So, let me get this straight, the "crisis" was caused by "overspending" and "not living with your means" and
the solution is a *massive* spending package...got it...DO I HAVE THE WORD 'IDIOT' WRITTEN ON MY FOREHEAD!
What kind of moron thinks you can solve this problem with MORE OF THE SAME?!


CHARLIE ROSE: All right. There is also this. People look at the
budget that has been proposed. And they say, “This is a giant
redistribution, a redistributionist budget.”
They look at the fact that -- and especially some conservatives, who
are non-Keynsian (ph), look at this and say, you know, this is the
direction this country has never gone in. What do you say to those people
who are critical of the budget, because of the taxing policies that are
built into it?

TIM GEITHNER: Well, let’s look at the concrete facts in the budget.
What the budget does is propose -- again, once recovery is
established, to restore the tax rates on the most affluent Americans to the
level that was prevailing in 2001.
Now, most Americans will see a significant -- will see no rise in
their taxes, and many Americans in working marriages will see a significant
reduction in their tax burdens. That moves us to a fairer, more balanced
system. But it’s a modest change, completely consistent with having an
economy that’s going to grow in the future with the gains more broadly
shared.
Again we’re talking about restoring the tax rates on the most affluent
Americans, to a level that prevailed in 2001. And if you look at the
decade of economic reforms in the United States, in the decade before then,
you saw a period where private investment was growing very rapidly,
productivity gains were out-stripping what you saw in any other country
around the world. And again you saw broad-based, much more broad-based
sharing of those gains across the economy as a whole.
So this is a -- not just a fiscally-responsible package, but it
presides -- provides more fairness and balance to our taxpayers in a way
that I think is in the interests, long-term interests of the American
people.


Don't miss the following lines above:
"moves us to a fairer, more balanced system."
"with the gains more broadly shared."
"And again you saw broad-based, much more broad-based
sharing of those gains across the economy as a whole."
"[it]...provides more fairness and balance to our taxpayers"

And *who* is going to be in charge of this forced "fairness"?
I think we all know the answer: the State.

But you had to watch almost the *entire* grueling interview to get to the
cherry on the top of the icing coated cowpie that is their "plan"

CHARLIE ROSE: Will capitalism be different?

TIM GEITHNER: I think capitalism will be different, and the financial
distribution will be dramatically different. It’s already dramatically
different.

Yep. You heard it right:
"I think capitalism will be different"

Question: How can "capitalism be different" and still be capitalism?
Answer: When it is not longer capitalism, it is Statism.


He then continues:

TIM GEITHNER: Again, if you look at the scale of adjustment and restructuring in the
financial -- it’s already happened. It’s profound in scope already. So if
you just look at the system today relative to what was true three years ago
in terms of the institutions that existed then, then and their basic shape
has changed dramatically.

And there’s going to be more changes ahead. But I think it
will merge stronger. This will clean out a lot of the excesses and bad
practices, and those that don’t get cleaned out just by experience and
knowledge now, better regulation and oversight, better rules of the game,
enforced more cleanly will fix it.

Yep, we have seen it "it's already happened"
"It's profound in scope already."
"And there's going to be more changes ahead."
And don't forget the final word he used: "enforced" - root word: "force"
Whenever I heard that, I always ask the question: with what? a gun?

But as if it couldn't get any worse, Geithner goes on to say this:

TIM GEITHNER: Because this is not about ability; it’s about will.
And it’s about the will of government to do what’s necessary to act to fix
this. And I’m confident that this president is going to have the will to
do that.

That's right, he said: "it's about the will of the government to do what's
necessary to act to fix this."

Not the people, but "the government".

But just in case the above reading caused you to somehow believe that your
future as an American might change, let me assure you with Tim's final words:

CHARLIE ROSE: And the essence of the American experience will not
change?
TIM GEITHNER: Yes.

Huh? Where did he learn english?
Question: "And the essence of the American experience will not change?"
Answer: "Yes."

Perhaps he meant "no" but maybe he just let slip what we all already know:
The American Experience is going to change and in Tim's own words:
"It's already happened, it's profound in scope already and there's going to be more changes ahead."

Pass this around to your friends and family. People need to wake up and act!
BTW: You can get the entire transcript for this inteview here:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10137


-- Andrew Fields
Soli Deo Gloria

Gossip: Stealth Weapon of the Enemy

When it comes to stopping a fight, some of the most skilled members of our society in that area are bartenders. You see bartenders know what every church leader needs to know to be successful in church ministry at conflict management: A fights never starts inside the bar; bar room fights start long before they enter. And the best thing you can do to prevent the fight is to throw both of them out before the fight breaks out. Now you can't just throw one out, you have to throw both of them out. See if you just throw one of them out, well, then one will come back later with his feelings hurt, and the other one will get proud and you will have an even bigger problem. But if you throw both of them out, they will only have each other to talk to, and they might come back in later together as friends, and buy more drinks. That's "conflict management 101" from your friendly neighborhood bartender.

Conflicts in the church are no different. "Fights" don't start there, they start somewhere else, they start in the heart. And just like bar room fights, they don't start with fists, they start with words. So what does the Bible say about our tongue? It says it is "full of deadly poison" and "set on fire by hell" [James 3:8; 3:6] and "no man can tame the tongue" [James 3:8]. The tongue is such a small part of the body, but it is able to have a tremendous impact on church life. And if all we had were those statements, we would still see the massive importance of self-control of the tongue, but Scripture is very specific when it comes to the tongue and gossip. Consider the following: Commit adultery in a church and you get four warnings to repent according to Matthew 18, but if you gossip, you are to be rejected after the first and second warning according to Titus 3:10-11:

^10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, ^11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.

What is of considerable concern is how common the sin of gossip is among most churches today. Consider the contrast of how most churches deal with the two sins mentioned above. At the first hint of adultery, we convene a counsel of the church elders or deacons to begin "Spiritual Discipline," but for gossip? Sweep it under the rug; it's so common we don't even worry about it. Here is what the 17th Century Theologian Richard Baxter had to say about gossip:

"The sin of receiving and spreading false reports of others upon hearsay, is now so common among those that do profess sobriety and religion, that all men should take heed of it in all company, as they would do of the plague in an infectious time. And now it is so notorious that false news and slanders of others are so common, neither good men's words, nor common fame, will allow you (or excuse you) to believe or report any evil of another, till you are able to prove that it is your duty; but all Christians should join in lamenting and reproving this common uncharitable sin."
-- The Practical Works of Richard Baxter, p. 361 [emphasis mine]

This act perpetrated by the tongue must be dealt with, it must be handled in an orderly and regulative way within the church. If we leave it and ignore it, it will hollow out our churches, rob them of their love, and present to the world an image not of Christ, but of the deceiver.

So we can understand what we are dealing with, the sin of "gossip" should be defined.
The word "gossip" or "slanderer" is mentioned 56 times in the Bible. These two words are used interchangeably when talking about "gossip." Another common word used in many translations is "talebearer". Proverbs 20:19 (NKJV) provides the following insights:

¹⁹ He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets;
Therefore do not associate with one who flatters with his lips. [NKJV]

A "gossip" or "talebearer" is one who reveals secrets. Notice it does not say if the secrets are true or false. Even revealing true secrets can still make one a "talebearer" or a "gossip"

Consider the words of Proverbs 26:20-23

²⁰ Where there is no wood, the fire goes out;
And where there is no talebearer, strife ceases.

²¹ As charcoal is to burning coals, and wood to fire,
So is a contentious man to kindle strife.

²² The words of a talebearer are like tasty trifles,
And they go down into the inmost body.

²³ Fervent lips with a wicked heart
Are like earthenware covered with silver dross.

The "talebearer" is the one who "kindles strife" and where there is no "talebearer, strife ceases".
Also notice that the "words of a talebearer are like tasty trifles...they go down into the inmost body." This is talking about the impact that the "tales" have on the listener of the "tale." In the case of a "talebearer" the tales told have a permanent impact on the listener, forever damaging the conscience of one person against another. What a tragedy to think that we can destroy relationships and friendships by simply telling tales to another. We overlook this sin too much in the church, ignoring it at our own peril.

Listen to what David writes in Psalms 15:1-3:

¹ Lord, who may abide in Your tabernacle?
Who may dwell in Your holy hill?
² He who walks uprightly,
And works righteousness,
And speaks the truth in his heart; ³ He who does not backbite with his tongue,
Nor does evil to his neighbor,
Nor does he take up a reproach against his friend;

In this Psalm, David is writing regarding who is allowed to abide in the tabernacle of the Lord. David indicates that the "backbiter" or "gossip" is excluded from the company of the Lord in His tabernacle. Could some of the strife and turmoil that exists within our churches be caused by the allowance of "backbiters" in our midst? Could we be excluding ourselves from the "tabernacle of the Lord" by our unkind words and reproaches against a friend?

But truly the most condemning words against the "gossip" come in Proverbs 6:16-19:

¹⁶ These six things the Lord hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
¹⁷ A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
¹⁸ A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
¹⁹ A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

Of the seven things that are an "abomination to the Lord" each of them condemns the "talebearer". Does the talebearer appear proud? Does the talebearer have a lying tongue? Does the talebearer harm the innocent? Does the talebearer devise wicked plans as they speak? Does the talebearer look for places to spread their tales, as they run swiftly to evil? Does the talebearer speak lies? Does the talebearer sow discord among the brethren? In every case the answer is: Yes! Is it any surprise that when Paul writes to Titus he instructs him to "reject the divisive man after the first and second admonition?" It should not be, but in our churches today, gossip is as Richard Baxter said in the 17th century: an "uncharitable common sin." This ought not to be!

Peter writes of it this way, quoting Psalm 34:

^8 Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; ^9 not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing. ^10 For

He who would love life
And see good days,
Let him refrain his tongue from evil,
And his lips from speaking deceit.
¹¹ Let him turn away from evil and do good;
Let him seek peace and pursue it.
¹² For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
And His ears are open to their prayers;
But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

There are a number of observations we can make concerning Peter's words concerning "gossip" and "evil speech"

First, we are not to return the reviling (or backbiting) of another with our own version of the same, but are to return it with blessings. Is this not what Christ has done for us?
Second, if we want to "love life" and "see good days" we must refrain from evil speech, turning from evil and doing good.
Third, when we engage in "backbiting" or "reviling" the "face of the Lord" is against us. Who would choose to have the face of the Lord against them? Instead, we should seek and pursue peace, so the "eyes of the Lord" can be upon us as righteous and "His ears [be] open to [our] prayers."

We can now see how damaging gossip is, we can see what an abomination it is to the Lord. We can see how it can destroy a local church, divide the brethren, do permanent damage to a reputation, hollow out a body of believers. Gossip is the opposite of compassion, love, brotherhood, tenderheartedness, courtesy and the blessing we are called to. Gossip is the stealth weapon of the enemy. It is how Satan deceived Eve to destroy her relationship with God and if you let him, is how he will destroy you and all the relationships around you.

There are five ways that gossip is often disguised, ways that we allow the deceiver to put ourselves in a position where the "face of God is against us", where because of our tongue, we can become an enemy of God as we do evil.

1. As seeking counsel. There are times when we must seek counsel about the sin or offense of another, but we must be extremely careful that we interact not out of pretense, but out of edification of the other member and out of love. Otherwise we not only place ourselves at risk, but we do undo harm to the other.
2. As a prayer request. For some reason, we think that a prayer can only be effective when it is shared corporately, but that is not true. Individual prayer is effective as well.
   
3. As bearing one another's burdens. It is not bearing another's burden to share their sins with another; that is tale bearing and divisive. Here again, we must be aware of the way the enemy would like to use our words to harm and destroy. There may be cases where we can bear another's burden by sharing with another, but those should be by far the exception, not the rule.
4. As sharing a concern or godly sorrow. As above, we must be careful when we share the sins of one brother with another. If God has seen fit to allow us to be aware of the sin of a brother, it is for us to go to that brother to build them up or restore them, it is not to tear down their reputation with another brother. We bring defilement and strife into the body of Christ when we gossip under the pretense of "concern" or "godly sorrow."
5. As speaking the truth. For those that are forthright and bold, this is the most difficult area to navigate. There are times when we must call evil for what it is, but there are also orderly and regulative ways we are to interact with brothers in Christ regarding that evil. Matthew 18 must be followed, meaning we must go to the individual secretly and privately first before we involve another. In addition, before we go with another, we should not prejudice our "witness" with back biting words before we go to the offender a second time. They are to bear witness themselves, not merely repeat our back biting words. We must speak the truth out of love, not under pretense or with an ulterior motive that will rob our words of their truth and fill them with lies and poison. The goal of speaking truth must always be to restore, not to destroy.
   

Now that we are aware of what gossip is, what the Scripture has to say about it, and how it can hide, what are we to do when we see it?

There are two sides to the sin of gossip: the speaker, and the listener.
As the speaker, the matter is simple: When in doubt, don't say anything. Or as your mother used to say: "If you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything at all. In addition, when someone approaches you and says "What happened?" do not take that to mean you have sin-free reign to proceed with an unbridled tongue and let loose with all the gory details. If someone offends you, go to them secretly and privately. An offense by a brother is not cause to convene a meeting of the elders or your Sunday School leadership. Go to them privately and secretly first, then with one or two witnesses. Only after you have approached them twice do you have cause to go to the leadership of your church for assistance in restoring a brother or sister.

As the listener, the matter is a bit more complicated, but you must never let gossip go unchallenged, not even one time. Richard Baxter said the following:

"Backbiting teacheth others to backbite. Your example inviteth them to do the like. And sins which are common are easily swallowed and hardly repented of. Men think that the commonness justifieth or extenuatith the fault."

In translation, Richard Baxter is saying: "the sin of gossip is so common we think we should just keep doing it." As we know, we cannot continue in a sin that is so devastating to the body of Christ. It must be rooted out and circumcised from our hearts and from our members.
Proverbs 17:4 provides additional insight into the "listening" side of the sin of gossip:

⁴ An evildoer gives heed to false lips;
A liar listens eagerly to a spiteful tongue.

According to Proverbs, being a "listener" of gossip makes you an "evildoer" and a "liar" We are deceiving ourselves if we think we can listen to gossip and have it not affect us.
So how should we respond when in the course of conversation, we start to see the first signs of gossip come across the lips of another? Scott Brown provides four different approaches to responding, although there are likely others. They are as follows:

1. The Sensitive Approach. "You know, I'm feeling a little uncomfortable with this conversation."
   
2. The Reflective Approach. "You know, if so and so knew we were talking about them like this, it would hurt them pretty bad, don't you think?"
   
3. The Matthew 18 Approach. "Have you gone to speak to them privately about this?" With the follow-up being: "If you haven't then I absolutely should not hear about this."
   
4. The Straightforward Approach. "This sounds like gossip to me. Stop it!"
   

Knowing how powerful the tongue can be, knowing that it is "un-tamable" and "set on fire by hell" and "full of deadly poison" we should all equip ourselves with a ready arsenal of ways to nip "gossip" in the bud. For the blessings that we can receive when the body of Christ is free of gossip and backbiting are more than we can image, and are what God plans for His people. Paul writes of the contrast between the two to the church at Ephesus:
^

^29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. ^30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. ^31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. ^32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you. [Eph 4:29-32]

The church should be the sweetest place of all. The speech should be the most beautiful there, it should be the most like the Lord Jesus Christ: full of grace and truth, love and compassion, tenderhearted and full of brotherly kindness.

We know how the world solves it's offenses; it solves them as the fool, with backbiting, gossip, slander, reviling. But in the body of Christ, while we should not sweep the offenses under the rug or ignore them (for that is not love), we should also not spread them as rumors. We would do well to remember the words of James:

But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. ^15 This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. ^16 For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. [James 3:14]

In this passage, James paints a picture of the world, that is "self-seeking" that is full of "bitter envy" that is "sensual, demonic." But those behaviors can also exist in the church, if we are not aware of the dangers of the sin of gossip.

No, in the body of Christ, we must pursue the "wisdom that is from above" that is "first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace." [James 3:17-18]

But no study of the destructive sin of gossip would be complete without including Ecclesiastes 7:21-22:

²¹ Also do not take to heart everything people say,
Lest you hear your servant cursing you.
²² For many times, also, your own heart has known
That even you have cursed others.

There will be times that others will gossip about you, backbite about you, perhaps even attempt to destroy you, but when those times occur, remember the wise words of Solomon; don't wear your feelings on your sleeve. In the body of Christ we are called to forgive, not condemn, we are to be full of peace, not of bitterness, we are to model Christ, not the flesh.

Charles H. Spurgeon provided one of the best overviews on gossip and how we should approach it:

Maintain a blind eye and a deaf ear. You cannot stop people's tongues, and therefore the best thing is to stop your own ears and never mind what is spoken. He will find that even those who live with him are not always singing his praises, and that when he has displeased his most faithful servants, they have, in the heat of the moment, spoken fierce words which it would be better for him not to have heard.
The blind eye and the deaf ear will come in exceedingly well in connection with the gossips of the place. Every church, and, for the matter of that, every village and family, is plagued with certain Mrs. Grundys, Who drink tea and talk vitriol. They are never quiet, but buzz around to the great annoyance of those who are devout and practical. No one needs to look far for perpetual motion, he has only to watch their tongues. At tea-meetings, Dorcas meetings, and other gatherings, they practice vivisection upon the characters of their neighbors, and of course they are eager to try their knives upon the minister, the minister’s wife, the minister’s children, the
minister’s wife’s bonnet, the dress of the minister’s daughter, and how many new ribbons she has worn for the last six months, and so on ad infinitum. There are also certain persons who are never so happy as when they are “grieved to the heart” to have to tell the minister that Mr. A. is a snake in the grass, that he is quite mistaken in thinking so well of Misters B and C., and that. they have heard quite “promiscuously” that Mr. D. and his wife are badly matched. Then follows a long string about Mrs. E., who says that she and Mrs. F. overheard Mrs. G. say to Mrs. H. that Mrs. J. should stay and that Mr. K. and Miss L. were going to move from the chapel to hear Mr. M., and all because of what old N. said of young O. about Miss P.
Never listen to such people.

What wonderful words, but the final words he gives in that article provide the true insight:

I have one blind eye and one deaf ear, and they are the best eye and ear that I have!

May each of us consider the power of our tongue, may we each take to heart the sweet words of Scripture. May we each be pure, peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits as we grow in the knowledge of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ, one with another as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Government Schools: What does the Bible say?

"Public School vs. Home School"
Bring that topic up in your Sunday School class and watch the sparks fly. As a society, we know how important our children are; they are our future. As Christians we also know how important they are: they aren't ours, they are on "loan" to us by God, and He has given us some specific instructions for them.

That is the reason for the "sparks." No matter whether you are a firm believer that "home schooling" is the only way to go, or that your "children must be 'salt and light' in the public school" the topic is close to your emotions. Like a mother bear over her cubs, if someone tries to get between you and your children, your hackles go up.

But we can't just ignore the topic because it is difficult; that would be like the early church not tackling "meat sacrificed to idols" or "circumcision of Gentiles". We just have to be careful when we address it, and ensure that we are open to the leading of the Holy Spirit when we are confronted with a fact contrary to our own beliefs. [See my article on Worldviews for more details on why this is so important]

Before we dive into this topic, we should look at what the Scripture says about our children, and their education.

Contrary to what many people (Christians) may tell you, the Bible is not silent when it comes to the education of our children. In fact, it is quote loud and vocal about it. Consider the following:

In Deuteronomy 6:1-9, Moses stated:

“Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the Lord your God has commanded to teach you, that you may observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess, ^2 that you may fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, you and your son and your grandson, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. ^3 Therefore hear, O Israel, and be careful to observe it, that it may be well with you, and that you may multiply greatly as the Lord God of your fathers has promised you— ‘a land flowing with milk and honey.’

^4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! ^5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

^6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. ^7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. ^8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. ^9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Psalm 78:5-8 outlines a perfect example of what happens when we reject God, His teaching, and His ways. When we reject God, we "forget the works of God" and become "stubborn and rebellious":

5) For He established a testimony in Jacob,
And appointed a law in Israel,
Which He commanded our fathers,
That they should make them known to their children;
6) That the generation to come might know them,
The children who would be born,
That they may arise and declare them to their children,
7) That they may set their hope in God,
And not forget the works of God,
But keep His commandments;
8) And may not be like their fathers,
A stubborn and rebellions generation,
A generation that did not set its heart aright,
And whose spirit was not faithful to God. - Psalm 78:5-8

After Moses completes the re-telling of the Law to the nation of Israel, he gives them this final command and admonition in Deut 32:46-47:

"46)Set your hearts on all the words which I testify among you today, which you shall command your children to be careful to observe -- all the words of this law. 47) For it is not a futile thing for you, because it is your life." - Deut 32:46-47

Joel 1:2-3 provides the perspective of the importance of being "multi-generational" in our communication of God's Truth to our children and grand-children:

2) Hear this, you elders,
And give ear, all you inhabitants of the land!
Has anything like this happened in your days,
Or even in the days of your fathers?
3) Tell your children about it,
Let your children tell their children,
And their children another generation.

And we are all familiar with this passage from Paul to the Ephesians, found in Ephesians 6:4:

"And you fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord." - Eph 6:4

In addition, Jesus Christ provides perfect insight when He explains in Luke 6:40:

"A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher"

There can be no doubt: The Bible doesn't just "request" or "suggest" that we train and teach our children in the ways of the Lord, it commands it. And even if you have a hard time seeing or wanting to "believe" that it is really that clear, you can't deny that to a Christian, providing their children a decidedly "Christian" education would be a "good" thing to do, and according to James 4:17: "to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."

The question for Christians today should not be: "Is Home Schooling or private Christian schooling the only way to provide a 'Christian education'?" but instead should be, "Will I honestly be able to state to my Lord and Savior when I stand before Him that I believed my children received a 'Christian education' in a government school where teaching 'Christ' wasn't just forbidden, but was mocked?".
That is the question we must all ask ourselves.

If we can't answer that with an affirmative and confident "Yes!" then what are we thinking gambling with our children's lives?

The psalmist provides exceptional insight into this in Psalms 1:

1 Blessed is the man
Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor stands in the path of sinners,
Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
And in His law he meditates day and night.
3 He shall be like a tree
Planted by the rivers of water,
That brings forth its fruit in its season,
Whose leaf also shall not wither;
And whatever he does shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so,
But are like the chaff which the wind drives away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment,
Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the Lord knows the way of the righteous,
But the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Putting our children in government schools is causing them to "walk in the counsel of the ungodly," to "stand in the path of sinners", to "sit in the seat of the scornful."

There is no excuse. The Scriptures are clear. We are commanded to provide our children with a Christian education. Not doing so puts our children at risk, and invites God's judgment upon our own lives.

While the church sleeps...

I attach an article that should be the focal point of discussion in churches all across America, and yet I doubt even 1/10 of 1% of pastors will even be aware of it, and of those aware of it, less will talk about it, and of those that talk about it, less will *do* anything about it.

Pastor’s in America have ignored Peter’s warning; they are not sober [in the Greek, this literally means “to save your mind”; from the root words: “sozo” and “phren”], they are not vigilant, and while the church sleeps, “our adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” [1 Pet 5:8] And many has he already devoured.

Sometimes people wonder why I am so passionate and vehement about my convictions. I wish I could honestly say it is only because I am a “strict adherent to God’s Word.” While that is a major factor, many times it is just out of plain abject fear; that what is being perpetrated against Christians in other countries will come here. Not because I would be afraid of the persecution personally, but because my children are innocent (and No, I’m not converting to Pelagianism, I realize they were born sinners. I am using the word “innocent” in the finite sense known to man) and yet that innocence could be taken from them not because of my direct actions, but because of the actions (and inactions) of those around me who as Paul says, have had “their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.” [Eph 4:18]

This is not an issue of “faith;” I am well aware that God can do what He wants, when He wants, however He wants, with my help, without my help, in spite of my help. “Faith” that God can act is not enough. This is a matter of personal holiness. In 2 Peter 1:5-7, Peter instructs us: “giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love.”

It is my prayer and my devotion that those in the church that are “blind” will have their eyes opened, that those that sit among us and claim “Christ as Lord” will have their “darkened understanding” bathed in the Light of God’s Word, that they will recognize that being a friend of the world is to be an enemy of God.

We live in a pivotal time, where “…some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron.” [1 Tim 4:1-2] We all must make a choice: God or Man. That choice will pit us against the world, and as the world creeps into our church, it will pit us against those we share a pew with. “But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” [Joshua 24:15]

German Court Keeps Five Kids Because Parents are Homeschoolers

August 1, 2008

http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Germany/200808010.asp

A homeschooling family in Southern Germany spent six hours in a grueling German Family Court session this week with the hopes of regaining custody of their six homeschooled children, who have been held in state custody since January. After the long and confusing session, the Gorbers regained custody of their 3-year-old son. The judge, meanwhile, retained custody of five other Gorber children now being kept in foster care and youth homes pending a court-ordered psychological evaluation of the parents. The court did allow increased visitation for some of the children up from one hour every two weeks that had been permitted since the children were seized in a surprise raid by the youth welfare office (“Jugendamt”) and police.

In January of 2008, Jugendamt and police officials surrounded the German home of the family while Mr. Gorber visited his wife at a local hospital where she had been admitted due to complications from her pregnancy with her ninth child. The oldest son, age 21, and a daughter, age 20, were not taken by the authorities, but all the other children were removed despite their repeated protests.

The siblings reported that the 7-year-old was gripped around the waist by a youth home music teacher, dragged kicking and screaming across the courtyard and thrown into a van. The terrified 3-year-old clung to his 20-year-old sister so tightly that even the police and Jugendamt could not separate them. Both had to be taken to the youth home, where at last the little fellow’s strength gave out and he could be taken into custody.

The children then received psychological exams which all reported that they were normal and well-functioning. Although these evaluations attested to appropriate parenting, the judge indicated that he was unwilling to allow the other children, all of school age, to return home because he did not believe the father’s assurances that he would enroll the children in school.

Someone who attended the six-hour hearing described the scene as “bedlam in the courtroom, without any attempt by the judge to impose discipline. The parties kept interrupting each other and everyone spoke at once.” Some of the children have reported that their court-appointed attorneys said they will fight to keep them in foster care despite the children’s firmly stated desire to return home to their parents.

Many in Europe are critical of Germany’s Jugendamt. Germany has Europe’s highest incidence of removing children from their homes. A recent article in Germany's Zeitung newspaper showed figures indicating that the removal of children from their homes was up 12.5% this year in Germany while the number of abused children remained the same.

Opponents have accused the child welfare system in Germany of corruption driven by exorbitant payments by the government to children’s homes and foster care providers. This “youth welfare industry” is financed by a 21 billion euro budget. The local operating youth welfare committees include privately owned and for-profit children’s care institutions who participate with legal sanction on the committees with two-fifths of the total vote. No other child welfare system in the world is known to allow this type of intermingling between government and commercial enterprises. Such an intermingling would appear to create a serious conflict of interest.

This is of particular concern to homeschooling families in Germany in light of court decisions and a recent change to the federal youth welfare law that was signed by German President Roland Koch on July 5 of this year. The law, BGB 1666, establishes the standard by which family courts are to determine whether custody of parents can be taken away. The law was changed to make it easier for children to be removed by the Jugendamt when the children are “endangered.” But endangerment is not defined in the law. The highest German courts have ruled that homeschooling is not tolerated because it creates “parallel societies” and is an abuse of parent’s rights. Administrative agencies and courts have stated that the failure to send children to school is by definition “endangerment.”

Until last year, homeschooling families had mostly been harassed with exorbitant fines. This year however, Rosemarie and Juergen Dudek of Archfeldt, Germany were sentenced to three months each in prison for homeschooling. In a previous family court case involving the Dudeks, the judge declined to take away the parental rights of the parents. It was thought that the Dudeks cared for and educated their children too well to justify penal removal of the children under the legal clause “misuse of parental authority.” During the Dudek’s criminal trial the judge ordered a 900 euro fine against the family for not sending their children to school. Not satisfied with this “lenient” sentence, local State Prosecutor Herwig Mueller told Mr. Dudek “you won’t have to worry about paying the fine, because I’m going to send you to jail.” His appeal of the fine resulted in the latest prison sentence for Mr. And Mrs. Dudek.

More homeschooling families have fled Germany as a result of this persecution, as it now appears that family court judges and the Jugendamt are ready and willing to take children away from their parents simply because they are being homeschooled. Nevertheless, “We are greatly encouraged by the thoughts and prayers of American homeschoolers,” said Mr. Dudek in a recent phone conversation with HSLDA Staff Attorney Michael Donnelly. “It gives us hope to know that there are people who have the freedom to educate their own children at home. We so appreciate the letters and notes of encouragement. These letters help us maintain our focus and in seeking God’s will for our family.”

These cases are drawing attention within Germany and across Europe.

Kathy Sinnott, a European parliament member from Ireland, criticized Germany’s treatment of homeschooling and the way the Jugendamt treat non-German families residing in Germany. In a recent press release, Sinnot said “…Germany’s approach to home schooling compromises this [European law on mobility] and forces families to choose between a job and the best interests of the children. The need for family-friendly employment policies must be recognized throughout the EU. We need to have flexibility in the education of children temporarily resident because of work. There is also an issue around the attitude to non-German families in the German children’s courts. I hope the dialogue between the Commission and the German State will resolve this discriminatory situation.”

A member of the SPD party in Bavaria, Germany also stated in a recent radio interview that that “Imprisonment or fines in this matter are absolutely excessive in my opinion, because homeschooling can provide very high-quality outcomes. This topic is definitely one which we must work through politically. There can be no black-white declarations, but we must discuss this without ideological blinders on.” Although encouraging, it will take more than one or two members of state legislatures to effect the needed change.

Donnelly, during a recent trip to Germany to encourage homeschoolers and to work for change, met with the Gorber family as well as with policy and lawmakers at the European Union and in the German State of Baden Wurttemberg.

“This poor, simple family is being crushed by unbearable pressure from the German state’s police power, primarily because they are homeschoolers,” Donnelly said. “This father of nine, a woodworker, told me how difficult this is and the incredible strain it’s placing on his children, his wife and himself. As longtime homeschoolers, they have irritated the local youth authorities who needed only the pretext of the hospitalization of the mother and other exaggerated claims to seize the children.” Donnelly noted that “while there are some policy makers in some of the states who are willing to take on this important issue of human rights, most couldn’t be bothered. It is going to take increased public awareness and international pressure to confront German Society with this outrageous behavior. Unfortunately it looks like more parents will have to go to jail and more children taken into state custody before German public policy makers wake up and do something. It’s very disturbing that Germany can get away with this kind of behavior with such little public comment by other Western governments.”

HSLDA is committed to working with national and international ministries and associations to support German homeschoolers in their fight to be free from persecution. The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental human right, and HSLDA is grateful for the support of its members to defend this freedom here in the United States and abroad.

If you would like to send a note of encouragement to the Gorber Family write to them at:

Family Gorber
Max-Mutscheller-Str.2
88662 Überlingen
Germany