Translate

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

LIFE IN THE EMERGING AMERICAN POLICE STATE


Life in the Emerging American Police State: 

What’s in Store for Our Freedoms in 2014?

Reprinted below, in full, unedited, for informational, educational, and research purposes from the Rutherford Institute and written by John Whitehead at:

By John W. Whitehead 
December 30, 2013

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”—George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Vol. 1
In Harold Ramis’ classic 1993 comedy Groundhog Day, TV weatherman Phil Connors (played by Bill Murray) is forced to live the same day over and over again until he not only gains some insight into his life but changes his priorities. Similarly, as I illustrate in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, we in the emerging American police state find ourselves reliving the same set of circumstances over and over again—egregious surveillance, strip searches, police shootings of unarmed citizens, government spying, the criminalization of lawful activities, warmongering, etc.—although with far fewer moments of comic hilarity.
What remains to be seen is whether 2014 will bring more of the same or whether “we the people” will wake up from our somnambulant states. Indeed, when it comes to civil liberties and freedom, 2013 was far from a banner year. The following is just a sampling of what we can look forward to repeating if we don’t find some way to push back against the menace of an overreaching, aggressive, invasive, militarized government and restore our freedoms.
Government spying. It’s hard to understand how anyone could be surprised by the news that the National Security Agency has been systematically collecting information on all telephone calls placed in the United States, and yet the news media have treated it as a complete revelation. Nevertheless, such outlandish government spying been going on domestically since the 1970s, when Senator Frank Church (D-Ida.), who served as the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence that investigated the NSA’s breaches, warned the public against allowing the government to overstep its authority in the name of national security. Church recognized that such surveillance powers “at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.” Recent reports indicate that the NSA, in conjunction with the CIA and FBI, has actually gone so far as to intercept laptop computers ordered online in order to install spyware on them.
Militarized police. With almost 13,000 agencies in all 50 states and four U.S. territories participating in a military “recycling” program, community police forces across the country continue to be transformed into outposts of the military, with police agencies acquiring military-grade hardware—tanks, weaponry, and other equipment designed for the battlefield—in droves. Keep in mind that once acquired, this military equipment, which is beyond the budget and scope of most communities, finds itself put to all manner of uses by local law enforcement agencies under the rationale that “if we have it, we might as well use it”—the same rationale, by the way, used with deadly results to justify assigning SWAT teams to carry out routine law enforcement work such as delivering a warrant.
Police shootings of unarmed citizens. Owing in large part to the militarization of local law enforcement agencies, not a week goes by without more reports of hair-raising incidents by police imbued with a take-no-prisoners attitude and a battlefield approach to the communities in which they serve. Sadly, it is no longer unusual to hear about incidents in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later, such as the 16-year-old teenager who skipped school only to be shot by police after they mistook him for a fleeing burglar. Then there was the unarmed black man in Texas “who was pursued and shot in the back of the neck by Austin Police… after failing to properly identify himself and leaving the scene of an unrelated incident.” And who could forget the 19-year-old Seattle woman who was accidentally shot in the leg by police after she refused to show her hands? The lesson to be learned: this is what happens when you take a young man (or woman), raise him on a diet of violence, hype him up on the power of the gun in his holster and the superiority of his uniform, render him woefully ignorant of how to handle a situation without resorting to violence, train him well in military tactics but allow him to be illiterate about the Constitution, and never stress to him that he is to be a peacemaker and a peacekeeper, respectful of and subservient to the taxpayers, who are in fact his masters and employers.
The erosion of private property. If the government can tell you what you can and cannot do within the privacy of your home, whether it relates to what you eat or what you smoke, you no longer have any rights whatsoever within your home. If government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property. If school officials can punish your children for what they do or say while at home or in your care, your children are not your own—they are the property of the state. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Likewise, if police can forcefully draw your blood, strip search you, and probe you intimately, your body is no longer your own, either. This is what a world without the Fourth Amendment looks like, where the lines between private and public property have been so blurred that private property is reduced to little more than something the government can use to control, manipulate and harass you to suit its own purposes, and you the homeowner and citizen have been reduced to little more than a tenant or serf in bondage to an inflexible landlord.
Strip searches and the loss of bodily integrity. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect the citizenry from being subjected to “unreasonable searches and seizures” by government agents. While the literal purpose of the amendment is to protect our property and our bodies from unwarranted government intrusion, the moral intention behind it is to protect our human dignity. Unfortunately, court rulings undermining the Fourth Amendment and justifying invasive strip searches have left us powerless against police empowered to forcefully draw our blood, strip search us, and probe us intimately. For example, during a routine traffic stop, Leila Tarantino was allegedly subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic, while her two children—ages 1 and 4—waited inside her car. During the second strip search, presumably in an effort to ferret out drugs, a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. No contraband or anything illegal was found.
Invasion of the drones. As corporations and government agencies alike prepare for their part in the coming drone invasion—it is expected that at least 30,000 drones will occupy U.S. airspace by 2020, ushering in a $30 billion per year industry—it won’t be long before Americans discover first-hand that drones—unmanned aerial vehicles—come in all shapes and sizes, from nano-sized drones as small as a grain of sand that can do everything from conducting surveillance to detonating explosive charges, to middle-sized copter drones that can deliver pizzas to massive “hunter/killer” Predator warships that unleash firepower from on high. Police in California have already begun using Qube drones, which are capable of hovering for 40 minutes at heights of about 400 ft. to conduct surveillance on targets as far as 1 kilometer away. Michael Downing, the LAPD deputy chief for counter-terrorism and special operations, envisions drones being flown over large-scale media events such as the Oscars, using them to surveil political protests, and flying them through buildings to track criminal suspects.
Criminalizing childish behavior. It wouldn’t be a week in America without another slew of children being punished for childish behavior under the regime of zero tolerance which plagues our nation’s schools. Some of the most egregious: the 9-year-old boy suspended for allegedly pointing a toy at a classmate and saying “bang, bang”; two 6-year-old students in Maryland suspended for using their fingers as imaginary guns in a schoolyard game of cops and robbers; the ten-year-old Pennsylvania boy suspended for shooting an imaginary “arrow” at a fellow classmate, using nothing more than his hands and his imagination; the six-year-old Colorado boy suspended and accused of sexual harassment for kissing the hand of a girl in his class whom he had a crush on; and the two seventh graders in Virginia suspended for the rest of the school year for playing with airsoft guns in their own yard before school.
Common Core. There are several methods for controlling a population. You can intimidate the citizenry into obedience through force, relying on military strength and weaponry such as SWAT team raids, militarized police, and a vast array of lethal and nonlethal weapons. You can manipulate them into marching in lockstep with your dictates through the use of propaganda and carefully timed fear tactics about threats to their safety, whether through the phantom menace of terrorist attacks or shooting sprees by solitary gunmen.  Or you can indoctrinate them into compliance from an early age through the schools, discouraging them from thinking for themselves while rewarding them for regurgitating whatever the government, through its so-called educational standards, dictates they should be taught. When viewed in light of the government’s ongoing attempts to amass power at great cost to Americans—in terms of free speech rights, privacy, due process, etc.—the debate over Common Core State Standards, which would transform and nationalize school curriculum from kindergarten through 12th grade, becomes that much more critical. These standards, which were developed through a partnership between big government and corporations and are being rolled out in 45 states and the District of Columbia, will create a generation of test-takers capable of little else, molded and shaped by the federal government and its corporate allies into what it considers to be ideal citizens.
The corporate takeover of America. The corporate buyout of the American political bureaucracy is taking place at every level of government, from the White House all the way to the various governors’ mansions, and even local city councils. With Big Business and Big Government having fused into a corporate state, the president and his state counterparts—the governors, have become little more than CEOs of the Corporate State, which day by day is assuming more government control over our lives. The average American has no access to his or her representatives at any but the lowest level of government, and even then it’s questionable how much really gets through. Never before have average Americans had so little say in the workings of their government and even less access to their so-called representatives. Yet one of the key ingredients in maintaining democratic government is the right of citizens to freely speak their minds to those who represent them. In fact, it is one of the few effective tools we have left to combat government corruption and demand accountability. But now, even that right is being chipped away by laws and court rulings that weaken our ability to speak freely to the politicians who govern us.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, put it best: “Take alarm,” he warned, “at the first experiment with liberties.” Anyone with even a casual knowledge about current events knows that the first experiment on our freedoms happened long ago. Worse, we have not heeded the warnings of Madison and those like him who understood that if you give the government an inch, they will take a mile. Unfortunately, the government has not only taken a mile, they have taken mile after mile after mile after mile with seemingly no end in sight for their power grabs.
If you’re in the business of making New Year’s resolutions, why not resolve that 2014 will be the year we break the cycle of tyranny and get back on the road to freedom. As I’ve said before, it’s time for a second American revolution.
________________________________________________________________________

NEW YORK GUN OWNERS DEFY GOVERNOR CUOMO'S REGISTRATION~U.N. ARMS TRADE TREATY

http://www.middleburghrg.com/

Freedom will take more than a Rifle Shot:


Published on Jan 12, 2014

On the "shot heard around NY" day, New York Revolution visited the Middleburgh Gun Club of Schoharie County and was asked to put away their rifles. NYR maintains that true freedom will take more than a rifle shot.--Middleburgh, New York. January 11, 2014
SEE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr0Qck1jYQM


NY Safe Act Disarms Citizens, Here's How:


Published on Jan 12, 2014
NY2a grassroots coalition co-founder Jake Palmateer urges the participants at the Middleburgh Gun Club to keep calm and register nothing.--Middleburgh, New York. January 11, 2014.
SEE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki503kpV944


More Grassroots Activism Needed to Win

Published on Jan 15, 2014
Lisa Donovan co-founder of NY2A grassroots coalition urges the participants at the Middleburgh Gun Club to become more involved to win in November.--Middleburgh, New York. January 11, 2014.
UN Arms Trade Treaty: 
Every U.S. Senator Must Be Held Accountable:

 Published on Jan 14, 2014-William F. Jasper, senior editor for The New American, warns that some senators who say they oppose the dangerous, Obama-supported UN Arms Trade Trade can be sure to flip unless they receive constant, overwhelming public pressure to hold fast.

 

CHINA: DEVELOPS "EMP BOMB", ITS TROOPS INVITED TO PRACTICE IN HAWAII, NOW THREATENS INVASION OF PHILIPPINE ISLAND

 Chinese Troops Practiced

in Hawaii

November, 2013

 See: United States Justice Foundation article here: 

https://usjf.net/2013/11/watch-chinese-troops-american-soil/

 China Threatens War Against Philippines While U.S. Neocons Push War in Mideast:

 China to Reclaim Philippines:

China Set To Seize 

South China Sea Island By Force: 

See:   

http://www.infowars.com/china-set-to-seize-south-china-sea-island-by-force/

FAMILY INTEGRATED CHURCHES: RIFE WITH DOMINIONISM, PATRIARCHY, & HERESY

 The Vision Forum Staff and Families at the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas
 DOUG PHILLIPS & FAMILY

David Cloud of Way of Life, has released a thoroughly researched article reprinted below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, and research purposes. It is excellent, and well worth your time reading.
See:
http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/a_warning_about_doug_phillips_vison_forum.html
Also see:
National Center for Family Integrated Churches: https://ncfic.org/
Family Integrated Church Directory: http://familyintegratedchurch.com/
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_integrated_church
Vision Forum: http://www.visionforum.com/
Rethinking Vision Forum: http://rethinkingvisionforum.org/

 

A Warning About Doug Phillips, 

Vision Forum, and the Integrated Church

 January 14, 2014 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org)


Vision Forum has shut down because of the immorality and shady dealings of its founder -- http://www.visionforumministries.org/

In a report entitled “Doug Phillips’ Mentor and Spiritual Father Speaks Out,” December 19, 2013, http://jensgems.wordpress.com, Pastor Robert Gifford testifies as to Vision Forum founder Doug Phillips’ error, deception, and infidelity. Phillips had claimed Pastor Gifford as his mentor.

Following are some excerpts to this report, followed by my own warning about Vision Forum and Integrated Church.
“I grieve over the way Doug Phillips has misrepresented me. But that doesn’t bother me the most. God will vindicate me. What bothers me the most is how Doug has defamed the testimony of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It breaks my heart the way he’s discredited and maligned the Word of God. He twisted the Word of God for his own advantage. I also grieve that so many people have been harmed by Doug’s teachings that I think it’s necessary for me to speak out. Doug has a dual personality. He’s been leading a secret life. It’s like the movie Catch Me If You Can.”

“I was supposedly Doug’s spiritual father, but he invited this man, John Thompson, to come and instruct me about marriage and family. Doug knew I’d been teaching what the Word has to say about marriage and family for years. I had over a hundred messages I’d given on marriage and family. Doug orchestrated this whole evening so that Thompson could indoctrinate me in Patriarchy. We sat around the table while everyone listened  to this man lecture me. After he got done Doug had us all move into the living room where the men all sat down on the couches. My wife sat next to me; but I noticed all the other women stood behind their husbands, including Beall. It was very strange. They just stood there the whole time behind their husbands. I thought we were going to have a nice conversation. But it wasn’t a conversation, and it was very uncomfortable. This guy Thompson took over and started asking me questions. The last thing he asked me was, ‘If you were in a grocery store and your children started to act rebellious, how would you respond?’ So I said, ‘I don’t go shopping. My wife shops. Honey, what would you do?’ So my wife starts to answer and this Thompson guy cuts her off and says, ‘Excuse me! I’m speaking to the men!’ At this point I really had to hold myself back. Doug just sat there the whole time and said nothing. It was obvious that Doug set this whole thing up. At this point we got up and left.”
“When Doug left Virginia to move to San Antonio to start Vision Forum, I warned him to stay away from John Thompson and Patriarchy. I told him ‘It’s a tyrannical way to lead the family. It’s not biblical’.”

“I think men like Doug get into Patriarchy because they’re weak insecure men. So they gather a bunch of other men around them to figure out how to make their wives do what they want. They don’t know how to
lead their wives. All they know how to do is force them. A man is supposed to lead his wife lovingly, sacrificially. unreservedly. It’s clear from Ephesians 5. The Bible calls the wife a ‘helpmeet’. What that means is that she’s a counselor. She’s supposed to give counsel to her husband, and the husband is supposed to listen to her. I’ve taught this for years. We men have blind spots. We need godly women to give us counsel. She’s a counterbalance to us.”

“Doug was going around behind my back in my church telling people that Sunday school was evil. I confronted him about it and he lied and said he hadn’t. But I confronted him with the fact that ten families had come to me and told me he’d told them that Sunday school was sin. He told me, ‘I never said that. You’re misrepresenting me’. Doug was very divisive of the church. Several families left because of him, but I was able to prevent a church split. But that’s only because I put a stop to what he was trying to do behind my back. I kept catching him doing dishonest things like that where I’d confront him for something and he’d lie about it. It happened four times in a row.”

“It’s not a sin for a woman to work outside the home. In fact there are times where it may be necessary for a woman to work outside the home to show her love for her husband and to complement him. This idea that a woman has to remain within the four walls of the home is nowhere found in Scripture.”

“Doug has misrepresented me in the worst sense. He’s made me out to be a Dominionist. He’s put it in print. He’s said it many times. It’s libel. Dominionism is completely contrary to everything I taught. I think that much of Doug’s views of Dominionism came from the Shepherding movement. There’s a lot of similarities. He also teaches the same thing the Muslims teach which is you take over the world by having lots of babies. You establish an army through your children. It’s important to understand this. If you look at Doug through all his advertisements, the Vision Forum, he’s got his kids on the covers dressed in armor. This is what they’re doing. They’re forming armies through their families. I’m just the absolute opposite of all that.”

“Doug and his brother Brad came to my home and told me, ‘Pastor Gifford, we believe that the qualifications for membership in the church are wrong. We believe that only home schoolers should be members of the church’. I told them, ‘Do you realize what kind of elitist attitude you have? Do you realize what you’re doing? This is totally anti-biblical. This is the problem that the early Jewish converts had when they thought only they could be members of the church and the Gentiles had to be excluded. What you have is an elitist mentality, and it’s going to turn into a cult if you’re not careful’. It was over that issue that Doug left my church and moved to Texas to start Vision Forum and his own church.”

“All the these issues cause me great heartache, but nothing is so dreadful to me as Doug’s infidelity. In his pride Doug came to believe that he could live like a king with no accountability to anyone, even to God. The result is always immorality. Doug was taught in word and deed to live a pure and holy life that honored our triune God and His Word. He’s ‘turned from the holy commandment delivered unto him’ (1 Thes 4:1-8) to a system of belief and practice that justifies immorality. May the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ quicken Doug and bring him to a place of
true repentance and faith.”

The previous quotes are from “Doug Phillips’ Mentor and Spiritual Father Speaks Out” by T.W. Easton, December 19, 2013, http://jensgems.wordpress.com.

THE INTEGRATED CHURCH AND VISION FORUM
By David Cloud
November 29, 2011

I am writing about the Integrated Church Movement and Vision Forum in one report, because they are so closely tied together. While the Integrated Church Movement is larger than Vision Forum, Vision Forum is probably the most influential part of it. The Integrated Church Movement (ICM), also called the Family Integrated Church, is defined as follows:“The family-integrated model jettisons all age-graded ministries. Those who adhere to this model view each family unit (single or married, with or without children) as one ‘block’ that comprises the local church. That is, they view the church as a family of families. They view the church’s purpose as equipping the parents, primarily the fathers, to evangelize and disciple their children” (Terry Delany, “Three Perspectives on Family Ministry,” March 18, 2009).
It is not an organization but a philosophy, and there are many varieties of Family Integrated churches.
THE GOOD
There are many biblically-sound things that are emphasized by the Integrated Church movement.

It emphasizes building godly families and it resists the cultural way of parents abdicating their responsibilities to government schools and church programs.

It urges fathers to take their rightful place as committed and involved leaders and instructors.

It emphasizes separation from the world’s philosophies and ways.

It exposes the danger of the typical segregated church ministry that follows the world’s pattern by putting young people together too much to be influenced by their peers and does not emphasize enough parental responsibility in training, perhaps even detracting from that responsibility.

The Integrated Church material has many helpful statements on these particular issues.
THE DANGERS
But there are also some serious dangers represented by the Integrated Church movement.
1. The Integrated Church has often led to the downplaying of the importance of the biblical church.
This is not always true, but it is often true. Vision Forum warns about “nomadic families that flit from church to church, or renegades who refuse to place themselves under the accountability of a local church,” and adds, “God requires His people to be under biblical local churches with biblical preaching, biblical church government, biblical ordinances, and biblical discipline.”

This warning is an admission that this is a problem.

In fact, the movement is rife with this error. Many have replaced a biblical church with “home church” where the fathers are the pastors. Others have tried to start “churches” with a few home-schooling families though they aren’t qualified and divinely called to the task.

The Integrated Church movement has turned the church into a “family of families,” but the church is much more than a “family of families.” The apostle Paul wasn’t married, and he emphasized the importance of the unmarried condition (1 Corinthians 7:7-8, 25-35). The church’s main task is the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8), and when the gospel is preached effectively, the result is the salvation of single people and those from all sorts of broken families. If the emphasis is on the ideal family, on the church being “a family of families,” a great many are left out.

We see this in our church planting work in South Asia. One of our churches is eight years old, and a high percentage of the members are either unmarried young people or are men and women representing broken homes. Several of the women have unsaved husbands. Some of the husbands abuse them and try to hinder their faith in Christ; at least one is an abusive drunkard. The wife of one of the male church members left him after he came to Christ. We have only a handful of families so far that are composed of both husband and wife that are saved and are trying to raise their children right. In many cases the wives can’t read and the parents have only the slightest clue of how to raise their children for Christ, though we are trying to train them. If our emphasis were on “a family of families,” we would be a very discouraged group.

Our goal is definitely to produce godly Christian families, but our church is not a family of families. It is a church! We are busy teaching the people how to build godly homes and discipline their children biblically, but it is very slow and somewhat discouraging work, because it is all brand new to them. The Hindu culture knows nothing about such things. Most of our church members had never even seen a Bible until they heard the gospel through our evangelistic ministries. The vast majority are first generation Christians, saved out of endless generations of pagan darkness.

What we need are New Testament churches that seek to build strong families and that do not hinder the families by such worldly things as entertainment-focused youth departments. To that degree we agree with the Family Integrated philosophy, but only to that degree, because that is as far as the Bible allows us to go.
2. The Integrated Church lacks understanding about the danger of New Evangelicalism.
The Integrated Church is largely an evangelical movement rather than a fundamentalist one. Popular speakers at their conferences include Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and other New Evangelicals. You will find frequent positive references to evangelical leaders. There is little or no call for ecclesiastical separation.

This is no light matter, as the Bible emphasizes the doctrine of separation from false doctrine and compromise (e.g., Romans 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:14-17; 2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Timothy 6:1-5; 2 Timothy 3:5; Titus 3:10). (See “New Evangelicalism: Its History, Characteristics, and Fruit,” which is available from Way of Life Literature in book and e-book formats.)
3. The Integrated Church neglects the Great Commission.
If you look through Integrated Church literature and web sites, there is little emphasis on the Great Commission and preaching the gospel to the ends of the earth. I am not saying there is nothing at all, but there is far more emphasis on the family and other things. Their conferences are not missions conferences or evangelism conferences but family and dominionist/reconstructionist conferences (emphasizing the building of the kingdom of God in the here and now). Preaching the gospel to the ends of the earth is not even mentioned in Vision Forum’s mission statement.

There are exceptions such as Antioch Community Church in Elon, North Carolina, which lists the following as two of their distinctives: “commitment to local and world missions” and “planting other churches.”

This church appears to be the exception rather than the rule.

The family is not an end in itself. The objective of both family and church should be the fulfillment of the Lord’s Great Commission, which He emphasized greatly after He rose from the dead and before He ascended to Heaven (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:44-48; John 20:21; Acts 1:8).

The book of Acts models the working out of the Great Commission rather than the Family Integrated Church model. Though we believe in a strong emphasis on godly families, this should not be an end in itself. Paul, a single man who could not model the strong family emphasis, preached the gospel and started churches. Paul took the young Timothy away from his family and discipled him apart from his father and mother and grandmother, and there is no evidence that Timothy ever married.
4. The Integrated Church is legalistic, having gone beyond the Bible in making rules about family and church.
The Integrated Church tends to be very legalistic. There is much liberty within the biblical model for both the family and the church, and it is legalistic to make laws that go beyond the biblical bounds.

For example, there is the teaching that the church must always be “family integrated.” A lecture published by Vision Forum says, “The biblical example is that entire families are present for corporate worship. Age-segregated worship is rooted in evolutionary humanism, not biblical Christianity” (Doug Phillips, “The Role of Children in the Meeting of the Church,” 2002, Family Renewal Audio Library).

The Bible says nothing about this one way or the other. Segregation of the ages has its dangers, but there certainly can be a time and place to teach children and young people separately from the adults. This is not contrary to any Scripture. A segregated ministry has some dangers that we need to consider and avoid, but it’s not a heresy. As the pillar and ground of the truth and possessing the Lord’s commission to “teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have taught you,” the church has the authority to teach children and young people as certainly as the home has (1 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 28:19); and the church has the right to decide how to accomplish this in a practical sense. I believe there is a great benefit in having Bible classes for children and youth. The Bible nowhere says that they must always be with their parents. That is to make a law out of the Bible’s silence.

Sunday School is neither a pillar of the faith nor a heresy. It is simply a tool. The Sunday School movement began in England as a way of evangelizing children from poor families and did not meet in the church or even during normal church times. It was held in various places in the community on Sunday afternoons. The typical Sunday School today is part evangelistic and part discipleship. Each church must determine how it will fulfill Christ’s command to preach the gospel to every creature and disciple those who believe, and the Sunday School can be a helpful tool if it is conducted properly. Having or not having a Sunday School doesn’t determine whether a church is biblical.

If mom and dad want to keep their children with them at all times in church, and if they don’t want their children to participate in youth activities, that is their prerogative before the Lord, but to go beyond this and make such things a law for everyone is to go beyond Scripture.

Another example of the legalism of the Integrated Church movement is its teaching that daughters must remain under the father’s roof until marriage. The following is a review of a Vision Forum book and DVD by a fundamentalist home schooling mother that investigated their materials:
“The two items I have reviewed are the book ‘So Much More,’ a book to daughters about how to have ‘vision’ for the kingdom of God. And the DVD ‘The Return of the Daughters,’ a documentary on the whole idea of daughters staying under their father’s roof until marriage. On the surface these items seemed to be very God-honoring. Yet, I had an unsettled feeling that something just wasn't quite right. On the DVD, it seemed very touching to want to ‘protect’ your daughters in the way they suggest. What Christian father wouldn’t want to do the best for his daughter? Being a home school father, my husband wanted to have an open heart to what the Lord may be leading him to in the future. We spent all these years training her to be a keeper at home and as she becomes an adult, we do not want to just ‘throw her to the wolves.’ This is exactly what the DVD suggests you are doing if you don’t keep your daughter at home until marriage. ... The book had much material that seemed on the surface to be great. It mentioned modest dress, Christian femininity, etc. Yet, it warned daughters against an independent spirit and self-sufficiency to the point of calling working for anyone other than your dad, selfish and Marxist. It also mentioned if daughters did not have families that agreed with this vision, they should find a family that would adopt them into their families so they could fulfill this role. The whole idea was the family should not be split up at church and if you wanted to be a visionary daughter you better find a family in one of their Integrated churches so you could be a part. It was such nonsense as I have led ‘bus kids’ to Christ in junior church and have wondered how they would have fit in at church without any families to adopt them. There were so many other glaring flaws, often times they used Scripture quotes that were intended to be commands for our relationship to Christ, and they twisted it to be for our relationship to earthly fathers.”
To teach that young women cannot leave their father’s roof unless they are married is going far beyond Scripture and putting man-made yokes on God’s people. Though we agree that we are not to follow the dictates and ways of today’s feministic-influenced society (Psalm 1:1; Rom. 12:3) and children are to obey their parents in the Lord (Ephesians 6:1), this does not mean that we have to submit to man-made laws that go beyond this. The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.

Is a young woman to be treated as a child? For a young woman to go to a godly Bible College and even to become a single missionary within the ministry restrictions of the New Testament Scripture (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:12) is not unscriptural. My wife was saved as a teenager when she was living in home broken by divorce. Her father and step father were unbelievers so she had no earthly father to help her spirituality. She faithfully attended the best church in her area, and after she graduated from high school she attended a godly Bible College, worked in a church, and was called to be a missionary. Before we were married, she worked as a nurse at a missionary hospital, and I do not believe that she was disobeying the Bible. A single woman can operate under the authority of the church as surely as she can under the authority of a father. Consider Phebe (Romans 16:1-2). She was sent by Paul on a ministry journey to Rome and Paul instructed the church at Rome to assist her, yet no father or husband is mentioned.

To instruct young women to leave their own fathers and put themselves under another father, because her own father is not following the Integrated Church model, is actually rebellion to God’s Word. Where does the Bible teach this? The Bible says, “Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right” (Eph. 6:1). It doesn’t say, “Daughters obey your father in the Lord unless he refuses to follow the Integrated Church philosophy.”

Beware of Integrated Church legalism.
5. The Integrated Church will bring you into association with heresy.
As I have been examining the Integrated Church Movement, I have found many heresies that make this a dangerous movement. These are in addition to the errors that we have mentioned under the previous four points.
There is the heresy that salvation is by endurance.

Consider the following statement at a Family Integrated Church web site:
“While the dedication and discipline and athletic prowess is commendable, I fear that it may be at the expense of the child's salvation. I know that on earth it isn't fancy, it isn't glorious, millions of people won't be shouting your or your child's name, but I want to encourage you, as a father, to daily drill the Christian fundamentals with your children. There are no medals or crowns or tiaras or sashes. But this is an endurance race and if we remain steadfast until the end, we will receive the crown of salvation that will last for eternity” (Richard Boureston, “Will Your Child Throw a 100mph Fastball in Hell?” Walk of Faith Church, Orange County’s Family Integrated Church, http://ourwalkoffaith.com/articles/orange-county-church/will-your-child-throw-a-100mph-fastball-in-hell.html).
That is works salvation, and it is a heresy of the first order.
There is the heresy of dominionism.

Vision Forum is devoted to dominion theology, and Vision Forum has a vast influence throughout the Integrated Church movement. They to impart a “family vision for cultural reformation.”

One of their DVD presentations is entitled “Training Dominion-Oriented Daughters.”

Vision Forum’s movie
God’s Next Army presents the goal of training young people to enter the halls of government and become national leaders for kingdom reconstructionism.

Vision Forum is associated with Patrick Henry College, an institute of higher learning for home schoolers that is devoted to a theocratic agenda of “the transformation of American society” through preparing “Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture.”

Patrick Henry College, which has associations with Vision Forum, was founded by Michael P. Farris, who is also the head of the Home School Legal Defense Fund (HSLDA) and the founder of Joshua Generation Ministries. The latter is devoted to training young people 11-19 to “become a force in the civic and political arenas” to banish pluralism from America, a dominionist, kingdom-now agenda.

Gary Demar’s American Vision organization is another reconstructionist outfit that has influence among home schoolers and integrationist churches. American Vision’s objective is to “restore America to its Biblical Foundation--from Genesis to Revelation.” The vision is of “an America that recognizes the sovereignty of God over all of life and where Christians are engaged in every facet of society.”

This fails to recognize that America was never built solidly upon the Bible. It was always built on a mixture of Bible and humanistic philosophy. Some of the founding fathers were Bible-believing Christians, while some were not. In fact, some of the chief of America’s founders were unbelieving rationalists who despised doctrines such supernatural revelation and Christ’s atonement. These included Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. There is no pattern in the New Testament for a “Christian nation.” There is a pattern for the church and the home and for civil government but not for a Christian nation. The kingdom of God will only work in this world at a level beyond the churches when God Himself comes to sit on the throne. There is no kingdom without a king!

In his book
Ruler of the Nations, Demar describes the dominionist philosophy as follows:“All government requires a reference point. If God is to be pleased by men, the Bible must become the foundation of all their governments, including civil government. This means that Biblical law must be made the foundation of all righteous judgment in every government: personal (self government), ecclesiastical, familial, and civil.”
When we look to the book of Acts and the New Testament Epistles we look in vain for a dominionist agenda. The apostles and preachers in the early churches didn’t have an objective of “bringing the Roman Empire back to God” or establishing the kingdom of God within the Roman Empire. Rather, they fulfilled the Commission given by Christ to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). They preached the gospel, discipled the brethren, established churches, lived holy lives as light in a dark world, considered themselves pilgrims in a strange land, citizens of a heavenly country, and waited on the imminent return of Christ (1 Thess. 1:9-10).
There is the heresy of Calvinistic sovereign election.

Vision Forum is founded upon and permeated with Reformed Calvinistic theology. The statement of faith includes the following:

“All who were chosen in Christ from eternity past are born again by the Holy Spirit, respond from their new hearts with repentance and faith in Jesus, are justified on the basis of the shed blood of Christ, become children of God, and are indwelt, sanctified, and sealed by the Holy Spirit until they are glorified at Christ’s return.”

Vision Forum books include the following:
John Calvin: Man of the Millennium, The Story of the English Puritans, The World’s Greatest Reformation History Library, The Geneva Bible Calvin Legacy Edition, Children’s Stories of the Reformation, Stories of the Covenanters in Scotland, Reformation Heroes, Famous Women of the Reformed Church, Puritan Fathers Classics Library, Gill’s Body of Doctrinal Divinity (hyper, hyper Calvinism). They even sell a statue of John Calvin. There is the heresy of Replacement Theology and the misuse of the Law of Moses.

This heresy replaces Israel with the Church. It is for this reason that the Family Integrated Church movement brings so many things from the Old Testament directly into New Testament church, which is a gross error. The Apostle Paul taught that the Law of Moses is not the Christian’s law (2 Corinthians 3:6-18). In 2 Corinthians 3:6, the “letter that killeth” is the Law of Moses. (This verse is frequently taken out of context by New Evangelicals and ecumenists and liberals to support the heresy that the Bible should not be interpreted literally or that it should not be obeyed in all points.) Those who hold to Replacement Theology teach that the “moral code” of the Law of Moses is enforce in the Church, but Paul was specifically talking about the “moral code” in 2 Corinthians 3. He was talking about the Law that “was written and engraven in stones” (verse 7). That is the Ten Commandments! Yet he calls this Law “the ministration of death” (verse 7) and “the ministration of condemnation” (verse 9). This is because the Law of Moses requires perfect obedience in ALL points (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10; James 2:10), and sinful, fallen man cannot live up to it. Thus, the purpose of the Law of Moses was to show us God’s holy character and righteous demands and man’s fallen condition in order to lead men to safety in Christ (Romans 3:19-24; Galatians 3:24). Once a man places his faith in Christ, he is no longer under the Law of Moses (Galatians 3:25; Romans 7:1-4). Paul said the Law of Moses, specifically the Ten Commandments written and engraven in stones, is done away for the believer (2 Cor. 3:11). The New Testament believer has a different, an even higher law, and that is the “law of the Spirit” (Romans 8:2). The believer’s law is to be conformed to the image of Christ by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18). The Christian’s law is also called “the law of liberty” (Jam. 1:25), because while the instruction of the New Testament faith is a requirement that God places before His people, it is a law of liberty because we obey God out of gratitude for His grace in Christ, and we do not have to fear eternal condemnation.
There is the heresy of denying the imminency of the return of Christ.

The Integrated Church movement largely denies an imminent Rapture, but the doctrine of the pre-tribulational Rapture is both Scriptural and important. (See “The Pre-Tribulation Rapture” at the Way of Life web site.) It is not a peripheral doctrine. Christ, Paul, James, and Peter taught that the Lord’s return is imminent and is to be expected at any time (Mat. 24:44; Phil. 4:5; Jam. 5:8-9; 1 Pet. 4:7). The early Christians lived in expectation of Christ’s return and the literal fulfillment of the prophecies. “For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10). The doctrine of a pre-tribulational Rapture is a great motivator for purifying one’s personal Christian life. It encourages the believer in trials and persecutions (1 Thessalonians 4:17-18). It keeps the church’s focus on the Great Commission. D.L. Moody had it right when he said: “I look upon this world as a wrecked vessel. God has given me a lifeboat and said to me, ‘Moody, save all you can.’” The pre-tribulational Rapture motivates us to be busy in the Lord’s work (1 Cor. 15:58). It motivates us to live obedient lives (1 Jn. 3:1-3; 1 Th. 5:4-7). It motivates us to separate from evil (Tit. 2:13-14). It keeps believers on the outlook for heresy and apostasy (2 Timothy 4:3-4; 1 John 2:24-28).
There is the heresy of modern textual criticism.

The writings, videos, and web sites promoting the Integrated Church are filled with quotations from the modern versions, including the English Revised Version and the New International Version. There is a complete capitulation to the heresy of modern textual criticism and the smorgasbord approach to the Bible version issue. (See the following articles at the Way of Life Literature web site: “Textual Criticism Is Drawn from the Wells of Infidelity,” “Modern Textual Criticism’s Role in the Breakdown of Society,” and “The Ungodly Fruit of Modern Textual Criticism.” For a more extensive study, see the books “Modern Textual Criticism’s Hall of Shame” and “Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions,” which are available in print and eBooks editions at the Way of Life web site.)
CONCLUSION
The Integrated Church movement has some good points, but the good is wrapped in a theological package that contains many dangers for Bible-believing Christians.
________________________________________________

Monday, January 13, 2014

HOMESCHOOL PARENTS ABUSED BY TEXAS COURTS~CHILDREN REMOVED FROM HOME

 
 Judge Removes Children Illegally
Reprinted in full below, unedited, for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
On November 21 seven children from a home school family in Duncanville were forcibly removed from their home, in spite of no evidence of abuse or neglect, by order of Judge Graciela Olvera of the 256th District Court of Dallas County. Judge Olvera issued a removal order at an ex-parte hearing in which the parents were not represented nor notified.
This action against the Tutt family reminds me of that saying, “No good deed goes unpunished.” The Tutts are a Christian family who have five biological children, three adopted children, and one in the process of private adoption. (Three of the biological children are grown and living outside the home.) The Tutts spent several years as a licensed CPS foster home, adopted a child from CPS foster care, and now serve with Safe Families, working with at-risk families and directly with CPS to help children who are in need of care as a result of abuse or neglectful situations. At the time of the incident that drew CPS’s attention, they were caring for a sibling group of five, including a child with autism, through Safe Families. Additionally, CPS had independently placed an infant with them, knowing that they already had 12 children in their home. This family obviously has a heart for helping children in bad situations, and CPS itself was aware of this goodwill and has called on the family as a resource for such children for many years.
 On September 21 the four year-old child with autism wandered away from the home. The Tutts’ eight-year-old went after him but could not bring him back, so he stayed with the child while the other Tutt children notified their father, who immediately got in his car and began to search for them. Unfortunately, he turned right at the end of the block while the children turned left, and a police officer picked them up and returned them to the home before Mr. Tutt could find them. Without entering the home, but seemingly upset with the number of children there, the fact that the shaded yard did not have grass, and the fact that the autistic child had soiled himself, the officer contacted CPS. Mrs. Tutt’s documentation from the local school and from Safe Families that the child was autistic and that CPS was well aware how many children were in the home was ignored by the officer.
This call by the police resulted in an investigation by a CPS caseworker who, after walking through the home, acknowledged, “There is no problem here.” Mrs. Tutt was cordial and fully cooperative with the caseworker. In the course of this conversation the caseworker questioned Mrs. Tutt about her ministry to the homeless and asked why she would choose to stay at home with her children. The caseworker said, “Nobody in their right mind would want to stay home all day with so many children!” Apparently this was not a figure of speech, because the caseworker issued a “Safety Plan” requiring the Tutts to take parenting classes and requiring Mrs. Tutt to have a psychological examination. Mrs. Tutt made sure the caseworker put an expiration date on the Safety Plan before she left. The expiration date was October 20.
In spite of the “Safety Plan” expiring on October 20, on October 31 the caseworker returned. Mrs. Tutt produced certificates documenting that they had already taken the requisite parenting classes within the last year and had had two family therapy sessions in the previous two weeks. In addition, Mrs. Tutt produced a certificate from her doctor noting her physical and mental fitness to care for children. The caseworker signed a copy of the doctor’s certificate to show she had received it and noted that CPS had no services that could be offered to the family because the Tutts had already taken so many parenting classes on their own as part of their work with Safe Families. She told Mrs. Tutt she would see if the doctor’s certificate would be sufficient proof of mental fitness and then handed her a listing of all the service providers used by CPS for everything clinical, without any further instructions. The list was basically a “phone book” of all services, from drug rehab to prenatal care. The Tutts did not hear again from the caseworker
On November 14 there was an ex-parte hearing in which Judge Olvera issued an order to remove the children from the Tutt home, in spite of the fact that CPS had acknowledged, “There is no problem here.” Under Texas Family Code, Chapter 262, removal from the home requires immediate threat of harm to children, but no immediate action was taken by CPS for a full week.
On the morning of November 21 three cars of armed constables arrived at the Tutt home and took possession of the children, not allowing their mother to put shoes on them and refusing to put them in their car seats. The constables told Mrs. Tutt that they were taking the children and herself to a meeting with a judge and CPS, a statement that was untrue.
On arrival at the local CPS office, the caseworker there informed Mrs. Tutt that her children were being removed by order of a judge. The caseworker would not tell Mrs. Tutt the charges and would not show her any paperwork. When Mrs. Tutt attempted to have her children placed with friends and family, as is standard CPS procedure, she was told, “We don’t do that anymore.” Mrs. Tutt cited the CPS Handbook, Section 4511, but was rebuffed, and the caseworker refused to allow any of the children to be placed with friends or family. Mrs. Tutt was told the children would be placed in foster care and that there would be a hearing on December 4 to discuss the matter further. It gets worse!
In the interim, the guardian ad litem appointed by Judge Olvera to represent the “best interests of the children” did her own “educational examination” of the traumatized children and concluded they were not being “properly educated.” Her descriptions of the children’s inability to count objects, say the alphabet, or spell their names were unbelievable to the Tutts’ many friends and family who had witnessed their academic ability over the years. The guardian ad litem also told the Tutts’ attorney that the children were being “brainwashed” to think they did not need education.
On December 4 a full hearing was scheduled for December 16. Judge Olvera dismissed the Tutts’ attorney’s concerns that she did not have jurisdiction over the case and responded to her request to move the hearing on this matter to another court by saying, “If you don’t like my ruling, you can appeal it.”
On December 16, in spite of protests by the Tutts’ attorney that it is not lawful to remove children or keep them in CPS foster care without evidence of abuse or neglect, the attorney ad litem recommended to Judge Olvera that the children remain in CPS care. No charges of abuse. No charges of neglect. No charges at all, in fact. There were simply the GAL’s concerns that the children were “severely behind educationally.”
According to witnesses in the courtroom, the hearing quickly devolved into a relentless attack on this family’s religious beliefs, community service, and right to home school their children—with no legal basis at all. Mrs. Tutt herself was on the stand for three full hours.
CPS attorneys berated Mrs. Tutt for not using a “state-certified home school curriculum,” in spite of the fact that there is no such thing in Texas. The guardian ad litem denigrated her for not submitting documentation of her home schooling to the state on a regular basis, including state-mandated tests. This, of course, is not only not required, but there is no way for someone to do so in Texas.
According to another witness, the guardian ad litem told the court that she herself had a home school friend who turned her children’s work into the Texas Education Agency for academic credits, a claim that is ludicrous.
When the Tutts’ attorney was finally given the floor, she had almost no time to present her case. She had to reduce her witness list from 20 to only six (two of them taking the stand for fewer than five minutes apiece), was unable to fully cross-examine, and was unable to present her closing arguments. By that time it was 9 p.m. The case had been going on for more than 12 hours.
The next day Judge Olvera issued her ruling: The Tutts’ children would not be returned to them but would be kept in foster care. Again, no abuse, no neglect—nothing but a rogue judge who decided to place her view of what was best for these children regarding home education above the law. The Tutts’ appealed.
A hearing before a new judge has been set for January 7, and the new judge has stated that the only evidence she will hear is the justification for the children’s removal. To this day, the Tutts have never been charged with abuse, neglect, or anything at all. The papers they were finally given five days after the removal only contained anecdotes about the caseworker’s visit—nothing actionable by CPS. The guardian ad litem, in the meantime, met with the Tutts in their home with their attorney and acknowledged she has no concerns about the children’s safety, the parents’ parenting ability, the ministry in which the family is involved, or how many children they have in their home, but she will not recommend to the court that the children be returned unless the Tutts agree to place their children in public school and never home school them.
THSC wrote a letter to this attorney to clarify as to the status of home schooling in Texas and to note that her assertion that the children are behind academically does not meet the statutory definition of neglect according to the Texas Family Code. To support our position, we also shared with her the policy statement of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services regarding investigations of abuse/neglect with regard to home school families. Finally, we shared with her the most recent letter from the TEA regarding Texas laws related to home schooling to help her understand that the state of Texas does not regulate, monitor, or oversee home schooling. Of course, we also copied this information to the attorney representing the Tutts as well. These egregious actions and violations of the law have earned Judge Olvera a place on our Texas Judicial Wall of Shame. Look for a public announcement when her addition is posted.
What can you do to help the Tutts? First, pray for them and for their attorney and that the new judge will follow the law and return their children. Secondly, sign our online petition to show you support for this embattled home school family and sign up for our updates to keep abreast of developments in this case. Thirdly, share this information with your friends and ask them to take action as well.
____________________________________________________________
Christian Couple Fights Texas Officials 
After Homeschooled Children 
Forcibly Removed From Home: 

See: http://christiannews.net/2014/01/09/christian-couple-fighting-texas-officials-after-homeschooling-children-forcibly-removed-from-home/

Reprinted in full below, unedited, for informational, educational, and research purposes:

 DALLAS – Four of seven children who were forcibly removed from their home in Texas have now been returned to their parents after the Christian couple spent two months battling the government in courtover their right to homeschool. 

Trevor and Christina Tutt of Dallas have several years of experience helping at-risk children through both CPS foster care and the ministry Safe Families. In addition to five biological children (three of whom are now grown and living outside their home), the Tutts have three adopted children and are in the process of adopting another child.

“We very much want God to bring our new children, the children that He wants to be in our family, so we are open to whatever children He sends,” Mrs. Tutt told Examiner.com in late 2011. “Because of our experience with our children, we are specially equipped to handle children with special needs. In fact, we look for children with those special needs because there are so many children out there languishing in foster care because people don’t want to adopt a child who has extra challenges. It isn’t for everyone, but it is definitely for us!”
Mr. and Mrs. Tutts’ commitment to their children—both educationally, with their homeschooling, and spiritually, with their Christian faith—is known throughout their community. Not only have they been spotlighted in outlets such as KIWI Magazine, but they were also featured speakers during Lake Pointe Church’s 2012 Adoption and Foster Care Conference.

However, in September, a local police officer contacted CPS officials after finding that a child temporarily in the Tutts’ care—a four-year-old with autism—had wandered a short distance away from their home. Even though Mr. Tutt was nearby, searching for the child, the police officer’s report led to a CPS investigation.
According to a recent article from the Texas Home School Coalition (THSC), a CPS caseworker investigated the Tutt family’s home and concluded by saying, “There is no problem here.” However, the caseworker also remarked,“Nobody in their right mind would want to stay home all day with so many children!” and ordered Mrs. Tutt to enroll in parenting classes and take a psychological examination.
Despite the fact that Mrs. Tutt showed CPS workers numerous parenting class certificates and paperwork certifying her mental health, a local judge ordered the Tutts’ seven children to be removed from the home. In November, armed constables seized the children and kept them under government custody for nearly two months.
 


Tim Lambert, president of THSC, asserts in the article that the seizure was unlawful, since—as described in Chapter 262 of Texas Family Code—“removal from the home requires immediate threat of harm to children.”
According to reports, government officials were allegedly displeased with the family’s homeschooling. THSC advises that the Tutts were informed that their children were not “properly educated” and were being “brainwashed” by their homeschooling parents.
Last month, during a hearing that lasted for eight hours, Mrs. Tutt’s faith and homeschooling liberties were again called into question.
“The hearing quickly devolved into a relentless attack on this family’s religious beliefs, community service, and right to home school their children—with no legal basis at all,” Lambert reports. “CPS attorneys berated Mrs. Tutt for not using a ‘state-certified home school curriculum,’ in spite of the fact that there is no such thing in Texas. The guardian ad litem denigrated her for not submitting documentation of her home schooling to the state on a regular basis, including state-mandated tests. This, of course, is not only not required, but there is no way for someone to do so in Texas.” Following the hearing, Judge Graciela Olvera ruled that the Tutts’ children should be kept under government foster care and not returned to their parents, based on CPS arguments about the children being homeschooled. Judge Olvera also ruled that both Mr. and Mrs. Tutt should participate in parenting classes, drug and alcohol testing, psychological evaluations, psychiatric evaluations and personal counseling. However, as no evidence of parental abuse or neglect was ever mentioned in the hearing or the original removal affidavit filed with the judge, the family appealed the ruling.
During a second hearing this week, a local judge once again considered the Tutt family’s case. According to an update from friends of the family, the judge admitted that there was no evidence of abuse or neglect found in the Tutts’ home and conceded that the children should not have been removed from their home in the first place. She thus overturned Olvera’s ruling, which was not based on abuse findings, but rather complaints about homeschooling.
As a result, four of the children have now been returned to their parents, but are required to attend public school while officials conduct an educational evaluation. The other three children have not yet been returned home, according to reports. Supporters of the Tutt family describe this latest development as “not a victory or defeat” but rather “a sidestep,” and they confirm that “home schooling was the main issue” with the legal proceedings.
Overall, Lambert described the court procedure as “a massive beatdown of homeschooling” and told Christian News Network that the Tutt family’s situation should be of concern to other homeschooling families.
“This case exemplifies the new attack against parental rights and home schooling in which a family court judge who has a low view of parental rights believes he/she has the authority to decide what is ‘in the best interest’ of the children in question,” he stated. “This is a grave new concern for families who are pursuing home schooling or some other decision for their children that society might find unorthodox.”

Editor’s Note: Those wishing to support the Tutt family can like their Facebook page or sign their online petition surrounding the family’s right to homeschool their children.
_______________________________________________________

TEXAS HOME SCHOOL COALITION PETITION IN SUPPORT OF TUTT FAMILY:
 https://www.thsc.org/tutt-family-petition/