During the 1980s and ’90s, many Christian parents were turned into the state by relatives and fellow “Christians” because these parents engaged in an “abusive” and strangely cultic practice called home education.

Sometimes the persecution came in the form of tirades from the pulpit, gossip on Sunday morning, or ostracism from “normal,” non-cult-like Christians who sent their children to government schools. Other times the persecution came in the form of state intervention, and even seizure of the children—for their good, of course.

As with the modern Internet, these accusers of the brethren did not have to look the families they were condemning in the eye. They did not have to support the assertion of abuse or cult-like behavior. They did not have to prove any of the subjective and often fabricated charges of abuse that they submitted to the state. All an accuser had to do was to claim abuse, or mention the “C” word, and the system would be triggered. All they had to do was to place the phone call and make the accusation.

Accusers could even formally request anonymity when turning families into the state, and still anticipate that the parents they were accusing of abusing their children with spanking or home schooling would be under a mandatory investigation by Child Protective Services.

This “anonymous tip” approach lent itself nicely for personal vendetta. It meant that a disgruntled family member, neighbor, or “fellow Christian,” could ruin the reputation of their brother, rob them of large sums of money in legal fees to defend their family, and fundamentally disrupt their lives—perhaps forever—with complete impunity. And they never had to worry about a guilty conscience for turning their neighbor into the state. They could retain a tremendous air of self-righteousness because the accusers had secretly conducted a trial in their own minds from which they had infallibly determined that the Christian parents that had offended them in church last week with their legalistic dress code, or intolerant view of music, were clearly cultic in their perspective. Having found them guilty of being cultic or culti-like, the notion of home school child abuse was an inescapable corollary.

As an attorney at the Home School Legal Defense Association who defended these parents against the “C” word, I watched innocent mothers and fathers undergo tremendous persecution at the hands of professing Christians who believed that it was weird and cultic to home educate. It was not uncommon for pastors, parents, and relatives to raise the “C” word, not merely to other Christians, but to social workers—all done in the name of protecting children from the cultic behavior of these home school parents. I saw parents turned in to the state for abuse under the pretext that they spanked their children, had home births, allowed their children to eat too much sugar cereal, did not visit the dentist enough, worshiped in home churches, or did not vaccinate, just to name a few of the “evidences” of abusive and “cult-like” behavior.

Usually, when a case actually made it to court, those hoping to curtail the rights of home school parents would argue their position by employing what came to be described as the “Phantom Abuser Argument.” The argument followed this line of reasoning:

“Unregulated home education inescapably leads to abuse. This abuse is dangerous and harmful to children. At all cost abuse must be stopped. Even if the family on trial is not personally guilty of abuse, surely somebody out there is. Yes, somewhere out there is an abusive home school parent. How will we stop that person from abusing their children if we do not regulate all home schooling? That means we need to send a message to all home educators. It means the only way to really wipe out abuse, is to convict the non-abusive family of a crime.”

Our response was usually this: “Show us the abusive home school family? Where are they? They are certainly not the people currently on trial. Where is this phantom home school abuser? You can not expect this court to accept an argument against the family on trial, based on unsubstantiated, general references to some phantom home schooler who you claim must be out there and must be guilty of abuse because—“everybody knows they are out there.”

Our argument usually won the day. It won the day, because it is illogical and dishonest to attack the credibility of individuals with unsubstantiated references to injured third parties. And thanks to a quarter of a century of such carefully made arguments, the blessing of the Lord, and the tireless efforts of the Home School Legal Defense (and their leaders: Mike Farris, Mike Smith, and Chris Klicka), the rights of home educators have been advanced in the courts, and the perverse treatment of law-abiding home schooling Christian at the hands of the cult-watchers has been curtailed.

But the threat of persecution remains.

There is nothing new under the sun. There always have been and will be accusers of the brethren, scoffers and unscrupulous individuals who seek to divide the body of Christ. The battlefield may change shape and size, but the issues are essentially the same. As we press forward into the 21st century, we should aspire to be like the sons of Issachar who understood the times, were blessed of God and given positions of leadership. This means marking those who bring false accusations, or who prepare the body of Christ for great persecution by throwing around the “C” word to describe people who may differ on matters which clearly fall within the pale of orthodoxy.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.