Article: Four kids in an Idaho faith-healing family died. Authorities could do nothing

[JohnH]

There is a big and important difference in theologies that teach faith only and all medicine or procedures are sinful; and theologies that teach that some medicine might be sinful, others are ill advised, others are fine. I think historic Biblical Christianity is no stranger to refusing witchcraft for healing, or certain potions. But I hold that Christianity does not inherently exclude taking medicine.

I don't think it does either; hence, I take my children to the doctor for regular checkups, when they're sick, or injured. However, I respect others who have different boundary lines than I do. (I even respect others who use medical treatments I would avoid, as I feel they may do so out of ignorance, or they simply don't have the same religious convictions I do - at a certain level, forbearance with our brethren is called for.)

How far should Christians go in defending death in pursuit of uninfringed freedom of religion?

I would say "pretty far". I would gladly choose death over abandoning my own faith. With that said, I don't really get involved in defending freedom of religion in the political or judicial sphere at all, and we are very blessed in this country that plenty of other people are willing to do so for us.

Improper care of children cannot be excused by playing the trump card of "freedom of religion". And I recognize that this feels like a scary thought. It is of course scary to think that I could be next. But even if I am next, isn't it better persecuted standing alone on truth, than being un-persecuted if that means defending non-Christ like actions with plenty of crazy non-Christian company - Muslims, etc.?

Well, my convictions aren't about eschewing all worldly medical treatment, but I hesitate to say that my beliefs are the One True Beliefs, right? How confident can I be that my beliefs are the exactly correct ones I should expect every other Christian to follow?

I think of the case in Missouri a few years back where some crazy Anabaptist woman thought her child was possessed or something, and drowned them in the backyard pond. Should she be granted immunity because of her misguided spiritual notions?

Someone having a mental break is completely different than an established religious order or sect that meets all the definitions of a bona fide religion, has tenets and practices, and is otherwise "normal". For example, those articles said people in the community otherwise appreciate their neighbours who are in this sect.

Or let's pretend that a denomination develops where they teach that everyone ought to fast. We recognize that fasting has plenty of actual Biblical support. So they take a Biblical teaching, and then they begin fasting their children to death. Is that defensible?

Starving one children's to death is not the same as avoiding some or all medical treatments.

I say no, and I don't think that them holding sincere religious beliefs should protect them, because I think they are sincerely and terribly wrong.

I think broad brush defending this sort of thing under the blanket of "religious freedom" is the easy and lazy way out. It is easy. A person don't really have to put in the effort to discern or wrestle with various medicine and procedures. And I think we need to. Because it is not true that taking medicine is in conflict with faith, and there are innocent lives at stake. It isn't a harmless shortcut.

Yeah, it is, RZehr. I don't want to use medical treatments on myself or my children that I think are involved in aborting babies and using tissue and products of those abortions. There are others, though, who feel very differently than I do. I think a certain amount of religious freedom in this country for me to avoid such things is something to be very, very grateful for.

I would hesitate to say that those people in that denomination / church are false Christians or have false belief. If we are to say so, then we are establishing ourselves as the One True Church with the One True Doctrine and declaring we are right. I am simply not quite ready to go there.

With that said, I would gladly invite anyone to join me in what I believe is are the accurate and historic Christian doctrines and practices, and here in my true church you will find we indeed do engage in the consumption and practice of medicine (sometimes, I think a little too much, but I'm the person who tends to have 2 to 3 appointments a week).

[Soloist]

There is a big and important difference in theologies that teach faith only and all medicine or procedures are sinful; and theologies that teach that some medicine might be sinful, others are ill advised, others are fine. I think historic Biblical Christianity is no stranger to refusing witchcraft for healing, or certain potions. But I hold that Christianity does not inherently exclude taking medicine.

How far should Christians go in defending death in pursuit of uninfringed freedom of religion?

Improper care of children cannot be excused by playing the trump card of "freedom of religion". And I recognize that this feels like a scary thought. It is of course scary to think that I could be next. But even if I am next, isn't it better persecuted standing alone on truth, than being un-persecuted if that means defending non-Christ like actions with plenty of crazy non-Christian company - Muslims, etc.?

I think of the case in Missouri a few years back where some crazy Anabaptist woman thought her child was possessed or something, and drowned them in the backyard pond. Should she be granted immunity because of her misguided spiritual notions?
Or let's pretend that a denomination develops where they teach that everyone ought to fast. We recognize that fasting has plenty of actual Biblical support. So they take a Biblical teaching, and then they begin fasting their children to death. Is that defensible?
I say no, and I don't think that them holding sincere religious beliefs should protect them, because I think they are sincerely and terribly wrong.

I think broad brush defending this sort of thing under the blanket of "religious freedom" is the easy and lazy way out. It is easy. A person don't really have to put in the effort to discern or wrestle with various medicine and procedures. And I think we need to. Because it is not true that taking medicine is in conflict with faith, and there are innocent lives at stake. It isn't a harmless shortcut.

Wife: part of me agrees with you, but I honestly think that I can’t personally judge someone who is a conscientious objector to a certain medical treatment or even an outright faith healer, although the government has every right to get involved. I also think that if a child is old enough to make their own decisions, but not yet 18, it does seem unfair to not respect their choices on their medical treatment in regard to faith healing.

That said, I certainly don’t believe in it, and we have certain beliefs that some might think are unnecessarily endangering our children. We aren’t faith healers, and we don’t believe we have the right to refuse our child life-saving treatment like a rabies vaccine using fetal cells if they are not old enough to come to that decision themselves. Also, the government would step in anyway. It would be one thing to refuse on our own behalf, but to choose to allow our child to die of rabies when they are too young to make that decision themselves seems wrong, specifically when it jumps from a hypothetical risk to a pretty much certain likelihood of death

I still would try not to judge Faith healers, I think some other beliefs you mentioned fall under mental illness, but it sort of falls under the conscientious objector/civil disobedience mindset, although it would be more conscientious objector because you take the punishment hypothetically not for the purpose of changing the law, but because you are willing to face the consequences of your belief

That said, the state has the right to make laws that they feel protect their people. same with the whole polygamy/child marriage situations with extreme Mormonism. i can respect their right to conscientiously object without agreeing with it or saying the state doesn’t have a right to intervene.

[barnhart]

Our family has been reaching out to a street person for some time. In the past she was less troubled by mental health issues and could attend church church and contribute meaningfully to Sunday school with some limits. Her mental health has steadily declined in the last year or so and three or four months ago I began to suspect she was pregnant. My wife guesses she is around 8 months along at this point.

She will not under any circumstances tolerate talk of shelters, clinics or hospitals and maybe with justification because she will not be allowed to leave with the child once it is born and living in those systems is unbearable for her.

There is also a a question in my mind how much pressure she might face to abort although I imagine this will go down in the last several weeks.

Currently we check on her every other day and may step up to every day as delivery seems imminent. I'm slow to call social services on her for several reasons, one being she will be angry at the person who does it and she needs more friends, not less. Eventually someone will turn her in and the state will take the child.

If there were easy answers, families, churches and governments would have found them.

[JohnH]

There is a big and important difference in theologies that teach faith only and all medicine or procedures are sinful; and theologies that teach that some medicine might be sinful, others are ill advised, others are fine. I think historic Biblical Christianity is no stranger to refusing witchcraft for healing, or certain potions. But I hold that Christianity does not inherently exclude taking medicine.

How far should Christians go in defending death in pursuit of uninfringed freedom of religion?

Improper care of children cannot be excused by playing the trump card of "freedom of religion". And I recognize that this feels like a scary thought. It is of course scary to think that I could be next. But even if I am next, isn't it better persecuted standing alone on truth, than being un-persecuted if that means defending non-Christ like actions with plenty of crazy non-Christian company - Muslims, etc.?

I think of the case in Missouri a few years back where some crazy Anabaptist woman thought her child was possessed or something, and drowned them in the backyard pond. Should she be granted immunity because of her misguided spiritual notions?
Or let's pretend that a denomination develops where they teach that everyone ought to fast. We recognize that fasting has plenty of actual Biblical support. So they take a Biblical teaching, and then they begin fasting their children to death. Is that defensible?
I say no, and I don't think that them holding sincere religious beliefs should protect them, because I think they are sincerely and terribly wrong.

I think broad brush defending this sort of thing under the blanket of "religious freedom" is the easy and lazy way out. It is easy. A person don't really have to put in the effort to discern or wrestle with various medicine and procedures. And I think we need to. Because it is not true that taking medicine is in conflict with faith, and there are innocent lives at stake. It isn't a harmless shortcut.

Wife: part of me agrees with you, but I honestly think that I can’t personally judge someone who is a conscientious objector to a certain medical treatment or even an outright faith healer, although the government has every right to get involved. I also think that if a child is old enough to make their own decisions, but not yet 18, it does seem unfair to not respect their choices on their medical treatment in regard to faith healing.

That said, I certainly don’t believe in it, and we have certain beliefs that some might think are unnecessarily endangering our children. We aren’t faith healers, and we don’t believe we have the right to refuse our child life-saving treatment like a rabies vaccine using fetal cells if they are not old enough to come to that decision themselves. Also, the government would step in anyway. It would be one thing to refuse on our own behalf, but to choose to allow our child to die of rabies when they are too young to make that decision themselves seems wrong, specifically when it jumps from a hypothetical risk to a pretty much certain likelihood of death

I still would try not to judge Faith healers, I think some other beliefs you mentioned fall under mental illness, but it sort of falls under the conscientious objector/civil disobedience mindset, although it would be more conscientious objector because you take the punishment hypothetically not for the purpose of changing the law, but because you are willing to face the consequences of your belief

That said, the state has the right to make laws that they feel protect their people. same with the whole polygamy/child marriage situations with extreme Mormonism. i can respect their right to conscientiously object without agreeing with it or saying the state doesn’t have a right to intervene.

Not going and spending money on an expensive medical treatment is worlds apart from polygamist sects, and there isn’t any religion that mandates “child marriages”, or at least Mormonism doesn’t have any such sects