Posted on 05/16/2002 8:12:34 AM PDT by CalConservative
May 2002
Dear Friends,
A warm May greeting to you all! As you know, the Memorial Day holiday will be observed at the end of the month. The purpose of this annual observance is to honor the memories of those in our armed forces who have died in service to our country. This year, as the war on terrorism continues and the men and women of our military are deployed to the far-flung corners of the globe, I hope you'll be in prayer on behalf of those and their families who are fighting to defend the freedoms we hold so dear. They and previous generations of military personnel deserve our deepest gratitude and support.
This month, I want to say a few words about our culture's continued moral decline and, more importantly, the apparent hesitancy of some within the Christian community to try and stem the tide. Despite the relentless attacks by homosexual activists on the institution of marriage, and of "safe sex" ideology, pro-abortion sentiment, and other forms of immorality that are engulfing us, there are those within the church who remain convinced that it isn't our place to make our voices heard on these issues. In their estimation, controversy about sexuality, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family are "political" in nature and therefore unworthy of our attention. They believe that for Christians to involve themselves in cultural issues — even though they are profoundly moral in nature — is to dilute the gospel message. Some recent examples of this perspective are seen in the following quotes:
"God does not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation."
— John MacArthur, Why Government Can't Save You, 2000 1"I really believe, with all of my heart, one of the greatest mistakes in the religious world is the involvement in politics. I believe that I should not be on one side or the other. I believe I should be as neutral as possible and be able to teach the Word of God and not alienate anyone."
— Jim Bakker, The San Diego Union-Tribune, 2000 2Columnist Cal Thomas:
"There is no biblical mandate for reforming the world through government."3 […as if anybody has ever said our purpose is to reform the world through government. Jesus Christ is our lone source of redemption!]"The time is ripe for conservative Christians to spend less time trying to influence Caesar, to consider what it means to render unto God, and to start rendering."4
And Thomas' favorite gag line:
"The kingdom of God is not going to arrive aboard Air Force One."5
Christianity Today published an editorial on April 1 titled "Enough Bullying." It severely criticized those of us who believe religious broadcasters should speak out on cultural issues. The statement read:
"[Christian activists are] often seen as indignantly condemning the sins of the world more than proclaiming the good news of salvation from those sins."6
The editorial went on to decry "the politics of hysteria and outrage."
I do not doubt the sincerity of conviction or question the Christian commitment of my brothers and sisters who choose to remain silent in response to the moral free fall we are experiencing. But I do strongly disagree with them. I firmly believe that "engaging the culture" and "sharing the gospel message" are not two distinct things; rather, they are inexorably intertwined. I explained this perspective with some passion this past February, when I presented the keynote address at the National Religious Broadcasters' annual convention in Nashville, Tennessee. I'd like to share the text of that speech with you, because I believe it explains, at least from my perspective, why we as Christians must use our influence to defend righteousness in this democratic system of government. The first half of my presentation dealt with the theme of my book Bringing Up Boys. In the second portion, however, I talked about one of the major reasons boys are in such trouble today and how it is related to the war against families. I will share only that second half in this letter because of space limitations.
Please note that because the following comments were originally part of an oral presentation, they have been edited to make them more readable. The spoken word is very imprecise when delivered. After you have read this speech, I would like to know how you see the issues raised.
"What I want to say to you tonight comes from deep within my heart, although it is said with charity to those who disagree. My comments will not be directed at any individual. These thoughts are relevant to all of us in this time of moral decline.
The world into which today's children are born has become a very dangerous place. It has changed tremendously. Those of you who are 50 years of age or older know that when you were young, the culture reinforced positive values and attempted to help parents raise their kids properly.
But now, the culture is at war with parents. It is very difficult to get kids safely through the minefield of adolescence. We're seeing a relentless attack on childhood today. There are many people in the activist community who hate the Judeo-Christian system of values, and recognize that if they can gain control of children, they can change the entire culture in one generation. That's why there is a tsunami of propaganda flooding over our culture. Every day, it seems, some new effort to manipulate kids is becoming apparent.
With the limited time available to me tonight, I can't give you the history of this attack on children. Instead, let me simply go back to February 1 of this year and review what has occurred within that period of just two weeks and two days. Perhaps it will be apparent how rapidly the world of children is changing.
Exactly eight days ago, the National Education Association (NEA) announced its policy that is being disseminated to schools all over the country, urging every district to teach what amounts to homosexual propaganda to children of all ages.7
Because a child will typically spend 13 years in public schools, this indoctrination will begin in kindergarten and continue through high school. Perhaps you think this type of radical curriculum couldn't be implemented in public schools, but it has already become law in the state of California. The California Legislature passed a series of bills that the State Department of Education used as a framework to recommend that schools adopt a pro-homosexual curriculum.8 Delaine Eastin, state superintendent of Public Instruction, sent out a vaguely crafted cover letter on April 5, 2001, which outlined the recommendations about how schools should implement the non-discrimination language from the bills into curricula. Eastin's letter left the impression that the recommendations were mandatory, although they weren't.9 When children came back from their summer vacations in September of last year, this is what was waiting for millions of them. Sadly, the majority of parents either didn't notice or didn't seem to care, because the legislation passed with too little resistance. Where are the moms and dads who are supposed to be looking out for the welfare of their kids? Why was there not an avalanche of opposition in response? Perhaps it is because Christians have been told that public policy issues, even those that affect their children, are not their concern.
Imagine sending a little 5-year-old boy off to a school that has implemented what the National Education Association is promoting. He's wet behind the ears, or to use the vernacular, "He knows nothing about nothing." He doesn't have the information or the defenses to counter the lies he's being told. Can you imagine 15 or 20 of these children sitting in a circle around the kindergarten teacher who's describing for them adult perverse behavior? Again, I find it difficult to believe parents are holding still for this! What should be additionally shocking to us is not only what is being taught in this instance, but what is NOT being taught. Sixty-eight percent of fourth-graders cannot read at a proficient level, and yet, professional educators want to take precious class time to teach their students about homosexuality.10 [Since this speech was given, a resolution has been introduced in the U.S. Congress calling for an annual day of silence in every public school, so that every student can contemplate the discrimination and oppression experienced by gay and lesbian children.11 Though the resolution never made it out of committee, students at 1,430 high schools registered to participate in the April 10 event.12] And still, there are Christians who tell us that such concerns are "political" and that it is somehow ungodly to use their influence to oppose them.
[By the way, during a "Focus on the Family" interview with Pat Buchanan on March 28, I recommended something I have never said before. Because of the radical changes being made in California's schools, I indicated that I would not place my child in public schools in that state or any other that moves in this direction — if any other alternatives were available. Christian schools and home schools would be a far better option. I've heard the argument that we should not abandon the public schools and leave them to those with postmodern and politically correct views. I would agree, except for the fact that it is our vulnerable children who will be sacrificed if we keep them in a godless environment. Speaking personally, the welfare of my boy or girl would take priority over the need to influence the local public school. In the meantime, I would work tirelessly for the implementation of school choice.]
The radical proposal by the NEA occurred on February 8. What else has happened in the last couple of weeks? On February 4 — 12 days ago — the American Academy of Pediatrics announced its conclusion that gay and lesbian parents typically raise children as effectively as traditional families in which husbands and wives are committed to each other.13 The committee that released this report had no convincing data to back its claim and, in fact, admitted that there wasn't enough information upon which to base valid findings.14 And yet, almost every newspaper in the country reported the spurious "finding." The revolutionary concept was based not on science, but on politically correct propaganda.
On February 14 — two days ago — United States Secretary of State Colin Powell went on MTV, broadcast internationally, and recommended that kids use condoms. Let me read a portion of his quote. Listen carefully to the words he used. "Forget about taboos." Guess whose taboos kids were being asked to forget about? "Forget about conservative ideas." Guess whose conservative ideas were to be forgotten? "It's lives of young people that are put at risk by unsafe sex, and therefore, protect yourself."15
What Secretary Powell didn't tell his young viewers is that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, the two primary departments of the federal government whose responsibility it is to protect the health of the nation, issued a report last year that the press barely disclosed to the public. It said there is no evidence that condoms protect against syphilis, gonorrhea, human papilloma virus, genital herpes and most of the other sexually transmitted diseases.16 And yet, there was the secretary of state, not the secretary of health and human services, speaking to kids about something he knows little or nothing about.
And the beat goes on. A year ago, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy filed a citzens' petition with the Food and Drug Administration recommending the distribution of the "morning-after pill" (medication that will kill tiny embryos if conception has occurred) to kids without parental knowledge or approval. And just three days ago, the group reiterated its position before the FDA in an effort to get the agency to immediately reclassify the pill from prescription to over-the-counter status.17 [In a related development, three weeks after this speech, Washington Democratic Senator Patty Murray introduced the Emergency Contraception Education Act, calling for $10 million of taxpayer funds per year to develop an emergency contraception public-education campaign.18] So much for the concern about the sanctity of human life.
These developments that have occurred in the last 16 days are characteristic of what is happening month after month and year by year. You can take any two-week period and see the same unrelenting assault on morality and the well-being of children. Brick by brick, the wall is crumbling.
Now, what's going on here? What is behind this targeting of kids? Let me answer that question by relating it to the current debate on stem cell research. Do you know what a stem cell is? It is a cell that is not yet differentiated — not yet developed into a specific part of the body. In the beginning, it has the capacity to become any kind of bodily tissue or fluid, depending on the environment in which it grows. If it is located in the brain, it may become a nerve cell, or a neuro-transmitter, or a hormone found in the brain. If it gravitates to the heart, it becomes heart tissue, or if it's in the eye, it becomes part of the visual apparatus. In other words, stem cells in their early stages of development will assume the characteristics of whatever surrounds them individually. In that way, they are the building blocks for the physical components of the body.
Likewise, children are the "stem cells" for the culture. The environment in which they are raised will influence what they grow up to be. Is the analogy clear? Those who control what children see and hear and believe are in a position to shape not only those individuals, but also the culture of tomorrow. Abraham Lincoln recognized this important nature of children. He said, "The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next."19 Homosexual activists and other politically correct leaders obviously understand this phenomenon. That's why they place such emphasis on the indoctrination of children. By telling kids repeatedly what they want them to believe and think, they can change the culture, quite literally, in a single generation.
I saw a video clip on television the other day that featured a classroom in pre-war Afghanistan. These children were being taught how to slit the throats of Israelis. If you teach that kind of violence to 6-year-old boys, you will have violent men a few years later. The "stem cells" of babyhood will become like the environment in which they were raised.
This is what is behind the massive effort to install homosexuals and their influence into the Boy Scouts organization. The Girls Scouts have already been invaded, and now, according to one report, a third of Girl Scout leaders are lesbians.20 Wherever you find large numbers of children, you will see this tug-of-war for their hearts and minds. So often, the activists take over the leadership of children's organizations without a fight. Why? One of the reasons is that Christians are standing around debating with each other about church and state issues and refusing to use their influence in the wider culture. It leaves boys and girls virtually defenseless.
Are you aware there is an international effort now to lower the age of sexual consent? In the U.K., it's 16. Here in the United States, it's as low as 16. In Canada, it's 14. In Portugal, it's 14. In Spain, it's 13. In the Netherlands, it's 12.21 Is that shocking to you? It certainly is to me. We're beginning to witness a blatant campaign to demystify incest and the sexual abuse of children. You will hear more and more "experts" in the next few years telling us that boys and girls actually benefit from what they are calling "intergenerational sex."22 They are dead wrong, of course, but the propaganda is already having an impact. Children are in the crosshairs, and there are many reasons to be concerned about them. And, of course, preborn and newborn human beings are at greatest risk.
There is an almost total disregard for the value of human life in some postmodern circles. Dr. Peter Singer is a tenured professor at Princeton University. Let me read you what he wrote. "Very often it is not wrong at all [to kill a child once it has left the womb]."23 He said, and note the words he chose, "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."24
These are the words of a bioethicist, of all things! Do you know that it is a $25,000 fine to kill an eagle's egg, yet there is no federal law at all against killing a fully developed and healthy child after as much as 80 percent of his or her body has been delivered?25
Have you contemplated actually having to witness a partial-birth abortion? Can you imagine being invited into a women's clinic somewhere near your home (there is probably one located near you) where a 16-year-old girl who is eight months along in her pregnancy comes in to have her baby killed? You've been invited to witness the procedure. You watch in horror as the doctor delivers this little baby, but holds it in place when only the top of the head is in the birth canal. That infant is only a minute or two from final delivery. He is brimming with life, and his little hands and arms and legs are kicking. Then the doctor rolls him over and inserts a cannula (a steel tube) into the back of the head without an anesthetic and sucks the brains out of that infant. The head collapses and the doctor delivers a dead baby. It would buckle your knees to witness such a murder. Nevertheless, it is perfectly legal to do it — and we're letting it happen! But beware, you cannot kill an eagle's egg! To call that outrage "political" is itself an outrage! Have we gone absolutely crazy?
[I hope it will not be self-serving to tell you that at this point in my remarks, there was sustained applause from most of the 4,000 Christians in attendance, indicating their support for my emotional remarks. A few remained seated and silent, and in fact, I learned later that many of them were irate. I guess this is what Christianity Today referred to as "the politics of hysteria and outrage."]
Clearly, this issue burns in my heart. You may remember that Barbara Boxer, the senator from California, speaking on the floor of the Senate in a debate with Senator Rick Santorum about partial-birth abortion, said that a baby is not a baby until the child is taken home from the hospital.26 In other words, you can kill that child with impunity as long as he or she remains in the hospital. This is where we are headed, taking us toward an even further disregard for the value of human life.
Let me argue with those of you who think the church has no responsibility to address such concerns, and that its only obligation is to preach the gospel. Suppose the year was 1858 and you were a pastor living in Raleigh, North Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; or somewhere else in the South. Would it have been satisfactory for you to say about slavery, "Well, I'm not called to deal with that contentious issue. To do so would make others angry and would limit my ministry. I'm called to minister to the people in my church. Slavery is not something I have to deal with"? All the while, you knew that black men and women in your community were being subjected to involuntary servitude, having been brought to this country under horrible conditions — circumstances that killed half of them on the ships that brought them here. Your entire congregation knew that slaves could be killed at the whim of their masters and that black family members were being separated, never to see each other again. You knew that children were sometimes taken away from their parents and sold like cattle or sheep. You and your people understood the brutality and the poverty of slavery, and yet you convinced yourself that this institution was not your concern — that it was a "political issue" and that the church should not discuss it. Could you take that position and feel justified in it? Thousands of pastors did exactly that, and their rationale was just as porous as the flimsy excuses today's Christians offer for ignoring the killing of babies and the manipulation of children.
Let me continue. The year is 1963, and Martin Luther King is sitting in a Birmingham jail for engaging in civil rights activities. When he is released, he goes to a church — yes, a church — from which he marches into the streets of Birmingham on behalf of oppressed minorities. Martin Luther King was a minister. Are you prepared to criticize him today for his violation of the separation of church and state? Should the church have been silent about the issues he raised?
What if today were 1943 and you were in Nazi Germany and knew that Hitler and his henchmen were killing Jews and Poles and Gypsies and homosexuals and the mentally handicapped, among other "undesirables"? You knew these helpless people were being gassed, and that little children were standing all day, on one occasion in a freezing rain, for their turn to die in the gas chambers. Would you have said if you were there, "We're not going to get political in my church! That's somebody else's problem. I'm not called to address controversial issues!" Would you try to make a case for silence in the church?
I thank God that Dietrich Bonhoeffer did not shrink in timidity when he saw unmitigated wickedness being perpetrated by the Nazis. He spoke out boldly, even though he had to know it would cost him his life. Bonhoeffer was hanged in 1945, naked and alone, because he called evil by its name.
John the Baptist said the same thing to Herod, a notoriously bloody tyrant. He said, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife" (Mark 6:18, NIV). And his head was severed and placed on a platter. I suppose many Christians through the ages have been unwilling to address the moral issues when their lives were in danger. But what is new is this effort among some evangelical leaders to justify their silence in response to wickedness. In my view, theirs is an impossible case to make.
In 1983, I was invited to Washington, D.C., to attend a banquet that featured Dr. Francis Schaeffer. I am so grateful for the enduring influence of that man. He foresaw everything we're experiencing in the church today. He laid it all out in his final book, The Great Evangelical Disaster. He was the first to recognize the connection between abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and warned about the coming unwillingness of Christians to oppose them. On the occasion of my visit to the nation's capital, Schaeffer was talking about the morality of a Christian's involvement in the military, especially when it involved war.
I had recently left my university position at the time and was just beginning to try to understand what was going on in the culture at large. Dr. Schaeffer said, "The morality of war comes down to this: Suppose you were walking down the right side of a street one night, and coming toward you on the other side was a cute little 6-year-old girl. She was skipping along alone. Just as you were parallel to her, a big, burly, six-foot man jumped out of the bushes and grabbed her. He began assaulting and abusing her. What would be your obligation to that child?" Dr. Schaeffer answered his own question this way: "I submit that you should cross that street and put your life in jeopardy, if necessary, to save that little girl. That would be your moral responsibility." And then he said, "That is what we were doing by our military involvement in World War II. We were trying to save the defenseless little girls — the Jews, the Gypsies, the Poles and the others who were being killed, and to rescue those who were living in tyranny."
I submit to you tonight that there are "little girls" in our culture today who are being abused by those who would kill or assault them. Who are these children whom we are called to defend? Some are yet to be born. Should we attempt to save them? Jesus said, "Inasmuch as you do it unto the least of these, my brethren, you do it unto Me" (Matthew 25:40, NIV). Would His words apply to those helpless little boys and girls who cannot speak on their own behalf? Can you ignore their plight, in good conscience, by saying, "Abortion is a political issue. I won't get involved. It's not my responsibility. Others are called to address it. I am not"?
How about the newborn? How about that "little girl" who's left to die on a porcelain table because she is developmentally disabled? What about the elementary school child who's being taught that homosexuality is just another lifestyle to be considered? What about the teenagers whom Colin Powell told to go ahead and have lots of really good sex as long as they do it the "safe" way? How about the unloved elderly person who is being subjected to "involuntary euthanasia" in Holland?27 This practice may be right around the corner for us here in America. Will we have the courage to fight it when that day arrives? The state of Oregon is already engaging in a form of euthanasia called "physician-assisted suicide."28 The next logical step is murder.
Do we have a responsibility to save each of those "little girls"? I submit that we most certainly do.
Finally, tonight, I want to share a personal story told by Dr. John Corts, who was formerly president of the Billy Graham organization. He said when he was 16 years of age, he and his younger cousins went to visit his grandfather's farm. They couldn't wait to get there and go out into the fields. They wanted to pitch hay and ride on the tractor. It sounded like so much fun.
But the grandfather was reluctant to let them go. They whined and begged until finally he said to John, "You are the eldest. You can take the kids to the field if you promise not to bring them back early. You must keep them out there until the end of the day."
John said, "I will do that, Grandfather." So they all got on the hay wagon and the tractor pulled them out to the field.
Very quickly, the kids got tired, and they started complaining. It was hot and sticky, and they were miserable. They began asking to go back to the house. But John said, "No, Grandfather told me to keep you out here."
At lunchtime, they were exhausted, and most of them were agitated. It was very hot; the hay was down their backs, and it itched, and they wanted to go back. But again John said, "No, Grandfather told me to keep you here."
At about 3:00 in the afternoon, a big black storm cloud came over, and the kids got scared. Some were crying. "Please!" they begged. "Let us go home." Still, the answer remained "no."
At about 5:00 John said, "All right, it's time to quit." He got them all on the hay wagon, and they went back to the house. After they had had their baths and been given something to eat, they rested for a while. Grandfather praised them warmly for the work they had done. Then, they became very proud of themselves.
That's when Grandfather told John why he wanted them to stay in the field. He said, "This farm has been successful through the years for one reason. We have stayed in the field when we felt like coming in. We did what needed to be done even when we wanted to quit. That is why I wanted the kids to have the satisfying experience of staying with something through the day."
John made his own application for his story, but let me tell you what it means to me. We're in a very difficult situation now. It's tough. It's hard moving against the tide of public opinion, the media, the entertainment industry, the Congress, the libraries, the professions and the other cultural forces that are making fun of us. Yes, what was said during our board meeting this morning is accurate. It is unpleasant to be called "the religious right" and "the far right" and "religious extremists " and "fundamentalist right-wing crazies." None of us likes that. But being ridiculed and marginalized is the price we must pay to defend what we believe. Jesus told us that it would be that way.
I can tell you that those of us at Focus on the Family have been subjected to some harsh treatment for the stands we have taken. We've had bloody animal parts brought to our front door. We've had our buildings spray-painted. We've had lies told about us in Denver and in Colorado Springs. We've been called "fanatics" and worse things. The easiest thing for us to have done would have been to quit.
But God has called us to stay in the field to the end of the day, and we will do that for as long as we have breath in our bodies. And I beg you to do the same. How can we remain silent when the next generation hangs in the balance? If we persevere to the end, we will hear those wonderful words of the Father, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant" (Matthew 25:21, NIV).
Thank you, everybody."
Now that you've read my perspective, I'm interested in knowing what you think. This month we also have a short questionnaire asking for your thoughts on the issues I raised. Would you take a moment or two to click the link above and respond when time permits? The staff here at Focus will compile your responses, and I'll present the results in a future edition of this letter. Your feedback is extremely important to us, particularly at this time when the Christian community appears to be confused about the role it should play in our postmodern, morally relativistic world.
On a final note, and I have mentioned this on our radio broadcast, Focus on the Family's 25th anniversary festivities are picking up steam. This summer, we'll be celebrating with a number of special events and activities. I hope you'll consider loading the family in the car and coming to Colorado for a visit! We'd consider it an honor and a privilege to give a warm welcome to so many of you who have supported this ministry over the years. And if you can help us financially at this time, that would be very encouraging. It's always nip and tuck here at Focus on the Family.
Until next month, God's blessings to you!
Sincerely,
James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
President
National Cemeteries, Memorial Day Ceremonies, & Military Installation Locators
and ping!
The stem cell analogy gave me goosebumps. A tough but good read. Thank goodness my children are not in the public schools. Of course, had I really done it right, I should have done homeschooling!
For years, I thought like Dobson, as he expresses his opninon in this article, until one day, I had a bitter pill of an epiphany which radically changed my opinions...
During the 8 years of the criminal, traitorous Clinton Administration, no one can deny that millions of good Christians prayed and prayed to God to please EXPOSE the clintons, and thier lackeys in the left-wing media for what they were. To expose the crimes and the lies and the brainwashing...
The cold reality is: God steadfastly refused.
Clinton is an inept criminal. His traitorous house of cards is flimsy. If Vince Foster had been exhumed and re-autopsied; if Ron Brown had been autopsied; if some citizen had videotaped TWA 800, or the Murrah Bldg; if Jim MacDougal had survived his prison assasination attempt; if the Senators had allowed a real impeachment trial, or even viewed the evidence in the Ford Bldg... on and on and on...
My point is, God had many many many opportunities to expose clinton and the left wing media that supported him,,, and each and every time, God refused to do so.
I see no other viable way to interpret that than to say that God has given up on America, and wants us to just preach the Bible and Salvation in Jesus, and let God wrap the story of human history UP.
Dobson is wrong, IMO.
I'd lay it on a broader Biblical basis than he does, but he makes an excellent pragmatic argument.
They were exposed. You simply prove Dr. Dobson's point by admitting that the majority of Americans did not see the sin and evil in Clinton's behavior.
At least not enough of us to bring him down. But at least we did speak up.
To the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans, all Clinton was "guilty" of, was having oral sex with an intern and "fibbing" about it. If any of the REAL clinton crimes (treason, murder, etc) were exposed, he would be in prison and the DanTomPeter would be out of business.
But instead, clinton struts the world stage, his wife is a successful Senator, widely believed to be in line for VP or POTUS, and the media still stands and does it's brainwashing unhindered.
If God wanted clinton exposed, He had almost limitless opportunities to bring it about. He steadfastly chose not to. I'm not questioning God's reasons (it's not my place, God is absolutely Sovereign) but I see no other way to interpret God's actions but that God is finished with the USA and is wrapping up the story of human history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.