Countdown 2 Eternity

Guest (Male): Hey, welcome to Countdown to Eternity with Pastors James Kaddis and Andy Woods. It’s a weekly radio ministry from Calvary Chapel Signal Hill. James and Andy examine current events and connect what’s going on in our world to Bible prophecy. Let’s lean in and listen.

James Kaddis: Well, hello, my dear brothers and sisters. I want to welcome you to another episode of Countdown to Eternity. I will tell you this right now, this is going to be an episode where there will definitely be the expression of an unfair advantage. You are going to get biblical prophetic analysis and you are going to get legal analysis. One of the best guys in the world to do it is my dear brother Andy Woods. You will be shocked when you hear what’s going on. This one is wild.

For starters, Andy, how are you doing, my dear brother? I’m so glad you could join me at the last minute. I just called you up last minute and you just showed up. Thank you.

Andy Woods: Glad to be here, James. Things are going well.

James Kaddis: Brother, okay, I’m going to ask you to talk about this for just a second. But let's talk about the crazy story. I’ve done a video on this before, but the story has progressed in a wild way. The problem is this: you have a 13-year-old girl who has reportedly been kept from going to church. Not just going to church, but being exposed to the Bible or other Christian literature. She is barred from attending religious holidays and even having Christian friends over because of a judge’s order.

Get ready for this. In a parental rights case, this is a child custody case. By the way, I’m just going to say this, it’s not a small custody disagreement here. This is not about whether one parent likes another parent’s schedule. This is huge. This is about a child being separated from church, being separated from the Word of God, and being separated from Christian friends because a judge doesn’t like the Lord.

What in the world is happening here? This should alarm every believer in America. Tell me how this is religious neutrality in the court system, brother.

Andy Woods: I don't think it is religious neutrality. I think it is anti-Christianity in the court system. But just to give your listeners the facts of the case, you’re dealing with a young girl. Her first name is Ava. She is the child of Emily and the father’s name is Matthew Brad Dean. When she was born, she was born out of wedlock. The two weren't married.

The mom and the daughter went their separate ways. The mom found Christianity, the daughter found Christianity, and they found nurture and nourishment at Calvary Chapel. It’s Portland, Maine. The Calvary Chapel pastor's name is Travis Carey.

Anyway, this little girl found Jesus. What a great thing that is, as is the mom finding Jesus. The little girl started to say things around the house like, "Gosh, we’ve got to get our family saved or they’re going to miss the Rapture. We’ve got to get our family members saved or they’re going to go to Hell." Basically speaking what I would consider basic Christian doctrine.

There was a custody dispute for this girl between these two parents. The father filed for custody and wanted the daughter barred from attending this church because, in his mind, this church was a cult. So here is a judge at the district level, which is the trial level at the federal system. The judge’s name is Jennifer Noffsinger.

She relies on this expert witness, someone named Dr. Janja Lalich, who was an expert witness on cults from California State University. She’s a professor of sociology. She listened to a few sermons and determined, feeding this judge this information, that this Calvary Chapel was a cult.

Now, Matt Staver, who is the First Amendment attorney representing the mother and the child, Ava, asked this question in this article that I’m quoting from: "What makes it cultic?" Well, they believe in Heaven and Hell and eternal life. They believe in angels and demons. They believe in salvation through Jesus. And the pastor, of course, must be a very bad cultic leader because he teaches the Bible verse by verse, chapter by chapter. So that makes it a cult.

To me, that’s like Christianity 101 being described there. That’s not a cult; they’re describing all orthodox Christians. But anyway, the judge, Noffsinger, relies on this expert witness, Lalich, determines that it’s a cult, and in the process issues this order keeping this young girl from church, from the Bible, and from Christian friends.

Fortunately, Matt Staver and his group have taken this case and it’s awaiting an appeal. It’s been appealed to the circuit court. But it’s a complete and total trashing of the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment and this mother's, and particularly this young girl’s, rights under the First and 14th Amendments. How can a judge issue a ruling like this, keeping a little girl from church, from the Bible, and from friends in that particular Calvary Chapel?

This is not happening in the Soviet Union. This is not happening in Iran. This is not happening in Saudi Arabia. This is a real case affecting real people right here in the United States of America. So as best I understand it, James, that’s kind of the long and short of it.

James Kaddis: I’m just telling you, I’m fit to be tied on this one. This one is just absolutely crazy. Brother, the order—I just want to repeat this for people to hear this—the order did not say both parents need to work together. It said nothing like that, which the nature of most of these orders typically will say something like that.

But according to the report, the father was given this final decision-making authority over this child’s religious education. The restrictions, from my reading of this, have been enforced so broadly that the mother, Emily, cannot even get permission for her daughter to attend other churches or, at the time when the big case was filed, going to a Christian celebration, a Christmas celebration of any sort.

What in the world? How in the world can you even call that neutrality when one parent has been given the effective ability to veto a church and the Bible? The court just basically said this little girl isn’t allowed to think for herself, nor is she allowed to be provided an opportunity to be influenced by her mom’s beliefs.

I think this is bigger than one family, Andy. You’re the legal expert, you have the background in it. I’m telling you, brother, Matthew Brad Dean is being used here by the enemy to destroy a lot of things. Thank God, by the way, that Liberty Counsel took the case. It was Liberty Counsel that took the case, right?

Andy Woods: Yeah, and they don’t normally take family law type cases. That’s really not their bailiwick, but this was so egregious that it invited Liberty Counsel into this. When you say destroy, that’s exactly what’s happened here.

I’m reading from this article, and by the way, people that want to know what I’m reading from, it’s a Breitbart article from June 6, 2026. It says, "Exclusive: Girl kept from church, Bible, and Christian friends by Portland judge awaits appeal in court ruling."

Listen to this. I want to just camp on what you said, "destroy." It says since Bickford has tried to get the father’s permission to have her daughters attend other churches or attend Christmas celebrations, he has refused. Bickford said she and her daughter learned about the lower court’s decision as they were preparing to attend Calvary Chapel on Wednesday, the same day she makes the exchange of custody with her ex.

It’s when her daughter always looked forward to seeing her friends in church. The impact of the order produced frustration and crying spells early on for Ava. She’d say things like this, "I don’t understand why I can’t just go to church. Isn’t this against the Constitution? Why can’t I go to church?" Bickford, the mother, recalled. She’d say, "Why can’t I go against the order?" I, mother speaking, said we need to follow this order because it was written by a judge and we will appeal. It was a mourning process for her, she continued, with the loss of something eventually time really can’t restore.

It goes on and it says Bickford also said people don’t realize the impact such a case would have on any mother. People think, "Oh, you lost a legal case," she explained. It’s been the most difficult trial I’ve been through because they tried to make me look crazy and take away my parental rights. They took away much more. I can’t make decisions for my own daughter right now.

People can go on livestream and see the arguments on livestream by the high court. The order should be reversed because—this is Staver I think talking—the order should be reversed because it violates the First Amendment and the 14th Amendments, Staver began before the justices. In this particular case, there’s no finding of abuse. In fact, we have a fit parent. A fit parent is presumed to be able to act in the best interest of the child.

He says a bigger principle is in play and that’s why we’re involved in this appeal. The essence of this appeal is the religious freedom protection that parents have to raise their children according to their faith. This particular order denigrates Christianity. This is the essence of the case. It’s very severe intrusion into religious freedom that’s otherwise protected by the First Amendment.

Catch this: some of her best friends have moved away, the mother said. So that’s going to be hard for her if this order is reversed because of this appeal. We’d go back to the church, that same Calvary Chapel, and her best friends won’t be there any longer.

James Kaddis: You know what, brother? We would be derelict in what we do here if we did not also mention the fact that what’s happening, in essence, because of what the court has decided—and I’m going to frame this in the most egregious way possible because it is egregious—if you’re a Christian, what it’s saying is a fit, and I’m not talking about physical fitness, although that might have something to do with it, but a fit Christian parent is being treated as dangerous.

This goes to the argument that the Liberty Counsel made. There was no finding at all of any abuse or neglect and the mother was, by every legal definition, a fit parent, above and beyond in many contexts. The argument that is being made and should be made is that a fit parent is presumed to act in the best interest of the child. So how is this loser, who isn’t even spending most of the time with this little girl, able to say that? He’s so messed up in the head that he doesn’t even—I just—

Andy Woods: Well, I mean, that’s a big part of it because there’s no abuse or neglect that’s been brought forward by the mother. And the other thing is taking a Calvary Chapel church, which is basically—Calvary Chapel goes back to the 60s. It’s mainstream. It’s on the Pentecostal side of things, but it’s always been considered mainstream evangelicalism.

Turning that movement into a cult and trying to act like if you believe in Heaven and Hell—Heaven and Hell, angels, demons, salvation by faith alone—and if you teach the Bible chapter by chapter, verse by verse, that makes you a cult. Well, brother James, you know what? I guess I’m a cult leader, too, because I do that. I have those same beliefs. I teach the Bible the exact same way.

And relying on some expert witness, who I don’t even know based on this article if this expert witness called the pastor and talked to him or did any kind of primary interview research, but basically listened to a sermon or two and just made this evaluation that it’s a cult based on that. And then the judge at the federal level relies on this expert testimony as gospel truth and says it’s a cult and sides with the father and makes this broad ruling that you can't go to church, don’t be around your Christian friends, don’t be exposed to the Bible.

James Kaddis: Well, let me just look at this so-called cult expert. She actually says that it’s the sign of a cult—which, by the way, she doesn’t know the definition of a cult if she says this—because she says the sign of a cult here is having beliefs in Heaven or Hell, just like you said, eternal life, angels, demons, salvation through faith in Christ alone. Matter of fact, she even mentions verse-by-verse Bible teaching.

First of all, a cult means a deviation from an orthodox position in a world religion. A cult of Christianity would be defined as, like, a Jehovah’s Witness. Okay? If you were to call a world religion Islam, then a cult of Islam would be the Black Muslim movement. So she’s a cult expert and she’s saying that the tenets of orthodox Christianity are now defined as cultic. It is a cult. It’s a cult of what?

By definition, her assertions prove she’s not a subject matter expert. It’s ridiculous. She’s talking about things that are core tenets of orthodox Christianity and she’s saying, by using that term, that it’s a deviation from such. It’s ridiculous. And if those things are—look, I want to make myself clear. Heaven is not cultic. Hell is not cultic. Salvation through Christ, faith alone, is not cultic. Angels and demons, I’m sorry, it’s not cultic. I shouldn’t apologize for saying that.

And my goodness, God forbid that verse-by-verse, chapter-by-chapter Bible teaching would be considered cultic. That’s Christianity. That’s orthodox Christianity. If those things are now considered dangerous, then the target is no longer a single church or a single person. It’s Christianity. This is massive persecution.

Andy Woods: That’s the point of this. The target is no longer a single church, but Christianity. By this definition, we’re all a cult and all our rights can be stripped away. By the way, a cult, as you rightly said, is a group that claims to be Christian but simultaneously denies one or more essential elements of the Christian faith, like the Trinity, the virgin birth, salvation by faith alone, the eternality of Christ. You name it. That’s what a cult is.

But I think what this expert is doing is going for the sociological, not the theological definition of a cult, but a sociological definition. And she’s trying to argue here—he or she, I can’t tell, I think it’s a she, Dr. Janja Lalich, if I’m pronouncing that right, Cal State University sociologist professor—that this guy, this leader, whose name is Pastor Travis Carey, is cultic because he has a Moses complex.

A Moses complex, I guess, is somebody who’s a strong leader, somebody who’s confident in their beliefs. I mean, what does that even mean, a Moses complex? I think what it means is a strong leader. I’ll be honest with you, when I go to church, if I wasn't pastoring a church, I would want to be under someone that’s a strong leader. I mean, I try to be a strong leader in my local church and that’s why they call me pastor. They look to me for leadership. That’s not a complex. That’s a spiritual gifting, and it’s something that you need in any healthy church.

So they’re taking—and this sociologist is deriving these conclusions by what she listened to online. I mean, that to me seems to be a very narrow sample set of evidence.

James Kaddis: Forget the narrow sample set of evidence. Stop using terminology that’s associated with a mechanism that tries to drive a derogatory conclusion. The very representation of it being a Moses complex, which I didn’t even see it in the report because I skimmed through it so quickly, that in and of itself provides a mechanism of nefarious action.

It’s almost like saying you have a father complex. So does that mean the entitlement mechanism is no longer a viable approach to how you describe a model of leadership? That to me is the thing that’s like, come on. It’s not even an intellectual argument, it’s an outright insult. And quite frankly, you might even be able to argue it may even be somewhat anti-Semitic, not that I want to throw that word around. But at what point do you make the determination authoritatively that Moses becomes a leader that is worthy of a label of cultic practice?

I can tell you where it comes from. It comes from the anti-patriarchal mindset. It’s her hatred for the patriarchy. My brain is going to explode. And by the way, let me just add one more piece of just insanity to this. This is massive fuel to the fire. Can we talk about dangerous terminology here?

One of the most dangerous terms that I see in this whole thing is the phrase "psychological harm." The claim that his daughter had anxiety or a panic attack over the Rapture is coming. First and foremost, he’s lying about that. We know that he’s lying about it, but at what point does that become psychological harm?

Let’s think about this for a second. If a kid does something that’s dangerous, let’s just say the kid tries to jump off a high roof perch. You see him do that and you say, "Hey, listen, son, my goodness, you try that again, you could die." Now, would you say that it is psychologically damaging, warning a child that they could substantially harm themselves or cause death if they do this type of thing? What type of environment are we trying to create here?

We as believers believe fundamentally—matter of fact, we believe in it eminently—that Christ could come at any moment. We talk about Heaven. We talk about Hell. That’s what we do. We talk about the solution. We talk about salvation. My goodness, we talk about judgment. That’s not abuse. I would argue that it would be abuse to not prepare your child for what would be coming. This is so crazy to me. Now Christianity is being framed as psychological harm?

And then the court is scrutinizing sermon language, brother.

Andy Woods: Broad-brushing and commenting on things that they’re not qualified to talk about from a biased perspective. Listen to this. Staver also noted that the judge was hostile to monotheistic beliefs since the complaint by the attorney for the father and the judge’s order wrote god in the lower case. God is typically capitalized because it’s a proper noun and it describes the singular supreme of Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam.

Now there’s a COVID connection. The judge also gave Ava’s father sole control over her medical care after the mother chose not to give her pre-teen daughter certain vaccinations, flu vaccine, HPV, and those things that most parents wouldn’t do. The article says ironically shots that since the ruling are no longer universally recommended by the CDC for children under the Trump administration. So they tried to turn that into neglect when the CDC ended up being on their side related to some of these vaccinations.

So it’s trying to turn someone into a wicked, evil, devilish, neglectful person just because she’s a common-sense parent. It’s trying to take a whole church representing mainstream orthodox Christianity and turn that into a cult. And it’s psychologically analyzing a pastor who apparently has a Moses complex. I mean, what are the criteria for the Moses complex? Is that in the personality inventory by the psychologists? I mean, can I look that up, the Moses complex? Is that a real category? Maybe it is. But as far as I can tell, he doesn’t have some kind of psychological issue. He’s just a strong leader in a church, which is what God expects of men.

James Kaddis: Since when do the courts become theological referees? What in the living snot are we doing here? It’s just crazy. And then Associate Justice Douglas reportedly asks whether the lower court used an unwarranted—notice this—nuclear option by effectively giving the father total control over the child’s religious upbringing. That phrase matters because what it ends up doing is it characterizes the fact that this is not like some narrow correction. This is a big deal. It’s very sweeping.

These people are questioning now whether or not people are comfortable enough by using sermon language to scrutinize Christianity as a whole. The state doesn’t get to do that, brother.

Andy Woods: Sermon language to scrutinize Christianity without doing any—was anybody in the church interviewed by this sociologist to determine maybe this pastor has a Moses complex and is abusing people? No. She listened to a sermon or two and just came to that conclusion.

James Kaddis: Speaking of people in the church being interviewed, this 13-year-old girl understood this. She saw the moral absurdity of the nonsense. She actually wanted to go to church. She wanted to be with her Christian friends. She wants to read the Bible. She wants to grow in the Word. She wants to get baptized. And the court literally stood in her way.

This is the same kind of baloney court that says that a woman at that age—matter of fact, a girl at tender age, like seven years old—supposedly has the frame of mind to go get mutilated, even if they’re XX to become XY or XY to become XX. Yet at 13 years old, we’re going to ignore the fundamental assertion that she recognizes the morality of this. This is absurd. This is Christian persecution in legalese. That’s what this is. It doesn’t always come with prison bars like some people think. It doesn’t come with people getting their heads lopped off. It comes with court orders.

The more I think about this, brother, you know what it makes me think of? It makes me think of Isaiah. Woe to them that call evil good and good evil. What’s the phrase? That put darkness for light and light for darkness, bitter for sweet. Come on. This is completely ridiculous.

And then look at the language of 2 Timothy chapter 3. We know what it says. Perhaps the most consequential part of 2 Timothy when it talks about the last days and what would happen is the fact that they’re going after Christians. That’s what’s happening. It’s a warning shot to the church here in the United States of America.

I’m sorry, brother, I think it’s more than a warning shot. It’s a religious liberty issue. It’s a parental rights issue. It’s the courts with one foul sweep erasing everything that our forefathers fought for. It’s definitely prophetic. It speaks of what we’re supposed to expect in these last days. Can it not get any more consequential? Can it not get any more significant? I’m fit to be tied with this one, brother.

Andy Woods: Well, the other thing that’s interesting is this is all coming to the surface on our 250th anniversary celebrating our birth in 1776. Does the flag still wave? Does the First Amendment that you just mentioned, what our forefathers bled and died for, is it still alive and well? Or can some court come up with some broad-based ruling like this and with the stroke of a pen injure Christianity?

And if this ruling is allowed to stand, it’s just precedent. You know how the legal system works. Others come along and use this to build an even broader precedent down the road. You can imagine what the state of our legal system will be in 10 years or five years with these kind of broad-based rulings on the books.

So I’m reminded of Benjamin Franklin leaving Independence Hall, asked by a lady, "Well, Doctor, what have you given us? A monarchy or a republic?" He said, "A republic, if you can keep it," meaning the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And if our children and our children’s children are going to inherit the type of freedom that we’ve enjoyed, James, then we’ve got to start speaking up and standing up and being counted.

James Kaddis: Get this in your head. Andy articulated it perfectly. I honestly don’t need to add to it. That may be the question of the republic being kept. It may be one of the most substantial moments in this discussion when the state starts treating a child’s desire to go to church as a threat. Of all things, as a threat.

It’s no longer protecting children, you guys, it’s persecuting Christians. If a court can call church dangerous and the Bible harmful and, as they say, Christian fellowship being unsafe, the problem is not the child’s faith. The problem is the hostility that the government has to the God of Heaven.

When are we going to stand up, Christians? When are we going to be—when are we going to at the bare minimum allow ourselves to become aware of the matters? Andy, do you have a copy of that book that you wrote on the responsibility of voting?

Andy Woods: Yes.

James Kaddis: Can you just show people that book? It may be one of the best pieces of literature that I had ever read on the subject. Andy wrote it and it was right before the last presidential election. The only regret that I have with that book was that I was not able to get it to Charlie Kirk on time. I’m still going to hand it to him when I have a chance.

I’m telling you, we have a responsibility to act. We have a responsibility to make ourselves aware of these things and to defend people like this. If we don’t, they’re coming for us next. They are coming for us next. By the way, while they’re defending the right for Sharia law, how about that for lovely? How about that they’re defending the right to Sharia law? You see that all right?

Zoom it in if you can a little closer, I want people to see that cover. That is a great book, by the way. You guys should get a copy of it. It’s very well written. I think it’s valuable. Andy, final words, brother.

Andy Woods: I get frustrated with a lot of our guys in the Rapture camp. James, we’re about as pre-trib Rapture as they come. We talk about it all the time. But somehow in their minds, it’s turned into, "I’m just going to sit on the couch and get sucked off the couch."

I wish they would read the third chapter in 2 Thessalonians. We talk a lot about the second chapter, but what about the third chapter where Paul rebukes the Thessalonians because they were using Rapture teaching—the Day of the Lord has started—abusing it to quit life. They weren’t working, they weren’t holding down jobs. Why hold down a job if Jesus is coming back?

Paul rebukes them of that and says their eschatology is off. The return of Christ is at any moment, but you can’t calculate when it’s going to happen. I think God has wanted that doctrine taught for 2,000 years without giving a date for that very reason, because if we had a date we would start to slack off as the date gets near.

So my point is, yeah, let’s teach the Rapture and let’s teach all these prophetic things, but don’t let it take away our basic responsibility as Christians to stand for truth while we’re here. We’re not Raptured yet, we’re still here. And while we’re here we’re supposed to be exposing darkness, Ephesians 5:11. We’re supposed to be salt and light of the earth.

I don’t know how you interpret the restrainer. I interpret the restrainer as the work of the Holy Spirit through the church in the life of believers. Meaning we’re here to restrain evil. So yeah, let’s talk about the Rapture, but don’t let it subtract from our obligations to stand for righteousness while we’re here.

And so I guess that would be kind of my final impartation to your exhortation to your audience. And we need to be especially thinking about this as we’re entering now 250 years of freedom. Because whether we get the next 250 or not is going to be dependent on how your audience and other like-minded audiences respond to this exhortation.

James Kaddis: Amen. And I’m looking at this because I think that this may be one of the most critical moments in the history of our nation. Forget the history of our nation, how about the history of the world?

I’ve prayed for this, brother. I’ve always prayed that the reason why the United States of America is inconsequential in Bible prophecy is because it becomes inconsequential by virtue of the fact that it was vacated as a result of the Rapture through a spiritual awakening. But in the meantime, we have to stand according to our call. And our call is to be those people who will walk filled with the Spirit that will stand up for what’s right.

We need to do this. We can’t just rely on a few people to get involved while the suffering of a 13-year-old continues to happen and many others. It’s evil. And maybe I’m so just tied into this, I’m so wrapped up into this, because my oldest daughter is not too far from that age. I have an eight-year-old and I just think about this. I just don’t get it. What is wrong with these people? I’m fit to be tied over it.

Okay, well, with that said, thank you guys. We are very much out of time. We’ve gone way over, but I do want to say this. I do want to ask you, please react as God would have you react. Get involved with this stuff. If we put our faith and trust in Christ and it’s that faith and trust that brings to us salvation because of the authority that’s been established by the finished work of Christ in living perfectly for us and taking that, how much more should we put faith and trust in Christ to be able to do what we need to do, to live the life that He’s called us to live.

Let’s do it. I love you guys. I know that I speak on behalf of my dear brother Andy in telling you that we hope you enjoyed watching this as much as we have very much enjoyed making it. Join us as we continue to pray for these issues, as we continue to fight for these issues.

The next time you watch this, we’re going to be super close to the Fourth of July, like literally just a few days away. The 250th birthday of our great nation, our republic. Let’s take it seriously. God gave it to us, let’s not throw it away. Okay? We love you guys. God bless you.

Guest (Male): You’re listening to Countdown to Eternity with Pastors James Kaddis and Andy Woods. If you joined us late or would just like to hear this again, stop by countdowntoeternity.com. Countdown, the number two, eternity.com.

Hey, have you heard? Pastor James has a new book. It’s entitled The Last Book. Revelation isn’t a book of fear, it’s a book of hope. The Last Book will give you what you need to know about Revelation, the Rapture, and the end times. Learn what the Bible says about the days we’re in and what God’s promise is for believers in The Last Book. Available right now at countdowntoeternity.com.

That’s also the place to go to give to this ministry. And thank you very much for your financial support and prayers. Again, we’re at countdowntoeternity.com. I should also mention Andy Woods is online at andywoodsministries.org. Browse through his latest media, check out some of his recent interviews and available resources at andywoodsministries.org. Then join us next week as the countdown to eternity continues right here. This program is brought to you by Calvary Chapel Signal Hill.