Court Restricts Girl's Church Attendance Over Claims Of "Psychological Harm"

A troubling court ruling out of Maine should have Christians paying attention. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has upheld an order giving a father final authority to prevent his daughter from attending an evangelical church after arguments that the religious environment was psychologically harmful to the girl.

At the center of the controversy is Calvary Chapel Greater Portland in Westbrook, Maine, where the girl's mother, Emily Bickford, had been taking her to services. Her father, Matthew Bradeen, objected. In 2024, a Portland District Court gave him authority to determine whether his daughter could continue attending the church, and Maine's highest court has now upheld that decision.

One of the concerns from the father was that the church was praying for him to repent and receive salvation, which he believed made it seem to his daughter as if he was the enemy.  Another striking detail involves what the girl was hearing from the pulpit. Bradeen argued that his daughter experienced anxiety in connection with the church, including a panic attack after hearing teaching about the Rapture.

For Bible-believing Christians, alarm bells should immediately be going off. America is entering dangerous territory when courts find themselves deciding whether exposure to Christian teaching contributes to psychological harm serious enough to restrict a child's participation in a church.

And if the Rapture can become part of that conversation, Christians should consider what could come next. Hell? Judgment? Sin? Repentance? Biblical sexuality? The exclusivity of Jesus Christ?

Christianity contains many doctrines capable of making people uncomfortable. In fact, that is partly the point. The Gospel does not merely affirm us; it confronts us. Scripture tells humanity things modern culture increasingly does not want to hear: We are sinners. We are accountable to God. Judgment is real. Christ is returning. Salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone.

Those teachings can frighten people, offend people and even cause emotional distress. But since when did emotional distress determine whether a religious belief should be protected?

That question matters enormously in modern America because the language surrounding Christianity has changed. Traditional Christian beliefs are increasingly described not simply as outdated or incorrect but as "harmful."

Biblical teaching on sexuality is called harmful to LGBT youth. Teaching about sin can be described as shame-producing. Christian exclusivity can be portrayed as intolerant. Biblical teachings about men, women and marriage are increasingly characterized as damaging.

Now consider what happens when that language moves from the classroom, media and activist organizations into family courts. A parent no longer needs to argue merely that he disagrees with a church; he can potentially argue that the church is harming his child. And once "harm" becomes the standard, judges may inevitably be drawn into deciding which religious messages cross the line.

Cultural definitions of "psychological harm" change rapidly. Imagine a Christian mother and an unbelieving father fighting over whether their teenager should attend a church teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful. What happens when the father presents an expert who says those teachings are psychologically harmful?

What happens when a Christian parent takes a confused teenager to a church that teaches God created humanity male and female, while the other parent argues that such teaching is damaging to the child's mental health? What happens when a child becomes terrified after hearing a sermon about hell, anxious after hearing Revelation, or distressed because a pastor says an unbelieving parent needs salvation? At what point does the state intervene?

These are no longer abstract questions. The language of "harm" has become one of the most powerful tools in America's cultural battles because once something is classified as harmful, restricting it can suddenly be presented not as censorship but as protection. That is precisely why Christians should watch cases like this carefully.

There is also a particularly significant issue for Christians who take Bible prophecy seriously. The return of Jesus Christ, coming judgment and the culmination of human history are not fringe subjects that can simply be removed from Christianity because someone finds them disturbing.

Jesus spoke repeatedly about His return. Paul wrote about believers being caught up to meet the Lord, while Revelation describes terrifying judgments coming upon the earth. A church cannot faithfully preach the whole counsel of Scripture while guaranteeing that nobody--especially a child--will ever become frightened by what Scripture says.

Parents and pastors should certainly teach difficult doctrines with wisdom, compassion and age-appropriate care. But that is very different from allowing government to become the final judge of whether those doctrines are psychologically acceptable.

The legal battle may now move even higher. Bickford's attorney, Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, says the family intends to petition the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Maine's decision raises serious First Amendment concerns and conflicts with decisions elsewhere.

For now, Bradeen has final authority over whether his daughter attends Calvary Chapel Greater Portland or has contact with members of that church other than her mother. Christians should hope the Supreme Court takes a very careful look at where the constitutional boundaries lie, because there is a line America cannot afford to cross.

Government can protect children from abuse and intervene when children face genuine danger. But government must be extraordinarily cautious about deciding that children need protection from religious beliefs.

When Christian doctrine begins appearing in court alongside words such as "psychologically harmful," Christians have every reason to pay attention. Once government begins determining which biblical teachings are safe for children to hear, the question is no longer merely about protecting children.

It becomes a question of who has the authority to define acceptable Christianity.