Posted with permission. Thanks to Dr. Dobson for speaking up.
July 1998
Dear Friends:
In June I devoted this monthly letter to the subject of homosexuality and the striking cultural gains made in recent years by gay and lesbian activists. Shortly after I completed that statement, a highly significant development occurred: President Bill Clinton issued an executive order on May 28, 1998, establishing what amounts to an affirmative action program for homosexuals throughout the executive branch of the federal government. 1 This action was taken by the same man who inexplicably canceled President Ronald Reagan's executive order supporting and defending the institution of the family. 2
Clinton's bold maneuver was strategically implemented over the Memorial Day weekend when most congressmen were out of town. The wording guarantees that those who claim to be homosexuals (we have to take their word for it) will henceforth be given preferential treatment in hiring, firing and other job-related activities. Thus, if two men of equal qualifications are applying for the same position, a governmental official will be risking a lawsuit, or worse, if he chooses to hire the heterosexual. All of the civil rights policies that have applied historically to minorities will now be enforced on behalf of homosexuals. The potential for costly legal battles and the intimidation of government officials is difficult to overstate. And the president established this far-reaching policy with the stroke of his pen.
Considering the implications of this decision, one would have hoped for an immediate reaction from Congress. But as I pointed out last month, our representatives are loathe to enter that domain. Homosexual activism is the one subject very few are willing to tackle - even those who purport to believe the same things as their conservative constituents. For example, every member of Congress remained passive and silent in November when Clinton called for a revamping of the nation's school curricula to include homosexual propaganda.
More recently, however, we have admired Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for answering truthfully when questioned about his personal beliefs on June 15, 1998. He was asked if he considered homosexuality to be a sin. "Yes, it is," the Senator replied. ". . . [I]n America right now, there's an element that wants to make that alternative lifestyle acceptable." 3 It took considerable courage for Lott to make such a statement, because, as the nation witnessed, the press made him pay dearly for his candor.
If only other members of Congress had the same boldness. I was hopeful that conservatives would object publicly to Clinton's homosexual initiative. Seeing nothing in the media, however, I began calling key offices on Capitol Hill. Some whose names would surprise you admitted sheepishly that no response was planned.
To his credit, House Majority Leader Dick Armey issued a press release condemning the executive order. His was the only statement I have seen, although predictably, it was not widely reported in the media. (Why would liberal journalists want to alert the American people to the latest governmental lurch to the left?) Thus, another milestone in the homosexual agenda quietly became federal administrative law, with few people noticing or even appearing to care. Immediately after the signing, Clinton announced his intention of promoting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA),4 a bill that came within a single vote of passing in the Senate in 1996. 5 It may be voted on again soon and, if successful, will extend the spirit of the president's executive order to the entire nation!
In light of the lack of response from almost any segment of society, I thank God for the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), which passed a resolution addressing the president's order during its annual convention in Salt Lake City on June 9-11. An abbreviated version of that resolution reads:
WHEREAS, homosexuality is immoral, contrary to the
Bible (Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) and contrary to traditional Judeo-Christian moral standards, and the open affirmation of homosexuality represents a sign of God's surrendering a society to its perversion (Romans 1:18-32); and WHEREAS, on May 28, 1998, President William Jefferson Clinton signed an amendment to an executive order which "prohibit(s) discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal civilian workforce and states that policy for the first time in an executive order of the president," according to President Clinton; and WHEREAS, messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention have consistently and overwhelmingly affirmed biblical teachings which condemn homosexuality as sin; and WHEREAS, homosexual politics is masquerading as "civil rights," in order to exploit the moral high ground of the civil rights movement even though homosexual conduct and other learned sexual deviance have nothing in common with the moral movement to stop discrimination against race and gender; and WHEREAS, what God has established in His eternal law to be morally wrong, man should never assert in temporal laws as a legal right.
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that we, the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention . . call upon Congress to nullify the president's action through legislation unless the president first rescinds his order; and Be it finally RESOLVED, that we oppose all efforts to provide government endorsements, sanction, recognition, acceptance or civil rights advantage on the basis of homosexuality. 6
Once again, Congress has been called upon to affirm values and beliefs that millions of citizens hold dear. We'll see which representatives have the courage to speak on that issue. I wish I could say I am optimistic about their response.
It was my privilege to bring the keynote address on the final morning of the SBC conference in Salt Lake City. It gave me an opportunity to review other resolutions passed during the meetings and to have lunch with senior leaders in the movement. I can't tell you how encouraged I was by what I saw and heard. Because I am not a Southern Baptist, you can understand that my enthusiastic comments are not motivated by ecclesiastical bias. What impressed me was the SBC's courage to defend their beliefs in the face of intense media criticism and ridicule. Here are brief summaries of other decisions made by Southern Baptist messengers at the convention.
1. A resolution stating, "The Word of God, the Bible, is the complete, trustworthy and inerrant written record of God's revelation of Himself to man." That is foundational to everything else.
2. A resolution on the moral character of public officials. We can guess who the resolutions committee had in mind when it wrote, "Some journalists report that many Americans are willing to excuse or overlook immoral or illegal conduct by unrepentant public officials so long as economic prosperity prevails." But, "Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God's judgment." The resolution continued, ". . . Therefore, be it resolved that we . . . affirm that moral character matters to God and should matter to all citizens, especially God's people, when choosing public leaders."
3. A resolution which agreed with the appropriateness of women serving in the military but strongly opposed women being assigned to combat assignments. The wording here, although too long to report, is brilliantly stated and is passionately supported by Focus on the Family. There are good reasons why men have been the defenders of their nations and families for the past 5,000 years. Not the least of which are mother-child relationships - which should not be interrupted even in times of national emergencies - and concern about the inevitable problems that occur when the sexes are mingled during military training, in barracks, in tents and on the field of battle. It is not possible to negate the attraction between the sexes by simply ignoring it, or by assuming that military discipline will somehow override the ways behavior is changed when men and women live, bathe and sleep in shared quarters. If this is doubted, ask the Pentagon how many female sailors are turning up pregnant aboard naval ships these days. As the SBC resolution states, ignoring gender-based role distinctions has been "a foolish social experiment."
4. A strongly worded resolution opposing governmental support for the National Endowment for the Arts, which has been used "to fund indecent, blasphemous photographs or performances that ridicule, attack or debase the Christian religion, especially conservative evangelical Christian faith and values." The resolution continues, "The National Endowment for the Arts has been repeatedly urged by Congress and religious organizations, including the Southern Baptist Convention, to refrain from funding such offensive projects, but the NEA has continued to fund works containing anti-Christian bigotry." Reference is then made to "a despicable show" about to debut in New York City's Manhattan Theater Club. It is entitled "'Corpus Christi,' in which our sinless Lord and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, is depicted as a sexually perverted person engaging in acts against nature with his disciples." Shamefully, the NEA provided $205,000 of our tax dollars to fund the theater. 7
Speaking personally, I have begged members of Congress to stop this indefensible use of our national resources. Leaders in the House have promised to withhold funding for this program next year, but the Senate will almost certainly come to its rescue. They will have the support of almost every Democrat and enough liberal Republicans to carry the day. It is a continuing outrage.
5. A resolution designed to strengthen commitments to marriage. Specifically, it endorsed state legislation creating "Covenant Marriage," which is a voluntary arrangement whereby brides and grooms bind themselves legally in a more permanent marital relationship. Divorce is still possible under prescribed conditions, but it requires greater causation than is called for under most "no fault" divorce laws. The resolution states, "Messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention . . . express our enthusiastic support for such public policies and programs which aim to strengthen the marriage commitment and to reverse the trend of the disintegration of the nuclear family." 8 Amen!
By far the most controversial of the decisions made in Salt Lake City was one that drew a hail of fire from almost every battalion of the mainline media. Here is the wording of a revised section of the SBC's statement of Baptist Faith and Message:
God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society. It is composed of persons related to one another by marriage, blood or adoption.
Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God's unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church, and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel for sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race.
The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.
Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord. Parents are to demonstrate to their children God's pattern for marriage. Parents are to teach their children spiritual and moral values and to lead them, through consistent lifestyle example and loving discipline, to make choices based on biblical truth. Children are to honor and obey their parents. 9
There it is, the politically incorrect statement that sent a thousand media critics into orbit. Southern Baptist males were characterized either as Neanderthals, dragging women by their hair, or like Archie Bunker, who dominated his spineless little wife, Edith, in the 1970s television sitcom.
The reaction of feminist Bonnie Erbe, writing for Scripps Howard News Service, was typical. She wrote, "This amendment is so degrading, so atavistic that it is hard to believe even a group of male devotees could suggest its approval in 1998. Where have these people been hiding for the last 35 years?" 10 She went on to write about wife-beating and other forms of oppression that would be unthinkable to Southern Baptists.
Two responses seem appropriate. First, the media and their feminist friends, especially Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women, 11 who were incensed by the resolution's reference to the prescribed "submissive" role for wives, failed to mention the husband's obligation in return. His role is "to love his wife as Christ loved the church." That's a tall order and not one to be taken lightly. Christ gave his life for the church and never once behaved selfishly or brutally toward her. There is no hint of oppression, domination or disrespect in that analogy.
The second factor ignored by the media (and probably not understood by most of them) is that this statement, endorsed by Southern Baptists, comes straight out of Scripture - Ephesians 5, to be exact. What better basis for theological interpretation is there than the Word of God, especially when it specifically addresses the issue in question? Those who disagree with the SBC statement (including Bill Clinton, 12 a Southern Baptist who attends a Methodist Church) must quarrel with the Apostle Paul. We as believers have no authority to contradict the inspired biblical text, regardless of what our critics write and say.
Be assured, as conservative Christians continue to lose ground in the great civil war of values, that the cultural elites will continue their campaign to marginalize and paralyze us. They want to make it so uncomfortable for Christians to speak up, even within their own denominations, on issues of political correctness and public policy that they will cower in fear. They accomplish this not by dealing with the positions we take, but by name-calling and blatant disrespect. We are referred to as the "far right," 13 as "extremists," 14 "right-wing zealots," 15 "fundamentalists," 16 "fringe groups" 17 and even "religious nuts." 18 Note that no one is ever referred to by the press as the "far left," "extreme left" or "left-wing nuts." Only Christians can be so marginalized.
How dare a religious person try to influence the system! That is almost a violation of the Constitution to the liberal mind-set -separation of church and state, you know. Never mind the fact that this is, as Lincoln said, a representative form of government that is intended to be "of the people, by the people and for the people." But people of faith are somehow excluded from the proposition. They are to keep their opinions to themselves, or until recently, within the confines of their own churches. As of last month, even decisions made within religious institutions have been brought under scrutiny of the thought police, as Southern Baptists discovered in Salt Lake City.
I have also been subjected to vicious treatment by the press in recent weeks. My crime? I went to Washington, D.C., to secure four legislative objectives: an end to the Marriage Penalty Tax; a guarantee of parental consent before a minor can get an abortion or contraceptives (Currently, minors can be transported legally across state lines without parental permission or awareness.); an end to funding for the National Endowment for the Arts; and legislation that guarantees religious liberty and protection from intrusion by the "Imperial" Court. For this, and for stating publicly that religious conservatives are routinely ignored in Washington, D.C., I have been skewered in the media.
I'm sure I sound irritated. Perhaps I am. During the past two months, I have been referred to in the press as a "right-wing dingbat" and "the big mule on the right" (by Judy Mann of The Washington Post), 19 and as "Godzilla of the Right," who is similar to David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan (a charge made by Frank Rich in The New York Times).20 Following the ridiculous supposition that every Christian on radio or television must be a televangelist, I was called an evangelist (by William Schneider of The National Journal (Wash., D.C.)21 and Al Hunt of The Wall Street Journal). 22The lead editorial in The Charleston (W. Va.)
Gazette referred to me as a "right-wing evangelist-psychologist," "a zealot" and an "ayatollah."23 Howard Park, writing in The Paradise (Calif.) Post, said (referring to me as well as others), "It becomes clear that the character defect of the religious right is intolerance. They have no sense of 'live and let live.'"24 Garry Wills, writing for Universal Press Syndicate, said, "(Dobson's) moral zeal is a matter of high preachment and little common sense." 25 A nationally syndicated column by Cokie and Steve Roberts referred to me and people who believe as I do as "crazies." 26 Chris Bailey wrote in The Courier-News (Elgin, Ill.), "James Dobson is a bit like creeping weeds in a wet spring. He's everywhere. Pull him out here and he pops up over there." 27
Then on June 16, shortly after Senator Lott expressed his belief that homosexuality was a sin, White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry blamed Gary Bauer and me for having a negative influence on Republicans such as the majority leader. How ridiculous to think that the most powerful man in the U.S. Senate would say something he didn't believe just to appease the two of us! McCurry actually accused us of pushing the congressional leadership to "the extreme point of view in American political life." 28
An old adage reads, "When they start calling you names, you've won the argument." If that is true, then I must be tying my critics in knots.
All of these attacks, mind you, were my punishment for defending what I believe in Washington, D.C. There are 67,062 paid lobbyists working in that city every day, 29 representing everything from the Trial Lawyers Association to the Sunscreen Coalition. They swarm through legislators' offices and use every form of coercion to get their way, including gigantic campaign contributions. Their advocacy is entirely acceptable to the cultural elites. Even the Chinese government apparently had its way at the highest levels in Washington, D.C. But my participation was different. I went there to speak on behalf of millions of conservative Christians who are also concerned about the killing of babies, the weakening of the family and the loss of religious liberty. That is not acceptable, and those who dare enter that arena will suffer for their audacity.
Is this treatment going to weaken my determination to defend righteousness in the culture? Not for a minute. I admit that the unfair criticism hurts, because it is typically based on distortion or outright lies. Columnists and television commentators rarely deal with the substance of my positions. They just tell their readers I have no right to be heard. But criticism goes with the territory, as they say. That's why so few people, including conservative politicians in Washington, D.C., will stand up for what they know to be right. They get so tired of being wounded that they shift their public persona to the left. I will never do that. I will remain in the battle as long as I have reason to believe that our friends and supporters are behind us. But I can't fight it alone.
If you identify with the pro-family and pro-moral positions I have taken, I would appreciate hearing from you. It would also help immeasurably for you to write or call media representatives when they cross the line. Your responses, especially when they come in large numbers, are extremely useful in keeping liberal journalists reasonably civil.
Let me end by giving you some good news. Not only are the Southern Baptists weighing in on the moral issues of the day, but pastors and members of other movements and denominations are doing the same. Focus on the Family's Vice President of Public Policy, Tom Minnery, just returned from California where religious leaders are meeting all over the state to talk about the moral crisis in our country and what they can do about it. Could it be that the church is awakening to its responsibilities to the larger culture? I believe there is evidence that it is.
Tom wrote me a report about one of the 18 California meetings, sponsored by Christian radio entrepreneur, Ed Atsinger. He said, ". . . [T]he pastors left the meeting on fire with what they had heard. The first speaker was a Lutheran pastor named Laurence White, of Houston. He described how he was moved deeply by one of his Lutheran forbears, Martin Niemoller, a Lutheran minister in Hitler's Germany. Niemoller continued to preach against the Nazi enslavement of Jews in concentration camps, even after being warned to stop and being threatened with arrest.
Many times Nazi officials sat in his church to intimidate him by taking notes. Finally, they had had enough, and Niemoller was arrested. The next morning, in jail, the chaplain stopped by, who was also a Lutheran minister, and expressed surprise at seeing his friend, Martin Niemoller, behind bars. The chaplain said, 'Brother, what did you do? Why are you in here?' Niemoller's response: 'Brother, given what's happening in our country, why are you not in here?'"
I pray that you and I will have that kind of courage when severe adversity comes our way. Those who defend biblical truth may or may not be threatened with death, but we are certain to face continued intimidation and ridicule as the moral free fall gathers momentum. Even now, great anger and hatred is expressed by the cultural elite toward anyone who takes a public stand for righteousness. Words are redefined and used to marginalize them and to weaken their commitment to scriptural understandings. For example, they are called "intolerant" and "judgmental" for believing in traditional morality, as though the greatest human virtue is to recognize no differences between right and wrong and to accept them both on equal terms. That is the popular culture's definition of tolerance.
A writer once stated, "Tolerance is the virtue of people who do not believe in anything." When we become so accommodating of evil that we neither recognize nor oppose it, our moral collapse is imminent.
Those are my thoughts for this month. Thanks for standing with us. We especially need your encouragement at this time. The contributions to Focus have been rather anemic this summer, and if you could help us in July, we would certainly appreciate your participation.
Blessings to you all.
Your Friend in Christ,
James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
President
Endnotes:
1 William J. Clinton, "Executive Order: Further Amendment to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government," May 28, 1998
2 Cheryl Wetzstein, "Clinton Kills Order Protecting Families," The Washington Times, May 30, 1997, p. A1
3 Alison Mitchell, "Lott Says Homosexuality Is a Sin and Compares It to Alcoholism," The New York Times, June 16, 1998, p. A24
4 "Clinton Bars Job Bias Against Gays," AP Online, May 29, 1998
5 Jon Frandsen and Fredreka Schouten, "Senate Votes Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rejects Anti-Gay Discrimination Bill," Gannett News Service, September 10, 1996
6 SBC Bulletin, Report of Committee on Resolutions, Southern Baptist Convention, June 9-11, 1998
7 National Endowment for the Arts, Available: Internet: http://arts.endow.gov, June 1998
8 SBC Bulletin, Report of Committee on Resolutions, Southern Baptist Convention, June 9-11, 1998
9 SBC Bulletin, Baptist Faith and Message "Family" Article, Southern Baptist Convention, June 9-11, 1998
10 Bonnie Erbe, "Baptists Take Big Step Backward," Rocky Mountain News, June 13, 1998
11 "Religion and the Family: The Southern Baptist Convention's View on Marriage," CNN's "Larry King Live," June 12, 1998
12 Ann Gerhart and Annie Groer, "The Reliable Source," The Washington Post, June 11, 1998, p. B3
13 Jay Root, "Christian Coalition Leader Lauds Gains," Fort Worth Star-Telegram, June 12, 1998, p. 4
14 Matthew N. Klink, "Republicans Held Hostage," Daily News (Los Angeles), June 14, 1998, p. V1
15 Doug Woelke, "Do Not Confuse Religion, Politics," The Californian, May 7, 1998
16 Jack W. Germond and Jules Witcover, "Republicans Caught in Election Year Squeeze From Religious Right," The Sun (Baltimore), May 13, 1998, p. 15A
17 David Nitkin, "Religious Right: Rein in Judges," The Orlando Sentinel, April 20, 1998, p. C1
18 Donald Kaul, "Home Schooling More Appealing," The Des Moines Register, April 26, 1998, p. 6
19 Judy Mann, "Clinton Surrounded in Dirt, But Where's GOP?" The Washington Post, April 22, 1998, p. C23
20 Frank Rich, "Godzilla of the Right," The New York Times, May 20, 1998, p. A23
21 William Schneider, "What Else Do They Want?" The National Journal (Wash., D.C.), May 16, 1998, p. 1150
22 Albert R. Hunt, "Republican Fissures Hasten the Return of the Old Newt,"The Wall Street Journal, May 14, 1998, p. A23
23 "GOP Trap: Squeezed by Zealots," The Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette, May 6, 1998, p. 4A
24 Howard Park, "The Chief Character Defect of the Religious Right Is Intolerance," The Paradise (Calif.) Post, May 21, 1998
25 Garry Wills, "Marriage Tax Penalty, Bonus," The Sunday Advocate (Baton Rouge, La.), May 24, 1998
26 Cokie and Steven V. Roberts, "Ideological Purity: Republicans Could Be Headed for Trouble With Moderates, Economic Conservatives," The Dallas Morning News, May 24, 1998, p. 5J
27 Chris Bailey, "Dobson Solutions as Scary as the Problems," The Courier-News (Elgin, Ill.), May 24, 1998
28 Michael McCurry, "White House Briefing," Federal News Service, June 16, 1998
29 "Washington's Lobbying Industry: A Case for Tax Reform," prepared by the office of Congressman Dick Armey, June 19, 1996
Copyright © 1998 Focus on the Family.
All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
Please visit Dr. Dobson's study at http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0002203.html
Dr. Dobson's Study: Dedicated to the Preservation of the Home.
** uhuh ** The President said he is reducing taxes.
uhuh.
Congress says they are balancing the budget.
uhuh. Sez who?
and Force Congress to
Kick the Debt & Taxes Habit with
$$ Money System Honesty for Us People. $$
We demand the whole truth with an honest viewpoint.
Don't send money. Call Jo(e) Congress and send letters.
Forest Glen Durland, CEO. 14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070-6081
Voice: (408) 867-4410; Fax: (408)868-9446; Click here for email.
Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com