(Blog) The Rapture & The Courts' System - Ep. 971 - September 3, 2026

The Rapture, Maine Courts, and Religious Freedom

Can a court restrict a child's church attendance because teaching about the rapture allegedly causes anxiety? Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland argue that this question reaches far beyond one family dispute in Maine.

Their conversation connects a court ruling, Christian doctrine, political loyalty, repentance, addiction, and the power of the Holy Spirit. For them, the issue is whether discomfort with biblical teaching can become grounds for government control over churches and families.

JD Vance, Tucker Carlson, and Political Loyalty

Why Vance calling Carlson a friend disturbed the hosts

Smith and Rowland reacted strongly to Vice President JD Vance describing Tucker Carlson as a friend. Vance reportedly said that he and Carlson did not agree on everything, but the hosts objected that he did not identify the points of disagreement.

They viewed that omission as serious because they consider Carlson a questionable political figure, particularly on Israel and America's foreign-policy relationship with Israel. Smith said that if he were president, he would call Vance into his office and require him to explain his loyalty to Carlson.

"If you're going to tell me you're in a relationship with this guy who's questionable at the least, very questionable, you're friends with him, I need to know what it is you disagree with him about."

The hosts rejected what they described as an "olive branch" toward Carlson. In their view, the political conflict is too serious for public alliances that leave loyalty unclear. Smith said he could not support Vance if Vance shares Carlson's views.

Their criticism of Carlson's influence

The discussion included concerns about Qatari money and its influence on American political figures. The hosts suggested that Carlson's relationship with Qatar, along with Vance's public friendship with him, raised concerns about Carlson's influence inside conservative politics.

Rowland described Carlson's positions as anti-Israel and anti-American. Smith went further, saying he believed Carlson would have been guilty of treason if he had held political office.

Those statements were the hosts' political judgments. Their central concern was that Vance's friendly public alignment with Carlson could indicate agreement on Israel, America, and foreign policy.

The Conservative Figures They Connected to Vance

A political wing they say is anti-Israel

Smith and Rowland grouped several public figures into the same broad wing of the political right. They said these voices have courted Vance and questioned Israel's motives and its alliance with the United States.

The hosts named:

• Tucker Carlson, whom they considered the most troubling figure in Vance's public circle.
• Megyn Kelly and Alex Jones, whom they included among voices on the same side of the Israel debate.
• Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens, whose views on Israel and America they said they reject.
• JD Vance, whom they believed had shown weakness on Israel before calling Carlson a friend.

Smith and Rowland said they did not agree with Fuentes or Owens, nor did they consider either man or woman a friend. Yet both said they had reached a point where they had more respect for Fuentes and Owens than for Carlson.

They also criticized the group as a coalition of "misfit toys" on the far right. Rowland compared them to communists on the political left, calling both groups equally foolish.

Carlson's reported position in the Michigan Senate race

The hosts also discussed a report that Carlson said he would support Abdul El-Sayed over Mike Rogers in Michigan's Senate race. That claim intensified their concern about Carlson's political direction and alliances.

Their comments moved into broad frustration with Maine, Michigan, and Minnesota. Smith joked that the United States should give those states to Canada because he believed their culture aligned more with Canada than with the rest of the country.

He also said he favored "the divided states of America," arguing that division can sometimes be good. Smith connected that thought to Jesus' statement that He came to divide.

The Maine Case Over a Child's Church Attendance

The dispute at Calvary Chapel in Westbrook

The conversation then turned to a case involving a young girl's attendance at Calvary Chapel in Westbrook, Maine. According to the article Smith and Rowland discussed, the girl's mother took her to the evangelical church while her biological father, Matthew Braden, objected.

Braden reportedly argued that the church's teaching caused psychological harm to his daughter. The hosts said the court restricted the girl's church attendance and ruled against the mother.

One concern attributed to the father was that people at the church prayed for him to repent and receive salvation. He believed those prayers made him appear to his daughter as an enemy.

The father also reportedly connected the girl's anxiety, including a panic attack, to teaching she heard about the rapture. Smith and Rowland said they were thankful that a Calvary Chapel in Maine was preaching about the rapture, because it gave them some hope for the state.

Why the court's role troubled them

Smith and Rowland were disturbed that the dispute reached the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Their first objection was rooted in separation of church and state: they did not understand why a court would decide whether attending an evangelical church was psychologically harmful to a child.

They argued that courts should not become authorities over church doctrine, preaching, and religious instruction. For them, the court's reported decision did more than settle a family disagreement. It placed biblical teaching under judicial review.

The question raised in the discussion was whether emotional distress can determine if a religious belief deserves protection.

Rowland said the ruling created a dangerous precedent. If the state can treat teaching about the rapture as harmful, he argued, other Christian teachings could soon face the same charge.

If the Rapture Is Harmful, What Comes Next?

Christian doctrine can make people uncomfortable

Smith and Rowland quoted an article's statement that Christianity contains doctrines capable of making people uncomfortable. They agreed with it. In their view, that discomfort is partly the point of the gospel because the gospel does not only affirm people, it confronts them.

They named several teachings that modern culture increasingly does not want to hear:

• People are sinners and accountable to God.
• Judgment is real, and Christ will return.
• Salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone.
• Biblical teaching addresses sexuality, men and women, marriage, and sin.

The hosts argued that Christian preaching used to make people uncomfortable, and they considered that a mark of good preaching. Smith said that if he did not make people uncomfortable, he had not done his job. He added that a preacher should also allow Scripture to make him uncomfortable.

The change from outdated to harmful

The discussion focused on a shift in the way traditional Christian beliefs are described. Smith and Rowland said Christian doctrine first became labeled outdated, then incorrect, and now harmful.

They cited the way biblical teaching on sexuality can be called harmful to LGBT youth. Teaching about sin can be described as shame-producing, while Christian exclusivity can be portrayed as intolerant. Biblical teachings about marriage and gender can be characterized as damaging.

For the hosts, the distinction between uncomfortable and harmful matters. They said opponents of Christian teaching need to label it harmful because that language supports efforts to restrict it through legal and cultural pressure.

Truth Can Cause Fear and Emotional Distress

A cancer diagnosis as an example

Smith used his own cancer diagnosis to make the point that truth can cause fear and emotional distress. He recalled a doctor telling him at age 40 that he had cancer. The news frightened him and caused emotional distress, but that did not make the diagnosis hate speech.

Rowland agreed because he had faced the same kind of fear. They used that example to argue that a message does not become false or legally punishable because it frightens someone.

Smith also joked that tests in grammar school caused him plenty of anxiety. If anxiety itself were enough to excuse a person from difficult experiences, he said, he could have avoided taking every test.

The kind of preaching they defend

The hosts said the gospel should confront people with their lack of biblical knowledge, lack of knowledge about the Holy Spirit, and lack of experience with divine encounters and God's power. They expressed frustration with Christian practices they believe are not biblical and are not working.

Their answer was a deeper pursuit of God through Scripture and the Holy Spirit. They did not describe Christian faith as something that makes everything sweet or comfortable. They described it as a relationship that exposes sin, calls for repentance, and brings change.

Repentance, Alcoholism, and Freedom in Christ

Their conversation with an alcoholic

Smith described speaking that day with an alcoholic. He told the person that he had to abstain from drinking. The person replied that quitting felt almost impossible, and Smith agreed that it could be.

However, Smith said abstinence alone did not address the entire issue. He told the man that he needed repentance, including genuine sorrow over getting drunk and needing his mother to come get him.

According to Smith, repentance must come before spiritual freedom can take hold. He said that if the man could not repent, he could not help him. If the man did repent, Smith believed there was great hope through the Holy Spirit's power.

Salvation and the Holy Spirit's power

Smith said the person also needed to receive Jesus Christ as Savior. Rowland agreed, saying that people cannot get free outside of Christ.

Smith quoted Scripture:

"I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep what I have committed unto him against that day."

The hosts argued that the Holy Spirit takes up residence in a believer at salvation. Therefore, they said, no power on earth is greater than the power of the Holy Spirit within a born-again Christian.

This was their theological position on addiction and sin. Smith said he did not believe a born-again child of God could remain under the power of addiction while operating in the power of the Holy Spirit. In his view, continued sinful behavior means a person is choosing what gratifies the flesh over what strengthens the spirit.

They said a believer must agree with the Holy Spirit's empowerment. The Holy Spirit can free a person from anything, they argued, but a person must turn from sin and live in that power.

Courts, Churches, and Government Authority

Their concern over freedom of worship

Smith and Rowland returned to the Maine case as an example of a larger problem. They said churches could lose freedom of worship if Christians do not protect the right to teach biblical doctrine without courts deciding that the teaching creates psychological harm.

Their concern involved more than the rapture. They believed parents, churches, and pastors could face legal challenges over sermons about hell, judgment, sin, biblical sexuality, marriage, salvation, and gender.

Smith said he did not realize America had reached a point where judicial courtrooms could act as preachers. Rowland asked when courts became the arbiters of church leadership.

They also contrasted the court's treatment of Christian teaching with their complaints about Sharia law and Muslim political influence in some states. The hosts argued that Christian doctrine should not be restricted while other religious systems receive latitude to practice their own teachings.

The example they drew from Rome

Smith and Rowland referred to Roman leaders during Jesus' day. They said Roman authorities sometimes told Jewish leaders that religious disputes belonged with their rabbis rather than Roman officials.

The hosts argued that Rome showed more restraint in that instance than modern American courts. Yet they also said the Jews kept returning to Rome until Rome became involved.

They applied that example to American churches. In their view, churches have abdicated responsibility to the government, and the government has now taken authority that the church should have retained.

Their Hope for the Girl and Her Father

Although Smith and Rowland believed the Maine ruling favored the father and restricted the mother's ability to take her daughter to church, they did not end the discussion with the court's decision.

They said the court had not accounted for God and the Holy Spirit. Smith declared that the Holy Spirit would reach the girl, and Rowland said he believed she might one day lead her father to Jesus.

That hope brought the conversation back to its central conviction: legal rulings can affect church attendance, but they cannot stop the Holy Spirit from working in a person's life.

The Conflict Over Christian Teaching Continues

Smith and Rowland tied their political concerns to the Maine case because both involved trust, allegiance, and the direction of the country. They rejected public alliances they believe weaken support for Israel, and they rejected court decisions that treat biblical doctrine as psychological harm.

Their strongest warning centered on religious freedom. Once courts can restrict teaching about the rapture because it causes distress, the hosts believe other doctrines about sin, judgment, salvation, sexuality, and marriage may be next.

Yet their final word was not about a court's authority. It was about the power of the Holy Spirit to confront sin, bring repentance, and reach people beyond the limits of any legal ruling.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), The Rapture & The Courts' System - Ep. 971 - September 3, 2026"