MacFormat 1995 March/macformat-022.iso/Shareware City/Comms/Inspiration TF 1.0 folder/Inspiration TF 1.0/Example Conversion files.../ART337.TXT

Text File | 1994-06-19 | 31.7 KB | 576 lines | [TEXT/????]

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
order on January 23, one day after the 2oth 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.  It passed, it will
permit the killing of babies throughout nine months on 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 10 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.{l} 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 ,{2} the National Commission on AIDS, {3} and
the majority of Americans. {4}  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're part of it." {5}

Also, in mid-February, the president appointed Roberta Achterberg to a high
position in the department of Housing and Urban Development.  Achterberg 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? {6}

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. {7} 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." {8}  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 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. {9}  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" sign above the door? {10} Can you think of any
other minority group that could be characterized as rats?

Consider this quote from good ol' grandfather 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." {11}

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 thin 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, {12} 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. {13} 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 {14} He is causing
  others in the body to hold up your arms {15} in this battle for our
  faith, our families and our nation.

  Therefore, be strong and of good courage, {16} because the work belongs
  to the Lord {17} our God! Serve Him with a perfect heart {18} and a
  willing mind, for He has chosen you {19} to STAND in the midst of this
  perverse {20} generation and say to His people, "Let us do this thing
  together." {21} 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. {22}  Our God is
  with us for good and He will strengthen our hands {23} for this work.  We
  will not be discouraged or dismayed, for we know that our God is with us.
  {24} He will not fail us, {25} nor forsake us 'til we have accomplished
  all the work to which He has called us.  We will humble ourselves {26}
  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. {27}

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 involuntary euthanasia becomes
widespread in nursing homes?  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) {28}  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 of 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... {29}

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. {30}

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 resisters
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." {3l} 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 battle field besides is mere
flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point." {32}

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." {33}  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 that 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 can not
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." {35}

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?"
{36}

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, "demoralizing" 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." {37}

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 wit 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, 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 than 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 you all!  God
bless our country.

Sincerely,

[signed]
James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
President, Focus on the Family


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 policy 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 homo-
sexuals.  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.


Endnotes:

  1.  Rowan Scarborough, "Gay Rights Groups Wish List to Follow Lifting of
Military Ban," The Washington Times (Feb. 10, 1993).
  2. Joyce Price, "Hill Republicans Oppose Change in HIV Policy," The
Washington Times (Feb.  12, 1993).
  3. lbid.
  4.  Christine Gorman, "Opening the Border to AIDS," Time, (Feb. 22,
1993).
  5. "Let Us Rise to the Challenge," (Speech by Gov.  Bill Clinton, Palace
Theater, Los Angeles, Calif., May 18, 1992).
  6. Teresa Moore, "United Way OKs Boy Scout Policy on Gays; More Liberal
Subsidiary Will Expand Nationwide," The San Francisco Chronicle, (Dec. 17,
1993).
  7. "Today Show," NBC-TV, Dec.  30, 1992, interview with Bryan Gumbel.
  8. Christopher Scanlan, "Elders: I'm Willing to Be Lightning Rod; Surgeon
General Candidate an Activist," The Houston Chronicle, (Dec. 17, 1992).
  9. "Energized by Pulpit or Passion, the Public Is Calling; gospel
Grapevine' Displays Strength in Controversy Over Military Gay Ban," The
Washington Post, (Feb. l, 1993).
  10. Copyright 1992, Universal Press Syndicate.
  11. "Hugh Fumes: '20/20' Host Slashes at GOP," Mediawatch, (Jan. 20,
1993).
  12. Matt.16: 16
  13. Rom. 8:23
  14. Ex.  33:14, 19
  15. Isa.  42:6-7
  16. Deut. 31:6
  17. Hag.  2:4; Ps. 64:9
  18. 1 Chron. 28:9
  19. Isa.  41:9
  20. Matt. 17:17; Acts 2:40
  21. Jer.  50:5
  22. Isa.  59:19
  23. Ezra 6:22; Isa.  35:3
  24. Isa.  8:10
  25. Deut.  31:6
  26. 2 Chron. 7:14
  27. 1 Tim. 1:1
  28. "Hate Literature Laws Sweep the U.S. and Other Western Democracies,"
Christian World Report, (April 1989, p. 1).
  29.  Geffrey B. Kelly, "The Life and Death of a Modern Martyr," Christian
History, Issue 32 (Vol. X, No. 4), p. 11
  30. Ibid.
  31. Lev.  18:22; 20:13
  32. Chuck & Donna McIlhenny with Frank York, When the Wicked Seize a
City, Huntington House Publishers, 1993, p. 85.
  33. Eph. 6: 12
  34. 1 John 1:7
  35.  Charles Colson, "Don't Wait for the Next Reagan Era," Christianity
Today, (Feb.  8, 1993, p.112).
  36. Rom. 8:31 NIV
  37. Luke 19:13