Software Vault: The Gold Collection/Software Vault - The Gold Collection (American Databankers) (1993).ISO/cdr12/fotf.zip/FOCUS.TXT

Text File | 1993-05-07 | 31KB | 526 lines

  FROM: James C. Dobson
        Focus On The Family
        Colorado Springs, CO 80995


  March 1993

  Dear Friends,

  My letter this month will address a great debate going on in churches
and the pro-family movement itself. It deals with the alarming erosion of
morality in the culture, some of it related to the changing philosophy of
government.

  On the third day of his new administration, Bill Clinton took pen in
hand and prescribed far-reaching policies for the nation and the world.
On that "Black Saturday" following his inauguration, the president issued
five executive orders, as follows: (1) he permitted the tiny bodies of
aborted babies to be used in medical research; (2) he lifted the
restriction on abortion counseling in federally funded clinics; (3) he
began the process of importing the abortifacient RU 486, which could
ultimately result in many millions of additional deaths; (4) he removed
the prohibition (or attempted to) on openly active homosexuals and
lesbians in the military; (5) he provided federal funding for abortions
in military hospitals overseas.

  It did not escape notice that President Clinton issued these
revolutionary orders on January 23, one day after the 20th anniversary of
the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision. Indeed, thousands of pro-life
marchers were in Washington that very day. Mr. Clinton sent them an
unequivocal message, and they heard it!

  That was just his first week in office. There is more to come--much
more. The president has expressed enthusiastic support for the "Freedom
of Choice Act", which will be considered in Congress shortly. If passed,
it will permit the killing of babies throughout nine months of pregnancy
and preempt every state law that would regulate abortion. Other dangerous
legislation is working its way through the system.

  Furthermore, each of the five executive orders cited above is now
rippling through society like the rings in a pond. For example, The
Washington Times reported on February 10th that a coalition of gay rights
groups has prepared a broad agenda of new policies to impose on the armed
forces if the military ban on homosexuality is lifted. This 13-point plan
would require the Pentagon to conduct "indoctrination" programs for all
heterosexual military personnel to ensure their acceptance of gays and
lesbians. It makes no difference that many will have religious or moral
objections to the instruction. The plan would also establish an advisory
committee to the secretary of defense to oversee and report on homosexuals
in the military. In short, vast changes are in store for the armed forces
if the restriction is ultimately lifted.

  Will President Clinton accept these sweeping recommendations? All I can
say is that he has not denied gay activists anything they've demanded to
date. In mid-February, he attempted to lift the restriction on immigration
by people infected with the AIDS virus, despite strong opposition from
the American Medical Association, the National Commission on AIDS, and
the majority of Americans. This time, however, Congress stepped in and
handed the president his first legislative defeat. Still, he presses
forward with a revolutionary agenda. We're beginning to understand what
Mr. Clinton meant on May 18, 1992, when he said to a group of gay activists
in Los Angeles, "I have a vision, and you are a part of it."

  Also in mid-February, the president appointed Roberta Achtenberg to a
high post in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Achtenberg
is a radical lesbian activist who directed the National Center for Lesbian
Rights. She lives with Mary Morgan, presiding judge of the San Francisco
Municipal Court. Neither woman reportedly will reveal which is the birth
mother of their young son. Of particular relevance to this discussion,
however, is her leading role in expelling the Boy Scouts of America from
public facilities within the Bay area and from the lists of charitable
givers. That effort cost the Boy Scouts an estimated $848,000 in 1992.
In defending her action, she said, "Do we want children learning the
values of an organization that...provides character building exclusively
for straight, God-fearing male children?

  The question is: What is it that drives the president to advance the
cause of homosexual and lesbian activism? What debt does he seek to repay?

  There are other moral concerns that come to light nearly every day. The
nation will be hearing soon about an aggressive "safe-sex" campaign to be
spearheaded by HHS Secretary Donna Shalala and Surgeon General appointee
Joycelyn Elders. It could eventually reach every public school teenager in
America with immoral propaganda. Dr. Elders, by the way, is quoted as
saying, "We would like for the right-to-life, anti-choice groups to really
get over their love affair with the fetus and start supporting the children."
We are, indeed, living in an era of convoluted values.

  How are Christians reacting to this dramatic shift in governmental policy
and its impact on the culture? What is happening to the body of believers
as the ground shakes beneath them? It's a difficult question to answer.
I do know that hundreds of churches are actively involved in the struggle,
and I thank God for all of them. Many individuals also seem determined to
use their influence wherever possible, and they're very well informed of
national events. After Mr. Clinton attempted to permit homosexuals in the
military, for example, more telephone calls were received at the Pentagon
than occurred even during the Persian Gulf War! Switchboards at the White
House and the Congress were overloaded for days. Yes, millions of Americans
are aware that their values are under attack, and they are stepping forward
to defend them.

  There are Christian leaders, on the other hand, who do not feel it is
the role of the church to confront evil in government. They feel we must
concern ourselves only with spiritual matters, as though the killing of
unborn babies and the support for public morality are beyond that scope.
The United States and Canada have seen the most rapid deterioration of
the Christian ethic in memory, and yet these leaders are saying, in good
conscience, "It's not our calling." Others say, "When we try to use our
influence in society, we expose ourselves and our faith to ridicule and
rejection."

  How well I know! My colleagues and I are beginning to understand what
"the offense of the Cross" really means. We have taken more abuse from the
press and the media in four months than in the past 15 years combined.
But we are certainly not the only ones who are targeted. It is open
season on any Christian who has the courage to stick his head out of the
foxhole. Indeed, I believe we are seeing the beginning of an era of serious
repression against believers.

  On February 1, 1993, The Washington Post wrote a terrible article about
Christians who called the Capitol to protest Clinton's lifting of the
homosexual ban. It referred to them as "poor, uneducated and easy to
command." Tell me, if you will, what other minority group in the nation
could they have insulted in this way? Can you imagine the outcry that
would have gone up if a major newspaper referred to African-Americans,
Hispanic-Americans, Chinese-Americans or Native Americans as "poor,
uneducated and easy to command"?

  How about the recent political cartoon drawn by Pat Oliphant, depicting
fundamental Christians as rats dragging the Republican elephant into a
mission with a "Jesus Saves" sigh above the door? Can you think of any
other minority group that could be characterized as rats?

  Consider this quote from good ol' grandfatherly Hugh Downs, host of
ABC's "20/20": "During times of social stress, humanity usually regresses
into the family." Then he explained what he meant. "In the 1920s, the Ku
Klux Klan urged the nation to adopt family values and to return to old-
time religion. Similarly, Adolf Hitler launched a family-values regimen.
Hitler's (methodology) centered on his ideas of motherhood. Fanatics in
the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi Party, the Hezbollah, or any other intolerant
organization refer to themselves as religious warriors. As warriors,
fanatics censor the thoughts of others and love to burn books. In the
modern United States, new proponents of family values continue this
tradition of fear and intolerance."

  So much for diversity and pluralism as American values.

  In our case, the attacks have not been focused on anything we have said
or done--but rather on the fact that we exist. Leading a large conservative
ministry today is reason enough for ridicule. The only example to which
the media has pointed is based on outright fraud. A recent Associated
Press story by Peggy Lowe was carried nationwide, implying that I had
tried to hound homosexual teachers out of schools in Colorado Springs.
Three local superintendents have signed statements saying there is not a
shred of truth to the story; yet it has appeared in most of the nation's
newspapers.

  Linda Fowler, chairperson of the Gay and Lesbian Advisory Committee in
Denver, repeated this assertion on the Gil Gross national radio talk show.
When our lawyer asked her to produce supporting evidence, she had none.
The truth of the matter is that I have not made any hateful comments about
homosexuals, even though I oppose the radical agenda some of them support.
Thus, they have mounted a campaign of hate and disinformation against us.
And it has had an impact locally. Our staff and their families have been
subjected to mistreatment and wild-eyed rumors in the surrounding community,
which saddens me.

  Fortunately, our people here at Focus on the Family are made of good
stuff, and they are handling the personal criticism with poise and courtesy.
Of greater concern to all of us is the condition of our country and where
it seems to be going. If what I'm sensing is accurate, there is widespread
confusion in the Christian community about how to respond to the spiritual
free-fall we are witnessing. Some are flailing about in disarray. Others
tell us they have been in a state of despair since November 3.

  I must admit that I am among those who have been discouraged in days
past. To be candid, nothing in my adult life has shaken me quite like the
devastation we are seeing. Most of what we have fought for is on the line
today. The implications of a possible moral collapse in this beloved nation
has been more painful than I felt I could bear. In fact, I went through a
period of soul-searching after the election, struggling to regain my
equilibrium. Perhaps you sensed that heaviness of heart during some of our
recent radio broadcasts.

  All of these sources of oppression were weighing on me as 1992 came to a
close. Then a dramatic thing happened just before Christmas. My spirit was
so burdened one morning that Shirley and I got in the car and drove to a
beautiful place near the base of the mountains. We just sat there for a
couple of hours, listening to inspirational tapes and reading the Bible.
Then we prayed earnestly and asked the Lord to lift the heavy burden that
we carried.

  Two days later, I received an anonymous 13-page letter that addressed
everything I had been struggling with in the previous months. Fifty-eight
Scriptures were tucked within the text, most being first-person quotations
from the Lord. The words are too personal to share in detail, but I'll
quote this brief excerpt:


  This letter is being written as an encouragement to you. We serve the
LIVING, risen Jesus, you and I. I believe this message is from our Father's
heart for you. I can only tell you that as I have been praying for you,
I began to weep and groan within my spirit. Over this past year, there
has been such an acceleration of events nationally and spiritually. I find
myself saying, "Lord strengthen him, undergird him, comfort him." It's
almost as if I can hear, and feel, the aching lump in your throat as you
talk about the situation this nation and our families are in.

  I believe that (in regard to) the burden you carry for the Church, the
Bride of Christ, that God is desirous to make you know He is causing others
in the body to "hold up your arms" in this battle for our faith, our families
and our nation.

  Therefore, be strong and of good courage, because the work belongs to
the Lord, our God! Serve Him with a perfect heart and a willing mind, for
He has chosen you to STAND in the midst of this perverse generation and
say to His people, "Let us do this thing together." We must not be separated
and alone, everyone looking out only for the things of his own household,
but we must be of one mind and one heart to STAND when the enemy comes in
like a flood. Our God is with us for good and He will strengthen our hands
for this work. We will not be discouraged or dismayed, for we know that
our God is with us. He will not fail us, nor forsake us 'til we have
accomplished all the work to which He has called us. We will humble ourselves
before Him and ask Him a right way for us to go, and for our little ones,
and for all our substance. We will ask Him to forgive us and save us, heal
us, and deliver us, for we are in danger on all sides. Yes, Lord, You are
our only hope.


  The letter continued with some instructions specifically for me and
numerous promises for the future. Repeatedly, it told me to "stand firm"--and
believe me, that is what I fully intend to do. There has been considerable
pressure on me from friends and advisers to retreat from the battle--to take
this ministry into safer pastures where we will not encounter the social
reformers. Well, that issue is resolved and laid to rest. I am beyond the
pain of criticism now. There is a job to be done, and if God can use me,
I am available for His purposes. The battle is not over, and I am through
complaining about the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

  Let me return to the advice of some religious leaders I referred to
earlier--that Christians should withdraw from the public arena and yield the
decision-making process to those who represent a secular-humanistic point
of view. I believe their perspective is wrong, although it is obviously
well-intended.

  Perhaps they have not thought through the position they have taken.
Consider this: Even if our inclination is to hide in coming days, it will
be impossible to do so. We will not be permitted to exercise our beliefs
in private. The Church will not be allowed to protect its precepts. Consider,
for example, a recent development in Maine. The legislature there passed a
law in 1992 that required every hospital in the state, including Catholic
institutions, to perform abortions. Of course, Catholics have led the fight
against abortion, based on their deep moral convictions. No matter. The
law has spoken and they must comply.

  So it will be in other settings. Our Christian enclaves will be invaded.
Your home, in fact, will be the next battleground as Hillary Rodham Clinton
cranks her "children's rights" agenda into action. Thus, most of us will be
faced eventually with one of two choices: We'll either speak up or submit
in silence. Why not use our voices now, while the memory of the
Judeo-Christian ethic still lingers like rare perfume within the popular
culture?

  Furthermore, to those who suggest we retreat to our Christian enclaves,
I would ask a few extremely important questions:

  1. At what point will you rise to defend what you believe? Is there
anything worth putting your reputation or life in jeopardy? Will you object
if your children are routinely indoctrinated in homosexual ideology in the
public schools? Will you object if imperfect babies are killed in our
hospitals? Will you object if the State tells your pastor or priest what
he can say from the pulpit? (In Sweden, an evangelical pastor who preached
a sermon on Sodom and Gomorrah was convicted of "verbal violence" against
homosexuals and sentenced to a four-week prison term.) Will you object if
the church loses its non-profit status and is heavily taxed? Will you
object if the State assumes "ownership" of children and tells parents how
they must raise them--under penalty of losing custody? Will you object if
boys and girls are given a wide range of rights that override the wishes
of their mothers and fathers? Will you object if every teenager in America
is given immoral advice and a supply of condoms to implement it? Will you
object if each family is permitted only one baby, as is the official
policy today in China?

  Will you object if Christian business people are required to satisfy a
quota of homosexual and lesbian employees? Will you object if churches are
not exempt from that quota obligation? Will you object if universities
refuse to grant degrees to outspoken Christian students? Will you object
if daughters or sisters or wives are drafted into the military and required
to fight in combat? Will you object if obscenity laws are repealed and
child pornography is ignored by the government? Will you object if the
schools teach "death education" classes to students beginning in elementary
school? Will you rise to speak if every tenet of your faith is legislated
against in Congress and in your home state?

  Are these changes coming to Western nations? I don't know. Some of them
are already well-entrenched. Others appear to be right around the corner.
Anything can happen to the losers of a civil war. To rephrase my question
to those who oppose Christian political involvement, just where will you
draw the line? Is there any freedom or principle you would defend with
your life?

  2. Let me ask another series of questions to the church leaders who
believe we should stay out of the political fray. What would have been
your teachings about slavery and abolition if you had led a congregation
in 1855? The bloodiest war in American history was rapidly approaching.
Especially as a minister in the South, would you have avoided the divisive
slavery issue? Would you have even addressed its evil?

  What would you have done if you had lived and worked in Germany during
the late 1930s and early 1940s? How well would your philosophy of non-
involvement have held up against the terrors of the Nazi regime? If you
had known Hitler was exterminating people in concentration camps, would
you have focused only on your local responsibilities? Would it have been
appropriate to take an apolitical posture?

  That is precisely what the mainline church did in Germany as World War II
approached. It chose not to confront the evils of the Third Reich. History
tells us, sadly, that in 1933 the Lutheran Church in Germany actually passed
a resolution condemning Jews and excluding them from their worship services.
They looked the other way for more than a decade, while millions of Jews,
Gypsies, Poles, homosexuals, the mentally impaired and the physically
handicapped were systematically murdered. Let me cite the historical
record as expressed in the publication Christian History:


  During this period, many Christians within Germany had adopted Hitler's
National Socialism as part of their creed. Known as "German Christians",
their spokesman, Herman Gruner, made it clear what they stood for:

  "The time is fulfilled for the German people in Hitler. It is because of
Hitler that Christ, God the helper and redeemer, has become effective among
us. Therefore National Socialism is positive Christianity in action...Hitler
is the way of the Spirit and the will of God for the German people to
enter the Church of Christ."


  By September 1933, the conflict was out in the open. In the "Brown
Synod" that month (so called because many of the clergy wore brown Nazi
uniforms and gave the Nazi salute), the church adopted the "Aryan Clause,"
which denied the pulpit to ordained ministers of Jewish blood....
Thank God for Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who refused to go along with this
wickedness. He protested loudly, to his own peril. Let me quote again from
Christian History:


  Finally (Bonhoeffer) declared that the church should "jam the spokes of
the wheel" of state should the persecution of Jews continue. (Sounds like
Operation Rescue, doesn't it?) Many of the gathered clergy left in a huff,
convinced they had heard sedition. (Bonhoeffer and friends) pledged to
fight for repeal of the Aryan Clause, and by late September, they had
obtained 2,000 signatures. But to Bonhoeffer's disappointment, the church's
bishops again remained silent.


  Their silence will echo throughout eternity! So will the words and deeds
of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He was rejected as a pastor, ridiculed and hounded
by the Nazis. He was arrested April 5, 1943, and charged with "subversion
of the Armed Forces." On April 9, 1945, he was hanged with six other
resistors at Flossenburg concentration camp. What a man of consummate
courage!

  Now admittedly, there are many differences between the oppression of the
Nazi regime and the policies of today's Western governments. I would not
weaken the point by overstating it. But there are striking similarities, too.
Hitler murdered 6 million Jews; we in the United States have killed nearly
30 million unborn babies. And what have many denominations done in response?
They have passed resolutions defending and even encouraging the killings,
thereby granting religious sanction to the horror. They have assigned
"study groups" to produce sophisticated reports that whitewash perverted
sexual behavior the Bible calls "an abomination." And millions of believers
have sat passively in their pews and uttered no protest. God help us!

  More than 450 years ago, Martin Luther wrote: "If I profess with the
loudest voice and the clearest exposition every portion of the truth of
God, except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are
at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may
be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the
soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere
flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

  So what are we to do as the Christian ethic comes under greater attack?
Where do we go from here?

  Well, first and foremost, we must fortify ourselves with prayer. That is
the foundation. That's why Focus on the Family has called for 100 days of
prayer (which began January 20), during which we are suggesting that people
ask for wisdom and for God's blessing on our nation. Pray specifically for
our president and for our leaders in Washington. We must do nothing in a
spirit that would dishonor the cause of Christ. We are His ambassadors,
whether in our neighborhoods or in the halls of Congress.

  Let me leave no doubt that President Clinton is not the enemy in this
struggle. Liberal congressman are not the problem. The biased media is
not the source. Homosexual activists are not our enemies. "Our struggle is
not against flesh and blood, but against the powers of this dark world and
against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Sin in all
its wretchedness is the sickness that infects humanity. And all the political
action in the world will not cleanse one hideous stain from our beleaguered
nation. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can do the marvelous work.
Nevertheless, we must use our influence in the world around us. We are
blessed to live in a representative form of government, and we are
responsible to be salt and light within it. These are not contradictory
concepts. They fully complement one another.

  My good friend Chuck Colson is calling for this dual responsibility--
national and local--in this time of crisis. He wrote in an article in
Christianity Today, "What we do must flow from who we are. We cannot export
something we don't have. Before we can bring a holy influence in society,
we must first be a holy people."

  But Colson also wrote, "Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting political
disengagement. By my theology, Christians must contend for biblically
informed morality and justice in the halls of power."

  That is the balance that keeps our ethics and our activism in proper
perspective.

  Second, and I say this with the strongest emphasis, I urge you to hold
tightly to your courage and your moral convictions during the stressful
days ahead. This is no time to wimp out! Discouragement and despair are
not of the Father. He has not given us a spirit of fear. We are serving
the One about whom it is written, "...If God is for us, who can be against
us?"

  What is occurring in our country today is the moral equivalent to war.
We are, as Gary Bauer and I wrote in our book, Children at Risk, engaged
in a civil war of ideas that will be won or lost in the next few years.
If the Church does not use its vast influence in the public square, the
night will be much longer! We must not lose our nerve now.

  If Winston Churchill had cowered before Hitler's hegemony in 1939, the
British might well be living under tyranny today. Instead of saying,
"Never give up! Never! Never! Never give up!" what if he had told his
countrymen, "Germany defeated France in less than 100 days. There is no way
we can stand alone against the blitzkrieg. Perhaps there is a less dangerous
approach to this threat." That is precisely what Neville Chamberlain concluded,
and his appeasement of "Herr Hitler" nearly ended Britain's long and
glorious sovereignty. The fear of defeat can paralyze good men and women
in times of crisis.

  One thing is absolutely certain: The withering wave of secular humanism
we are now seeing will eventually collapse of its own weight. It always does.
Why? Because it violates the basic laws of God. A nation cannot be blessed
while killing its babies, destroying its families, "de-moralizing" its
teenagers, and promoting perversion. Since we cannot immediately change
the policies that distress us, our task for the moment is to engage actively
in this great democratic system and then hold onto our convictions and
our resolve until the turnaround occurs. That day will come--unless we are
entering the final events of human history. Even in that eventuality, we
are commanded "to occupy until I come."

  Will we be ridiculed and wounded in the meantime? Yes, no doubt some of
us will. The heroes of the faith, described in Hebrews 11, suffered and
died for their beliefs. We must be prepared for sacrifice too. It is the
specter of ridicule, however, that may motivate some Christian leaders to
suggest we remain quiet and unobtrusive. Because we are outnumbered,
outgunned and often humiliated by the press, they say we should give them
nothing to criticize.

  That is a familiar posture during times of national emergency. General
Washington fought the Revolutionary War with support from only about 15
percent of his countrymen. Lincoln's entire Cabinet opposed the Civil War
and would have permitted the Confederate States to secede. In September
1941, the United States Congress buckled in terror at the Nazi threat.
Unbelievably, when our friends in England and Europe were being ravaged,
our representatives came within one vote of ending the draft, closing
numerous army bases and virtually emasculating the military.

  Senator Jennings Randolph, then a congressman, cast the winning vote in
the House that prevented passage of the bill. We were, mind you, three
months from Pearl Harbor as those discussions took place. There have always
been those in times of national peril who wanted to settle the differences
with appeasement. And most of them have expressed the concern we're hearing
today, "We can't win in that arena." That is irrelevant! It is not our duty
to win. It is our duty to be faithful!

  Apart from the spiritual dimension of this conflict, there is a
constitutional matter to be considered. The political system does not
belong exclusively to those with whom we disagree, and I will not yield
them a single victory without using what little influence I have. I have
been granted the right to be heard, and I will exercise it. If I get
mauled. If I am ridiculed, I will be ridiculed. If I lose, I will lose.
But I will die defending what I believe, and I will go down knowing I did
the best I could to represent righteousness and family integrity. How can
I do less? What's at stake at this stage in our history is profoundly more
significant that the whims of politics. Hanging in the balance is the
essence of the Christian faith--purity, reverence for life, family stability,
love for God and receptivity to the gospel itself. We are the custodians
--the stewards--of this precious heritage. We can't afford to tremble now!

  What is needed are millions of believers who will remain true to their
convictions and ask God to help them prevail (or persevere) against
overwhelming odds. Will you join that army of committed soldiers? If for
no other reason, let's do it for our children and grandchildren. If we lose
them, there will be no family on which to focus. I sure wish you'd write
and let me hear your reaction to this appeal. I'll tell you one thing: It
comes from the depths of my being!

  Your prayers for this ministry will be appreciated. God bless our country.

  Sincerely

  James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
  President


  P.S. One more thought: May I caution you not to believe anything the
media says about Colorado Springs and the granting of special rights for
homosexuals. Not since the struggle to control obscenity in 1986 has the
press shown such bias and deception on a public issue. For example, Newsweek
March 1, 1993, attributed the "hate campaign" to organizations like Focus
on the Family. To illustrate their point, they cited a study conducted by
this ministry that revealed the unhealthy behavior of homosexuals. It was
vintage Newsweek baloney. Focus on the Family has never conducted any
research on homosexuality. After a search of our past publications and
on-air comments, we found a three-year-old publication written by a staff
member which referenced scientific findings from the New England Journal
of Medicine and other medical journals. That, according to Newsweek,
illustrated our hate and intolerance. The Newsweek article concluded with
this bit of self-righteous tongue-clucking directed at the citizens of
Colorado Springs, "If this beautiful city wants to be the evangelical
capital of America, then Christians have to get back to first principles:
remembering to love their neighbors as themselves." Thanks, Newsweek, for
showing the way.