As your pastor, I spend a great deal of time in prayer for the families of our church. I pray for your health, provision, and spiritual well-being. But lately, my prayers have taken on a new urgency. I see a shadow lengthening over our homes, a spiritual crisis that strikes at the very heart of the family. It is a crisis of faith, family, and freedom, and it is a battle for the hearts and minds of our children.
To understand the nature of this challenge, I want to share a story that should serve as a modern-day parable for every Christian parent. It’s the story of Professor in Arizona, a man of faith who allegedly found his career on the line, not for any professional failing, but for trying to protect his own minor children from the gender agenda being pushed in their school. This man, standing on his convictions as a father, found himself facing the potential loss of his livelihood.
While the specific details of his case are his own, his story is not unique. It is a stark representation of a conflict that is now playing out in courtrooms, school board meetings, and workplaces across our nation. It is a story that reveals three interconnected battlefronts: the erosion of your God-given rights as parents, the assault on religious freedom in our public schools, and the immense pressure being placed on believers to conform or be cast out of the public square.
The purpose of this letter is not to stoke fear, but to awaken us to the reality of the spiritual warfare we are in. We must understand the legal and cultural forces at play so we can stand firm in our faith and be wise in defending our families. And so, I must ask you to reflect on a question that this professor’s story poses to us all: What would you do if the state decided it knew better than you how to raise your child in the ways of the Lord?
Section 2: The Sacred Trust: God’s Design and the God of the Land
For ChriLandns, the authority to raise and educate our children is not a privilege granted by the government, but a sacred duty assigned by God Himself. It is a divine trust. For Americans, this holy duty has historically been recognized and protected by the law of the land as a fundamental liberty. Our nation’s long-standing affirmation that the family, not the state, is the primary institution for a child’s upbringing was enshrined in the landmark 1925 Supreme Court case, Pierce v. Society of Sisters. In that decision, the Court struck down an Oregon law that required all children to attend public schools. This legal bulwark reflects a profound biblical truth: our children are not creatures of the state, but gifts from God, entrusted to our care (Psalm 127:3). The state’s role is secondary; our duty as parents is primary and God-given. The Constitution, the Court affirmed, protects the “liberty” of parents to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”
This fundamental “right, rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, has been the primary legal shield for parents against government overreach. Its roots run deep in our common law tradition. As the great legal scholar William Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries on the Laws of England—a work familiar to our nation’s Founders—the nation’s duty to provide for a child’s education is of the greatest importance of any.” The law of our land has, for most of our history, reflected the biblical understanding of the family. It recognized that God places parents, not government bureaucrats, at the head of the home, entrusting them with the spiritual and moral formation of their children.
But this sacred and legally-protected trust is now facing an unprecedented and systematic challenge.
Section 3: The Gathering Storm: Three Stories of Parental Rights Under Siege
The story of the Arizona professor is not an isolated incident; it is a flare sent up from a battlefield where the casualties are families and children. This conflict is no longer a distant theoretical debate. It is arriving at the doorsteps of Christian parents with the full force of state power. As families fight back, they are often engaging in two types of legal battles. Some bring a “facial” challenge to a school’s policy, institutional on its face, for everyone. Others get an “as-applied” challenge, arguing the policy was used to harm their family specifically. To understand the gravity of the situation, we must consider the real-world consequences for families who have stood for their faith and parental rights.
The Cox Case in Indiana Mary and Jeremy Cox, devout Christian parents in Indiana, lost custody of their 16-year-old child after a disagreement over the child’s gender identity. The state did not argue that the Coxes were abusive in any traditional sense. Instead, knowing the weakness of that claim, the state made what one reporter called a “far less controve “sial argument”: it convinced th” Court to remove the child from the hoCourtcause of a “severe eating dis” rder that was tied to the conflict with her parents.” The Indiana Cour” of Appeals upheld the decision, delivering a chilling rationale: parents have the right to their religious beliefs, but “they don’t have t “e rigdon’t exercise them in a way that would harm their child.” In the eyes of t “e state, the parents’ biblicallparents’ed refusal to affirm their child’s new genderchild’sty was the source of “harm,” giving the “state” a pretext to intervene.
The Abigail Martinez Case in California. The ultimate tragedy of state overreach is found in the story of Abigail Martinez. When her daughter began to identify as a boy, Abigail sought counseling to address the underlying depression and anxiety, believing this was the most loving course of action. Because she did not want her daughter to receive “gender-transition” interventions, the state of California took her daughter away. The Court granted Abigail only one hour of Courtitation per week. After starting on cross-sex hormones with the state’s approval, the state’ sghter tragically took her own life. A mother’s love and motherhood were replaced by a state-sanctioned ideology, with devastating consequences.
California’s AB 95. This is not merely a matter of rogue judges; it is becoming codified law. California enacted AB 957, a law that directly weaponizes custody disputes. The law requires judges to consider whether a parent “affirms” a child’s identity when determining “the health, safety, and welfare of the child.” A parent’s adherence to parental spiritual reality and biblical truth can now be used as a legal justification to strip them of custody. As one critic of the bill stated, it is “utter madness.”
These custody battles are the most extreme outcome of a conflict that begins much earlier—in the classrooms of our nation’s schools.
nation’s4: The New State Religion: Gender Ideology in Our Schools
The public school system has become the primary battleground in this cultural conflict. It is here that an ideology directly opposed to a Christian worldview is being systematically taught to our children, often without parental knowledge or consent. This new secular orthodoxy functions as a state-sponsored religion, complete with its own doctrines on identity, sexuality, and morality, and it demands absolute conformity.
In response, a powerful “parental rights movement” has emerged nationwide. This movement is a grassroots effort by mothers and fathers pushing back against school policies that teach children about gender and sexuality, use students’ preferences, and socially transition them with chosen names, all while keeping parents in the dark.
This movement has led to legislative action, most notably with Florida’s Parental Education Act. Opponents have deceptively labeled it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Its actual purpose is to restore the role of parents. The law prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in the early grades (kindergarten through 3rd grade) and ensures that any such instruction in later grades is “age appropriate.” “It is not about raising anyone; it is about affirming that parents, not teachers, should be the ones to introduce these deeply sensitive and formative topics to their own children.
The concerns of these parents have been validated in our courts. In Ricard v. USD 475 Geary County, KS School Board, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction protecting a teacher who challenged a school policy that required her to use students’ preferred pronouns while simultaneously concealing that information from parents. The Court recognized the severe constitutCourt problem with such a policy, stating it was “difficult to envi “ion why a school would even claim—much less how a school could establish—a generalized interest in withholding or concealing from the parents of minor children, information fundamental to a child’s identity, child’sood, and mental and emotional well-being.” While this rulin” rightly protects parents and educators, opponents argue such policies “poison the classr” om speech environment” and that schools “have a duty to prevent “discrimination.” “et us be clear:” This redefines non-discrimination to mean the mandatory imposition of a new state orthodoxy, silencing the sincerely held beliefs of the very families public schools are intended to serve.
This ideological war in the classroom inevitably creates a crisis of conscience for the faithful educators who are called to serve there.
Section 5: The Faithful in the Public Square: Conscience Under Siege
Let us return to the story of the professor in Arizona. His plight represents the profound personal cost of this conflict for believers in the public square. When the state imposes its new orthodoxy on schools, it doesn’t just challenge constitutional rights; it forces Christian teachers, administrators, and employees into an impossible choice: violate your conscience or lose your job.
This dilemma is starkly illustrated in the legal battles over “pronoun policies.” Many school districts now mandate that teachers use pronouns that align with a student’s chosen gender. For a Christian who believes God created humanity male and female, this is not a trivial matter of grammar; it is compelled speech that forces them to affirm a message contradicting their sincerely held religious beliefs. In the case of Meriwether v. Hartop, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rightly recognized that a professor’s refusal to a student’s preference was speech on a “hotly contested matter of public concern” and therefore implied his First Amendment rights.
The counterargument is that a public school teacher is a government actor, and their classroom speech is merely government speech. According to this view, the government has the right to control the message. But can the government compel a Christian to speak a message that violates their core beliefs? To compel a Christian teacher to use pronouns that contradict biological reality is to compel them to bear false witness against God’s creative order, the very Imago Dei they are called to recognize in their students and uphold in their own conscience. The First Amendment was written to prevent precisely this kind of government coercion.
The push to silence Christian belief extends far beyond our shores and shows us the ultimate goal of these movements. In Scotland, a proposed law to ban so-called “conversion therapy” is so broad that “it could criminalize a parent or a pastor for offering biblical counsel to a child struggling with their gender identity. The potential penalty? Up to seven years in prison. This is the endgame: to make the faithful proclamation of God’s truth, even God’s in the family or the church, a crime against the state.
In the face of such overwhelming pressure, our response cannot be silence. It cannot be retreat. It must be a response of courageous, faith-filled action.
Section 6: A Call to Courageous Faith: What Then Shall We Do?
Brothers and sisters, we must not despair. These challenges are not merely political squabbles; they are spiritual battles for the hearts of our children and the future of our families. The fight is not against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual forces that seek to undermine God’s design. TherGod’s, our response must be grounded in the power and wisdom that come from Him alone. So, what shall we do then?
- Be Informed. We cannot fight a battle we do not understand. You must be aware of the policies being debated and implemented in your local school district. As the Education Law Center notes, school boards are accountable to the residents they serve. You have a right and a responsibility to know what is being taught to your children and to provide input on school policy.
- Be Prayerful. This is first and foremost a spiritual battle that must be fought on our knees. We must pray fervently for the families who are on the front lines, like the Coxes and the Martinezes. We must pray for Christian educators, like the professor in Arizona, who are facing persecution for their faith. And we must pray for wisdom and righteousness to prevail in our courts and legislatures.
- Be Present. Your voice matters. School boards “have a responsibility to keep the community informed and to make their decisions using input from the public.” Attend your local school board meetings. Speak respectfully but firmly, with both grace and truth. Consider running for a position on the school board. We cannot cede these critical institutions to those who oppose our values. We must be salt and light.
- Be United. The church must be a city on a hill, a place of refuge and strength for families under attack. When a family in our community faces a legal challenge or a custody battle, we must be the first to offer spiritual, emotional, and practical support. We must stand together, bearing one another’s burdens, so that no one’s family has to fight alone.
The challenges before us are significant, but the God we serve is greater. School board policies or legislative agendas do not threaten his sovereignty. He has entrusted our children to us, and we must be faithful stewards of that precious gift. Let us hold fast to the promise of Scripture: “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
