Saturday, June 29, 2013


From Supreme Court records:, via Culture News article:

Excerpts from Scalia dissent regarding Defense of Marriage Act ruling of 6/26/13:

"This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.

[The majority opinion] is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.

There are many remarkable things about the majority’s merits holding. The first is how rootless and shifting its justifications are. For example, the opinion starts with seven full pages about the traditional power of States to define domestic relations—initially fooling many readers, I am sure, into thinking that this is a federalism opinion. But we are eventually told that “it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution,” and that “[t]he State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism” because “the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import.” But no one questions the power of the States to define marriage (with the concomitant conferral of dignity and status), so what is the point of devoting seven pages to describing how long and well established that power is? Even after the opinion has formally disclaimed reliance upon principles of federalism, mentions of “the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage” continue. What to make of this? The opinion never explains. My guess is that the majority, while reluctant to suggest that defining the meaning of “marriage” in federal statutes is unsupported by any of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, nonetheless needs some rhetorical basis to support its pretense that today’s prohibition of laws excluding same-sex marriage is confined to the Federal Government (leaving the second, state-law shoe to be dropped later, maybe next Term). But I am only guessing.

Equally perplexing are the opinion’s references to “the Constitution’s guarantee of equality.” Near the end of the opinion, we are told that although the “equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes [the] Fifth Amendment [due process] right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved”—what can that mean?—“the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does.” The only possible interpretation of this statement is that the Equal Protection Clause, even the Equal Protection Clause as incorporated in the Due Process Clause, is not the basis for today’s holding. . . .

Moreover, if this is meant to be an equal-protection opinion, it is a confusing one. The opinion does not resolve and indeed does not even mention what had been the central question in this litigation: whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman are reviewed for more than mere rationality. . . .

The majority opinion need not get into the strict-vs.rational-basis scrutiny question, and need not justify its holding under either, because it says that DOMA is unconstitutional as “a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution,” that it violates “basic due process” principles, and that it inflicts an “injury and indignity” of a kind that denies “an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment,” The majority never utters the dread words “substantive due process,” perhaps sensing the disrepute into which that doctrine has fallen, but that is what those statements mean. Yet the opinion does not argue that same-sex marriage is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” . . . a claim that would of course be quite absurd. So would the further suggestion (also necessary, under our substantive-due-process precedents) that a world in which DOMA exists is one bereft of “‘ordered liberty.’”

Some might conclude that this loaf could have used a while longer in the oven. But that would be wrong; it is already overcooked. The most expert care in preparation cannot redeem a bad recipe. The sum of all the Court’s nonspecific hand-waving is that this law is invalid (maybe on equal-protection grounds, maybe on substantive-due process grounds, and perhaps with some amorphous federalism component playing a role) because it is motivated by a “‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. It is this proposition with which I will therefore engage.

As I have observed before, the Constitution does not forbid the government to enforce traditional moral and sexual norms. . . . I will not swell the U. S. Reports with restatements of that point. It is enough to say that the Constitution neither requires nor forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage, much as it neither requires nor forbids us to approve of no-fault divorce, polygamy, or the consumption of alcohol. However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex), there are many perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought to be the end of this case. For they give the lie to the Court’s conclusion that only those with hateful hearts could have voted “aye” on this Act. And more importantly, they serve to make the contents of the legislators’ hearts quite irrelevant: “It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” Or at least it was a familiar principle. By holding to the contrary, the majority has declared open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited.

The majority concludes that the only motive for this Act was the “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Bear in mind that the object of this condemnation is not the legislature of some once-Confederate Southern state (familiar objects of the Court’s scorn . . .), but our respected coordinate branches, the Congress and Presidency of the United States. Laying such a charge against them should require the most extraordinary evidence, and I would have thought that every attempt would be made to indulge a more anodyne explanation for the statute. The majority does the opposite—affirmatively concealing from the reader the arguments that exist in justification. It makes only a passing mention of the “arguments put forward” by the Act’s defenders, and does not even trouble to paraphrase or describe them. I imagine that this is because it is harder to maintain the illusion of the Act’s supporters as unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob when one first describes their views as they see them.

To choose just one of these defenders’ arguments, DOMA avoids difficult choice-of-law issues that will now arise absent a uniform federal definition of marriage. . . . Imagine a pair of women who marry in Albany and then move to Alabama, which does not “recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex.” When the couple files their next federal tax return, may it be a joint one? Which State’s law controls, for federal-law purposes: their State of celebration (which recognizes the marriage) or their State of domicile (which does not)? (Does the answer depend on whether they were just visiting in Albany?) Are these questions to be answered as a matter of federal common law, or perhaps by borrowing a State’s choice-of-law rules? If so, which State’s? And what about States where the status of an out-of-state same-sex marriage is an unsettled question under local law? . . . DOMA avoided all of this uncertainty by specifying which marriages would be recognized for federal purposes. That is a classic purpose for a definitional provision.

Further, DOMA preserves the intended effects of prior legislation against then-unforeseen changes in circumstance. When Congress provided (for example) that a special estate-tax exemption would exist for spouses, this exemption reached only opposite-sex spouses—those being the only sort that were recognized in any State at the time of DOMA’s passage. When it became clear that changes in state law might one day alter that balance, DOMA’s definitional section was enacted to ensure that state-level experimentation did not automatically alter the basic operation of federal law, unless and until Congress made the further judgment to do so on its own. That is not animus—just stabilizing prudence. Congress has hardly demonstrated itself unwilling to make such further, revising judgments upon due deliberation.

The Court mentions none of this. Instead, it accuses the Congress that enacted this law and the President who signed it of something much worse than, for example, having acted in excess of enumerated federal powers—or even having drawn distinctions that prove to be irrational. Those legal errors may be made in good faith, errors though they are. But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” to “impose inequality,” to “impose . . . a stigma,” to deny people “equal dignity,” to brand gay people as “unworthy,” and to “humiliat[e]” their children.

I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.” I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[s]” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” —with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

. . . In my opinion . . . the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. . . .

In sum, that Court which finds it so horrific that Congress irrationally and hatefully robbed same-sex couples of the “personhood and dignity” which state legislatures conferred upon them, will of a certitude be similarly appalled by state legislatures’ irrational and hateful failure to acknowledge that “personhood and dignity” in the first place. As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.

By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.

As to that debate: Few public controversies touch an institution so central to the lives of so many, and few inspire such attendant passion by good people on all sides. Few public controversies will ever demonstrate so vividly the beauty of what our Framers gave us, a gift the Court pawns today to buy its stolen moment in the spotlight: a system of government that permits us to rule ourselves. Since DOMA’s passage, citizens on all sides of the question have seen victories and they have seen defeats. There have been plebiscites, legislation, persuasion, and loud voices—in other words, democracy. . . .

In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent."

To read the entire Supreme Court justice's writing above, CLICK HERE.



    We would like to "judgmentally" introduce you to Lorrie Jones of Seattle, Washington State, a self-described mindful eating "coach" and/or "facilitator". This biblical judgment is based on God-given discernment, using our God-given minds, understanding the Word of God and implementing its commands and doctrines. 

Mark 13:22-"For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."
2 Timothy 3:13-"But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."
Ephesians 6:12- "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."

Jones's profiles are at her two websites:
    We are confused as to which is the real Lorrie Jones. Are these two pictures of the same person? Is one an earlier photo, and one a later photo? Which is the earlier and which is the later? If she lost 1,900 pounds of weight, as she maintains, give us the medical evidence and the photos! We ask this because if mindful eating is not deceptive, the public should know the truth! Just like psychoheresy is a pretentious, un-Godly mixture of pseudo-science with Christianity, mindful eating is a deceptive, integrated approach of pseudo-science mixed with pagan Buddhist practices, and should be avoided.
    In any case, mindfully speaking, using God-given common sense, one has to ask if the first picture is the result of mindful eating or a radical facelift, or is it simply from an earlier era before Eastern pagan practices were imported to the West, when she did not eat mindfully. The proof would be in a portfolio of dated, full figure photos over many years, so we can see for ourselves where the 1,900 pounds went! Maybe it was all in the hips and thighs, but when?

See her websites: and
In her promo videos on YouTube, she explains slowly and in a purposely "monotone" way of speaking:
"Meet Lorrie Jones":

"What is Mindfulness and How do I Use it Daily?":

"Welcome to Simple Serenity":

Friday, June 28, 2013


Part 1:
Focus on the Family: A Sham and a Shame
Part One
by Martin & Deidre Bobgan

Sometime back we did a series of articles on the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC) in which we called the AACC "A Sham and a Shame" and then demonstrated why they deserve that epithet.1 We now apply that same epithet to Focus on the Family (FOTF). We wrote extensively about FOTF during the years that Dr. James Dobson founded and headed the organization. We wrote a book titled James Dobson’s Gospel of Self-Esteem & Psychology2 and numerous articles, which expose FOTF’s unbiblical and unscientific support of self-esteem and psychology. Simply said, Dobson, during the entire time he headed FOFT, was guilty of what we call "psychoheresy" and its spread world-wide, which we document in our writing.
We contend that the influx of psychology and humanism into the church is one of the greatest heresies, subtle seductions, and demonic deceptions in the American church today, and Dobson has been a powerful contributor. What is that heresy, seduction, and deception? It is "bowing down" to the unproven, unscientific wisdom of men rather than having total confidence and dependency upon the miraculous power of God and His Word in matters of the soul.
We use the term psychoheresy because what we describe is a psychological heresy. It is a heresy because it is a departure from the fundamental truth of the Gospel. It is a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture for the issues of life now treated with psychological and humanistic ideas, which utilize the very wisdom of man about which God has warned His people (1 Cor. 2). Psychoheresy is this Last Days’ seductive psychological and humanistic wisdom of man that has been one of the greatest ruinations of the visible church, because it undermines the sufficiency of the Word of God, thereby opening the door to other worldly philosophies and practices.
Before demonstrating that FOTF is a sham and a shame, we say up front that FOTF is a mixed bag of biblical and unbiblical teachings. We are not ruling out the use of factual information or human knowledge that may be helpful. However, while Jim Daly, Dobson’s replacement, has a biblical grasp of the orthodox doctrines of Scripture, it is his unorthodox application of those biblical doctrines and their often notable absence that we will note in this review.
We will reveal that FOTF, like the church of Laodicea in Revelation 3 is a picture and practice of the church in the Last Days. Jesus says to the Laodicean church:
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth (Rev. 3:15-16).
When one mixes cold and hot water together, the result is sickening lukewarm water. When one mixes biblical orthodoxy together with psychological and humanistic wisdom of men, as does FOTF, the result is a watered down, lukewarm Christianity. This lukewarm FOTF form of Christianity is popular because it appeals to a lukewarm Last Days Laodicean-like church.
In addition, FOTF is guilty of resembling aspects of 2 Timothy 3:1-7, which begins with "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves" and ends with "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." While teaching sound doctrine at times, the FOTF’s deep involvement in this psychological and humanistic wisdom of men ends up being only a lukewarm knowledge of the truth. Daly inherited the leaven of Dobson that had come to full loaf, but he should have heeded the apostle Paul’s admonition to "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened" (1 Cor. 5:7).
Enter Jim Daly
In 2005 Jim Daly succeeded Dobson and is now the main host of the Focus on the Family radio program, which reaches an estimated 220 million listeners all over the world.3 FOTF is a world-wide organization and its web site is extensive, covering its various involvements and influences. The FOTF half-hour program is "carried daily on 2,000 radio outlets in the United States."4
To examine whether Daly and FOTF are continuing Dobson’s psychoheresy and humanistic tradition, we looked at several facets of its vast world-wide ministry. While Daly is the main host of the FOTF radio program, Dr. Julie Slattery, a licensed psychologist, is a co-cost. Having Slattery on as co-host continues the pro-licensed-psychology position of Dobson, also a licensed psychologist. The use of Slattery and other psychologists continues the FOTF position of the Bible plus psychology and humanistic ideas, and at many times it ends up being just plain psychology or humanistic ideas without the Bible.
Daly also continues Dobson’s practice of referring those who call FOTF to only licensed professional counselors in one’s local area. In addition, FOTF provides those who call FOTF an opportunity to speak with a staff "licensed Christian counselor." Local pastors are never referred to callers unless the pastor is a licensed professional counselor.
To put this Daly/Slattery duo to the test, we read a number of the Daly and Daly/Slattery "Dear Abby" type of newspaper columns. Before commenting on these articles, we quote from the annual Federal 990 Form, which requires an answer to the following: "Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities" (bold added). In answer to the question the FOTF yearly 990 Form states: "FOCUS ON THE FAMILY SHARES THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST WHILE PROMOTING BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES" (upper case in original). Because that is their mission (i.e., commitment, aim, goal, purpose, objective), we looked at each activity of FOTF through the prism of their mission statement.
We read a number of FOTF articles that were in newspapers across the country. In none of these articles did we find either a direct or indirect reference to "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" or "BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES." As a matter of fact, the name of Jesus is entirely absent from every one of those articles, and no mention is made of "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" or "BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES." None of the biblical doctrines related to Jesus’ teachings or the Gospel itself can be found in them. No mention of sin, salvation, justification, new life in Christ, or sanctification can be found in these articles. No reference to the depravity of man, the need for redemption and the cross of Christ, or His coming again. These newspaper articles are strictly the humanistic, psychological wisdom of men (i.e., opinions) absent "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" and "BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES." If one did not know that FOTF purports to be a Christian ministry, one would never conclude that from their answers to the questions posed in the newspaper articles.
At the end of each article there is, like other "Dear Abby" types of columns, an email address to "Email your question." Let’s say that this is a ruse and their rationale is to attract the reader to FOTF and then to give them "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" and "BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES." However, these newspaper articles are just like many other articles on their web site which are without "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" and "BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES."
This is also true of the Chinese Outreach of FOTF. In checking with Deanna Goa, who heads the Focus on the Family Chinese Outreach, we learned that any FOTF messages going into China have a potential audience of 230 million, but do not include "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" and "BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES," since they would not be approved by the Chinese government. We wonder how many of the FOTF messages to 220 million people world-wide are also purged of any "GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" and "BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES" messages. Absent the Gospel message, what is left is an opinionated humanistic and psychological message; so why do Christians support the spending of huge amounts of money to send such messages to the world?
FOTF Web Site Q & As
We went to the Questions and Answers (Q & As) on the FOTF web site and found the following to be the first three questions:
"I suspect that my spouse is viewing pornography. What should I do?"
"Our marriage has lost its spark. How do we get out of this rut?"
"How should I act when my spouse is overly sensitive?"
The answer to the first question contains no Bible, but is filled with the humanistic wisdom of men and suggests as a couple they "seek professional Christian counseling." The answer to the second question contains no Bible, but again includes much humanistic wisdom of men (i.e., opinions) and suggests the following: "At some point you may also want to consider the option of enlisting the help of a marriage counselor," licensed, of course. FOTF also offers to "provide you with a list of referrals to qualified professionals in your area," who are, of course, all state-licensed psychological therapists. The answer to the third question does include three Proverbs in one sentence, but the Bible is absent from the rest, and once more FOTF gives humanistic opinions and humanistic psychological wisdom of men, absent "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" and "BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES," along with the usual offer to "provide you with referrals to qualified marriage and family therapists in your area who specialize in communication issues."
We also read a number of other Q & As on the FOTF web site, particularly the ones on marriage, and found a potpourri of biblical, psychological and humanistic opinions, which even at their best give recommended "Resources," "Referrals," and "Articles" that are often psychological and humanistic rather than being biblically oriented.5 There were a number that did promote "BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES," but none that we found with "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" in terms of the evangelistic Gospel message. Because of FOTF’s vast Q & A resources, there may have been some with a Gospel message, but we did not find them. Yet, if they follow their mission statement, these would be in abundance. The face of FOTF with Dobson was primarily psychological and humanistic and remains primarily psychological and humanistic with Daly.
Through the years we have seen the intrusion of psychology and humanism into the thinking of most Christians. As Christians think according to these psychological and humanistic ideas, they compromise what the Bible says about the nature of mankind and the source of sin and use man-made means. Instead of preaching and teaching a pure Gospel, they attempt to alleviate the symptoms of sin. They are treating the symptoms of sin rather than getting to the root. So much of what FOTF does is dealing with the symptoms of sin rather than taking people to the cross, not just to receive the love of God, but to understand the depth of their own depravity that requires the blood sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God. Unless sin is dealt with at the cross and a person receives new life, people may work to improve external conditions and people may even get along better, but they will continue in their lost condition. What we see in so much of what we have read from FOTF is that the Bible is too often absent.
When sinners are given psychological and humanistic means of help, they may misunderstand the Gospel and be further deceived into thinking they do not need a Savior. When believers incorporate the thinking of the world, they will also incorporate the world’s tactics in their families and in their ministries. FOTF has been doing this from the beginning and we see these in their distorted attempts at "evangelism" as Daly attempts to deal with the symptoms of sexual sin.
A Half-Baked Gospel
The next seven Q & A’s on the FOTF web site are about homosexuality and are as follows:
"If I suspect my teen is gay, how do I approach this?"
"How should we respond to our children befriending our gay neighbor?"
"Why did God create homosexuality?"
"How should we respond to the school pushing ‘gay’ curriculum?"
"Why don’t Christians care about homosexuals and their families?"
"What should we do about our son who says he’s a ‘gay Christian’?"
"Can you explain and defend your ministry’s perspective on homosexuality and same-sex marriage? (Bold in original for each question.)
In the seven answers to the above questions with serious biblical consequences four lack any Bible verses and there is a repetitious encouragement to "provide you with a local counselor referral [state-licensed, of course] from our carefully screened data base" or to call FOTF directly to speak with a licensed professional counselor. FOTF even says, "We can’t overemphasize the importance of enlisting the help of a professional counselor." In none of these answers is there a quote from the Bible regarding homosexuality.6
As we reveal Daly’s theology about and fellowship with homosexual activists, keep in mind the following verses: Lev. 18:22; 20:13 and Romans 1:21-32, which shows the progression of sin from not honoring God to "dishonor[ing] their own bodies between themselves" (sexual sin in general) to the point where:
God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. (Romans 1:26-27.)
Our children used to play a game called "Where’s Waldo?" Waldo is a character whose picture is hidden in the art work amid many distractions, and the one who finds Waldo first wins. We looked throughout the FOTF web site. In addition to the above Q & As, we looked at others, read articles, listened to many broadcasts, and have not yet found an exegetical explanation of what the Bible teaches about homosexuality from Romans 1:21-32 or Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and its application to practicing homosexuals. Why should it be easier to find a well-hidden Waldo than expository teaching on homosexuality that should be easily apparent in responses from a ministry that claims to be Christian, is so well-endowed, and reaches so many people world-wide?
In contrast to God’s clear condemnation of homosexuality, the FOTF answer to the second question above includes the following statements:
Perhaps the best place to begin is to be reminded of this important biblical truth: lesbians are no greater sinners than anybody else. Why mention this? Because the challenges you’re facing with these neighbors are in many ways no different than those confronting you in connection with any other family on the block.
Take the lead by inviting the lesbian couple and their kids over for dinner. Prepare a hot meal and deliver it to their front door. Look for changes to chat with them over the garden fence and help them out in practical ways. (Bold added.)
In answer to the third question above, FOTF says:
Please don’t misunderstand. In arguing this way, we’re not suggesting that homosexuals are somehow "sicker" or more "diseased" and "defective" than anyone else. Far from it. What we are trying to say is that there’s an important sense in which we’re all "abnormal"—some in one way, some in another. (Bold added.)
The FOTF answer to the fifth question above is:
It doesn’t matter who you are and what you’ve done, or how you feel about your sexual identity. God loves you unconditionally. He wants you to know His love in a deep and personal way. This is the Christian message in a nutshell. (Italics in original.)
In the answers to questions two and three above, replace the words lesbianslesbian, and homosexuals one at a time with the words bisexual and transgender and read them again and you will get the full impact of what FOTF is saying. Note that FOTF refers to what they call an "important biblical truth: lesbians are no greater sinners than anybody else" and "we’re not suggesting thathomosexuals are somehow ‘sicker’ or more ‘diseased’ and ‘defective’ than anyone else." In another place Daly warns "evangelicals to be ‘careful to not create a "super sin" out of homosexuality.’"7 This reveals that Daly and those at FOTF must be biblically ignorant of the fact that while all sin is an offense against God, there are some sins worse than others.8
Ron Merryman, in his article "Sexual Sins & the Culture," says, "All sin is evil, pernicious, and destructive but some sins are more so than others." He quotes 1 Corinthians 6:18-20:
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
Merryman then concludes: "Fornication involves the complete personality (mind, soul, and spirit) and in turn damages the same. This passage dramatically illustrates that some sins are more destructive than others."9
This one unbiblical belief that one sin is no worse than any other underlies much of Daly’s unbiblical teaching and probably influences his view of how to work with LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) and other activist groups. We will discuss more in Part Two about Daly’s fellowship with both LGBT and abortion activists.10
When used in this context, these answers are seriously half-baked and therefore a half-baked Gospel, which disregards the eternal punishment of those homosexuals who continue to sin and to reject God. What love is this when Daly fellowships with homosexuals who are in grievous sin and yet does not warn them of their eternal consequences? God loves us but we must believe the Gospel (condition) and receive new life (condition) for personal benefit, which should then result in walking according to the new life in Christ. Otherwise the homosexual could just go on sinning with the idea that "grace may abound," but as the apostle Paul said, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6:1-2.)
Daly repeatedly refers to God’s unconditional love outside the context of the rest of the Bible in his speaking, teaching, and writing, as one of his reasons to fellowship with LGBT and other activist groups, which is another one of his major flaws. In one of his daily broadcasts Daly tells a story of fellowshipping with a homosexual activist, where he says to the man, "I know that God loves you as much as he loves me,"11 but he neglected to say more than that. What a perfect place to at least begin to fulfill the FOTF mission to present "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST"! However, nothing was said about that in Daly’s story and is also absent in many of his similar stories that we have heard and read. Daly’s half-baked Gospel message is as bad as only referring to such verses as "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) without presenting the full Gospel. That would be another half-baked Gospel message just as seriously in error as Daly’s half-baked version.
In support of practicing God’s unconditional love with homosexual activists without the rest of the Gospel, Daly quotes Titus 3:9, which says: "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." Daly uses this verse to teach against argumentation and for conversation with the LGBT activist groups, but Daly’s error is again in promoting a half-baked message. First, no mature believer we know evangelizes by arguing. Note that Daly avoids the rest of the passage, which is found in the next two verses:
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. (Titus 3:10-11.)
Many homosexuals claim to be Christians. In none of Daly’s reported conversations have we seen an attempt to find out if a homosexual claims to be a believer and in none of his reported conversations have we seen one "admonition," let alone a second "admonition," as the apostle Paul would recommend. While believers, because of God’s love, are called to evangelize the lost, whether or not they are homosexuals, Paul warned believers "not to keep company" with those who claim to be believers but who continue in fornication, which, according to the Bible, would include the sexual activities of homosexuals. (See 1 Corinthians 5 and Romans 1:18-32.) Daly is possibly in violation of these verses as he keeps company with these LGBT activists.
Daly also quotes 2 Timothy 2:23-26:
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
The above passages support loving kindness to one another and indeed to all, but there needs to be wisdom in what God would have us say and do in particular situations. Indeed, we are to treat all people with the love of God, but remember that God’s love includes both mercy and truth. Therefore if a believer is to have intentional meaningful dialogue with LGBTs who continue to adamantly live in sin and promote a sinful lifestyle by being an activist for it, there must be much more than saying, "I know that God loves you as much as He loves me." This is a half-baked teaching on the part of Daly. There must be prayer that the Holy Spirit would use the truth of Scripture to convict the sinner and the Gospel message needs to be given so that people might be saved and glorify God. If the message is refused, the believer is not called to be argumentative, but to be "gentle unto all men." Besides Paul’s admonition against strife, such would be a waste of time and effort.
Those we know who minister individually to homosexuals and others do not "get involved in foolish arguments"; neither do they give them half the message as Daly does, which may inadvertently affirm them in their self-condemning lifestyle. As followers of Jesus Christ, we may speak forth the truth of God and give reasons for our faith in Christ and our concern about any unbeliever’s lost condition while being "gentle to all men," but Daly’s approach is to not confront these activists with the biblical truth of their lost condition. At the same time, we support those who struggle with homosexual temptations and keep themselves pure in the Lord.
[In Part Two we will continue to present Jim Daly’s fellowshipping with homosexual activist groups and reveal that he has done likewise with Planned Parenthood. In contrast to Daly’s expressed views, we will present quotes from two of Dr. John MacArthur’s messages that conflict with Daly’s position on homosexuality and abortion.]
1 Martin and Deidre Bobgan, "American Association of Christian Counselors: A Sham and a Shame," parts 1, 2, 3, PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2, 3.
2 Martin and Deidre Bobgan. James Dobson’s Gospel of Self-Esteem & Psychology. Santa Barbara, CA: EastGate Publishers, 1998.
3 Electra Draper, "Focus on Family asks abortion-rights advocates to help make abortion less common,"
5 When we use the word psychology we are referring to the field of clinical psychology with its theories and therapies, which prepares individuals to become licensed therapists or to become educators of this counseling mentality.
6 When we refer to homosexuality or homosexuals in this paper we are referring to those who are active unless we say otherwise.
7 "Jim Daly Aims to Broaden Focus on the Family Beyond Anti-Gay Marriage, Anti-Abortion Record,"
8 Go to an internet search mechanism and type in "Are some sins worse than others?" and read some of the results.
9 Ron Merryman, "Sexual Sins & the Culture."
10 "Fellowship" is "friendly relationship." Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary. New York: Gramercy Books, 1996, p. 707.
11 Jim Daily, "Refocusing Our Lives," Focus on the Family, 10/15/12, hppt://
(PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter, January-February 2013, Vol. 21, No. 1)

Article Topics | Titles Top
PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries
4137 Primavera Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93110
Part 2:
Focus on the Family: A Sham and a Shame
Part Two
by Martin & Deidre Bobgan

In Part One of this article we demonstrate that Jim Daly, the successor to Dr. James Dobson, remains as psychological and humanistic as Dobson. We also reveal that Daly has moved in a different direction from Dobson. Unfortunately and unbiblically, Daly has chosen to exercise his role as head of Focus on the Family (FOTF) to relate his organization to homosexual activists by seeking fellowship with them.1 In Part One we also present Daly’s theology and his reasons for seeking fellowship with homosexual activist leaders absent any genuine evangelism on his part. In this Part Two we begin with Dr. John MacArthur’s teaching on homosexuality as a contrast to Daly’s views.
MacArthur versus Daly on Homosexuality
Rarely have we heard pastors preach whole messages on homosexuality and abortion. However, Dr. John MacArthur has given an entire message on each subject. MacArthur’s views on homosexuality are based on Romans 1:18-32. The following is from the transcript of his sermon:
What you see in Romans chapter 1 is the sequence of what happens when God abandons a nation. First, verse 24 says, He gives them over to "the lust of their hearts to impurity," sexual sin, the dishonoring of their bodies among them. When God abandons a society, the first thing that happens is it becomes pornographic. It becomes obsessed with sex, obsessed with fornication, adultery, every kind of sexual behavior. We have gone through that already in the sexual revolution a couple of decades ago.
The second thing that happens when God abandons a culture is found in verse 26, "God gave them over to degrading passions...their women exchanged the natural function for that which is the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." At the end of that verse, "Receiving in their persons the due penalty" is the diseases that come consequent to homosexual behavior. And as you know, they unleashed on the world the horror of AIDS.
But what it’s saying here is that when God abandons a nation or a culture under His wrath, there will be a sexual revolution followed by a homosexual revolution. And we are living in this very condition.2
MacArthur further says:
Our responsibility is to tell people about the Kingdom of God and who can be in the Kingdom of God and who is excluded from the Kingdom of God. That’s the ministry of the church; that’s what we do; that’s what every preacher must do. And I’m not the one who makes the terms. I am only the one responsible to God to proclaim what God has revealed. And I’m here to tell you that if you advocate a life of sexual sin, adultery, fornication, effeminateness, or homosexuality, you will not inherit the Kingdom of God. What that means is, you’re on your way to hell, not heaven. This is the spiritual kingdom of those who are in Christ. The church is made up of people who were like this. Please notice, here’s the good news, verse 11, "Such were some of you."
In answer to the accusation that what MacArthur says is "hate speech," he says that hate speech is when anyone:
…will allow them [homosexuals] to go the direction they’re going, affirm that knowing that it will take them to hell. That’s hate speech. This is love speech. You either warn them or you affirm them. And Romans 1 warns them and any faithful Christian warns this is dangerous, this is deadly. It’s better to warn them than to affirm them. You might be the nice guy to affirm them, but that’s not love speech, that’s hate speech.3 (Bold added.)
What MacArthur teaches here should be a biblical understanding for any believer who converses with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender individuals or organizations. That does not mean that a Christian should unwisely unload everything in the face of one who has entered that satanic web of deception, but the Christian should speak the truth in love, gently, and according to the Lord’s leading and timing. These LGBTs need to hear the Gospel and believe in Jesus and receive new life. Then they will be ready to obey what God says about sexual sin. We have not seen Daly take this approach with them.
An explanation for Daly’s unbiblical pussy-footing around the issue of LGBT with activists is found in an article that reveals the contrast between Daly’s and Dobson’s views as follows:
Daly shares Dobson’s views in the public policy arena, but has taken a different approach than his predecessor. Daly refers to himself more of an evangelist than a prophet. He believes that the Christian community should demonstrate the values it wishes to promote and maintain civil discourse.
While Dobson’s approach was highly political and partisan, Daly and his colleagues have said that he is trying to make it less so.
Similar to his predecessor, James Dobson, Daly opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, but also wishes to address issues other than these typical evangelical hot button issues; he, along with other Focus on the Family leaders, "want[s] to frame political work as an inspirational call to do good—not just to oppose what they view as sinful behavior."
Daly says that he wishes to make abortion much rarer as a step toward eliminating it.
In addition to abortion rights groups at the state and local levels, Daly has also met with organizational leaders who are traditionally at odds with conservative evangelicals, including the Colorado-based gay rights organization, the Gill Foundation.4 (Bold added.)
The Gill foundation reports: "An American software entrepreneur and philanthropist, Tim Gill started the Denver, Colorado-based Gill Foundation in 1994…. Tim and his husband, Scott Miller, live in Denver, Colorado."5
The above article obviously explains Daly’s milquetoast approach to homosexual and abortion activists. But we ask: Where is the "common ground"6 (discussed in Part One) on which Daly says he wants to meet with such organizations as the Gill Foundation, which is "one of the nation’s largest funders of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights work"?7 (Bold added.)
The Christian Index reports that "Tim Sweeney, president of the Gill Foundation, when asked about his first private meeting with Daly last fall," said, "It’s sort of a wait-and-see, but I’m hopeful."8The reason Sweeney is hopeful is because his belief is summed up at their website as follows: "Our thinking is that if people keep talking, they will come to some accord,"9 which seems to agree with Daly’s desire to find "common ground" through "civil discourse."
Compare what Daly says, which we quoted in Part One, about lesbian neighbors and other homosexuals with what MacArthur teaches from the Word about the practice of homosexuality and the biblical fact that they "will not inherit the Kingdom of God." How can parents have fellowship with practicing homosexuals, as Daly does and recommends, and yet teach their children what the Bible says about how those individuals who practice such sins are excluded from the Kingdom of God? (1 Cor. 6:9-11.)
Regarding Daly’s desire for "civil discourse," the two of us have had civil discourse with individual homosexuals, both professionally and personally, but never have we initiated, as does Daly, any fellowship with homosexual and abortion activists and their organizations, because there is no biblical precedence for doing so. We do not see this reaching out and fellowshipping in this way in the ministry of Jesus or Paul. Also, we have not seen or heard a message on the FOTF website that is even close to the one preached by MacArthur. We ask our readers to go to the FOTF website and read the questions and answers on homosexuality and then listen to or read MacArthur’s views on homosexuality and see, in the light of eternity, which one is involved in love speech versus hate speech.10
MacArthur versus Daly on Abortion
The Denver Post reports:
Focus on the Family president Jim Daly on Friday said he will bridge a great divide by asking abortion-rights advocates to work with his conservative Christian ministry to make abortion less common.
Reproductive-rights supporters say they want abortion to be legal, safe and rare, Daly said, and so his Colorado Springs-based media powerhouse will try to walk that common ground with them — lessening demand for abortion.
The "let’s talk" offer to reproductive-rights groups signals a sea change in Focus’ uncompromising approach to the abortion issue. It is bound to engender controversy about whether détente advances or hinders Daly’s ultimate goal of making abortion illegal.11
In the same Denver Post article, the Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains spokesperson, Monica McCafferty, said, "Most of what we do is prevention"; "abortion must remain legal"; and "We certainly never want to see the day when women can’t make this personal, private decision for themselves."12
To see if Daly’s détente approach was successful or had any impact on Planned Parenthood, we spoke with McCafferty, who said there was a meeting early in 2012 with FOTF. She said the meeting was "informational and educational," but that Planned Parenthood "has not changed with respect to its policies and practices."13 In other words, there was much hoped for by Daly, but nothing accomplished and particularly nothing accomplished for "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" and "BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES," which is the sole mission of FOTF!
Keep in mind that abortion activists have been on the forefront of a government-approved killing of 55 million innocent unborn babies to date in the U.S. We quote from MacArthur’s message on abortion that should convict the minds and hearts of all people regarding the horrors of murdering the most innocent in their vulnerable life in the womb.
In a message on abortion, MacArthur says:
To me it is ironic that those who pride themselves on defending the rights of the weak, murder them in the womb when they are the most weak. What kind of hypocrisy is that? Self-congratulating pseudo-humanitarians advocate a deadly force of violence unleashed against infants that makes the Nazi Holocaust look mild by comparison. In our world, we’re slaughtering between fifty and sixty million babies a year. In the United States on record is 1.5 million abortions a year. Every third baby conceived is murdered in the womb. Four thousand a day plus, 170 an hour—Planned Parenthood alone kills one every ninety-five seconds.
The Physicians Association of Planned Parenthood released this statement, quote: "Abortion is a treatment for unwanted pregnancy, the second sexually transmitted disease." Pregnancy is a sexually transmitted disease. Our nation and others are murdering a whole generation of humans in mass infanticide that was legalized in January of 1973 by the Roe v. Wade decision made by an unrighteous group of people on the Supreme Court. Now forty-three percent of all women have an abortion and forty-seven percent of abortions are repeats. It’s legal to do to a child what you might be arrested for doing to a cat, or a dog, or certainly an eagle. 14
LGBT(P) and Planned Parenthood
According to a report from the Family Research Council (FRC) and contrary to homosexual activists "insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children":
Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.15 (Bold in original.)
FRC further says: "The evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners."16 In addition, The Gay Report states, "In the study, 23% of the respondents [gays] admitted to having had sex with youths aged 13-15."17 We assume that the figure is actually higher because of the reluctance of reporting on the part of the gays. Also, the study was conducted over 30 years ago and much has happened to expand this evil practice. Thus the LGBT organizations should be called LGBTP (Pedophile), which may be the next wave of attempted acceptability.18
Planned Parenthood is an organization that is just once removed from the temples in the apostle Paul’s day where babies were sacrificed to imaginary gods. Why, oh why, would Daly cozy up to two such Last Days organizations of such significant sinful underpinnings? The apostle Paul would certainly never be cozying up to such organizations, not only based upon the extremity of the sins that are promoted, but also because of the biblical warnings to the contrary! That is not to say that the apostle would not evangelize them along with everybody else. This major flaw of Daly in fellowshipping with these sinful activist groups is actually prohibited in Scripture. Ephesians 5:11-13 clearly says:
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
The prohibition against fellowship goes beyond participating in their sinful acts. In his commentary on Ephesians 5:11-13, William MacDonald warns about "any attitude that might indicate tolerance or leniency" and says, "The believer is called not only to abstain from the unfruitful works of darkness, but positively he is called to expose them" (bold his).19 Daly is not affirming sinful acts, but his fellowshipping with sinning activists in order to find a common ground, totally without one glimmer of the Gospel, violates the biblical admonition against such a relationship.
The call for reproof is in the same sentence: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." While the LGBT and abortion activists may certainly know the FOTF stand on these issues, they are not hearing a word of reproof from Daly, which is also missing from all the FOTF material we read on line. They may therefore receive Daly’s invitation to meet as a change in FOTF’s direction to show some degree of tolerance from their perspective.
In all the stories we read and heard about Daly’s fellowshipping with homosexual and abortion activist leaders, we could not find one iota, one jot, one scintilla, one grain of FOTF’s sole mission: SHARES THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST WHILE PROMOTING BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES." In one interview Daly and Dr. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, made their opposition to same-sex marriage clear and discussed biblical reasons for their stand.20 However, to our knowledge Daly has never said directly to homosexual activists and organizations what he said on the broadcast.
By Daly’s new direction to fellowship, at least one opponent (FOTF) of the LGBT and abortion activists has softened through fellowship. Daly’s new direction for FOTF shines no stoplight for these activist organizations.
One cannot help but think about the Bible’s prohibition against unequal yoking:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Cor. 6:14).
According to Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon, "one can translate 2 Cor 6:14 as ‘do not attempt to work together with those who are unbelievers’ or ‘do not become partners with those who do not believe.’"21 In referring to being "unequally yoked together with unbelievers," Albert Barnes states clearly: "Christians are in no way to patronize them, or to lend their influence to them, or to promote them by their name, their presence, or their property."22 The concern here is that Daly appears to be yoking FOTF together with Planned Parenthood and LGBT activist groups through fellowship and conversation.
Common Ground?
In seeking to work together on "common ground," Daly has joined FOTF with organizations whose beliefs and practices are enmity to God. It is one thing to personally extend kindness to people in the world; it is another thing for a Christian organization to join hands with an organization which has as its primary purpose something that opposes God and His Word, as do the LGBT and abortion groups. In so doing Daly is violating James 4:4, which clearly says, "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." In the context of this verse the "adulterers and adulteresses" are those who are not faithful in their relationship with God by forming a friendship with the world, and the "world" has to do with the people and "their motives and acts" that are "aliens to God."23
FOTF formed a friendship with the world from its inception by teaching and utilizing psychological and humanistic ideas about mankind and giving them a biblical façade. Now the friendship has been extended to organizations that promote lifestyles and activities that are anti-biblical and anti-God. In commenting on James 4:4, Warren Wiersbe says: "How does a believer declare war against God? By being friendly with God’s enemies." He further says, "By the ‘world’ James means, of course, human society apart from God. The whole system of things in this society of ours is anti-Christ and anti-God." He also says, "The world is the enemy of God, and whoever wills to be a friend of the world cannot be the friend of God."24 Daly has chosen this path of friendship with the world and attempted to justify it in his book ReFocus. This is not an accidental friendship with the world that he fell into, but rather a chosen friendship with the world by which he has joined FOTF along with the FOTF board members, staff and supporters, with enemies of God.
In Part 2 of a broadcast titled "Refocusing Our Lives to Reflect God’s Heart," an audio clip is played of Daly speaking to the staff at FOTF. In it Daly tells of a meeting in Minneapolis during which, after he spoke, "Sarah, the president of the Minneapolis Planned Parenthood, said, ‘Can I give you a hug? What you said tonight really spoke to my heart.’" In response, Daly’s FOTF staff gave him a rousing ovation.25 One has to question the degree to which Daly and FOTF can join hands in their so-called "common ground" of working towards prevention. How can their efforts be truly common ground when their means to an agreed-upon goal is so diametrically opposite? It is like joining Christian purity with Planned Parenthood’s education in the use of contraceptives and its free dispensing of them without parental approval. It is like joining the light of encouraging self-restraint with the darkness of "protected" sexual self-indulgence. One of the reasons for the admonition against the yoking together of believers with unbelievers is to prevent Christians from compromising their faith and actions. While believers are to love even their enemies, their words and behavior should not produce a confused message that could lead others into compromise.
In summary, Daly’s dialog with the LGBT and abortion activists and organizations is based upon half-baked biblical teachings. His rationale for détente with the LGBT and abortion community could be extended to activist atheist, cultic, Satanist, and occultic individuals and organizations, a practice that is wholly without biblical support. Daly has accomplished nothing by his détente approach with homosexuality and abortion activist groups and has failed to be the evangelist he claims to be for the biblical truth about both. In contrast, MacArthur has biblically brought forth the dreadful fact that unrepentant homosexuals "will not inherit the Kingdom Of God" and described the ungodly horror of abortion to prick the consciences of all who will listen.Consider MacArthur’s approach versus Daly’s and decide which is more biblical regarding the seriously sinful practices of LGBTs and abortionists.
Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-fil-A, created a storm of controversy when, in an interview, he expressed support for the biblical definition of marriage. On the heels of the controversy it was claimed that Chick-fil-A "has stopped funding some pro-family groups as a concession to gain approval for a restaurant in Chicago." In contrast, Cathy said that "the company [Chick-fil-A] had not altered its position on support for traditional pro-family groups." In the midst of the controversy Daly "confirmed that the company [Chick-fil-A] and its owners would continue their commitment to pro-family groups and causes."26 Daly is quoted as saying:
Dan and Bubba Cathy are my Christian brothers and good friends…. They and their company have long shared Focus on the Family’s commitment to helping build strong and thriving families—and they have in no way deviated from that deeply held and biblically inspired passion, while working with the city of Chicago to open Chick-fil-A restaurants there.27
We have presented two views of the way to deal with homosexuality and abortion activist leaders and organizations. According to the full context of MacArthur’s talk on homosexuality, Daly and FOTF are in error and may be guilty of "hate speech," as MacArthur describes it. In regard to abortion, is it biblically better to convict (MacArthur) or converse (Daly)? Is it better to evangelize (MacArthur) or compromise (Daly) by conversing with two organizations that espouse and promote nationally and internationally sinful activities that God clearly condemns and say nothing about what the Bible teaches in Romans 1:18-32 or Leviticus 18:22;20:13 and about the murdering of human life? Dan Cathy and other supporters of FOTF need to "choose you this day" with respect to who is being biblical on the issues of homosexuality and abortion, MacArthur or Daly?
To be continued….
1 "Fellowship" is "friendly relationship." Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary. New York: Gramercy Books, 1996, p. 707.
2 John MacArthur, "Homosexuality and the Campaign for Immorality," Grace to You,
6 "Focus on the Family Chief Ready to Start Dialogue," The Washington Post, 6/27/2009,
7 Gill Foundation,
8 "For Daly, Focus on Family Is Personal Crusade," The Christian Index,
10 John MacArthur, "Homosexuality and the Campaign for Immorality," op. cit.
11 Electra Draper, The Denver Post, "Focus on Family asks abortion-rights advocates to help make abortion less common," 2/12/11,
12 Ibid.
13 Phone call to Monica McCafferty, November 15, 2012.
14 John MacArthur, "Abortion and the Campaign for Immorality," Grace to You,
15 "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse," Family Research Council,"
16 Ibid.
17 Carla Jay and Allen Young. The Gay Report. New York: Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.
18 Cord Jefferson, "Born This Way: Sympathy and Science for those Who Want to Have Sex with Children,"
19 William MacDonald. Believer’s Bible Commentary: New Testament. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980…1990, p. 759.
20, June 19, 2012.
21 Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. Vol. 1Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition). New York: United Bible Societies, 1996, p. 446.
22 Albert Barnes. Notes on the Bible.
23 Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Jas 4:4). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
24 Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). The Bible exposition commentary (Jas 4:4). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
25 Jim Daly, "Refocusing Our Lives," Focus on the Family, 10/16/12,
27 Ibid.
(PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter, March - April 2013, Vol. 21, No. 2)

Article Topics | Titles Top
PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries
4137 Primavera Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93110
Part 3:
Focus on the Family: A Sham and a Shame
Part Three
by Martin & Deidre Bobgan

In Parts One and Two of this series we reveal that Focus on the Family (FOTF), under the leadership of Jim Daly (Dr. James Dobson’s successor) remains sometimes entirely psychological and humanistic and sometimes entirely or partially Scriptural. In addition, Daly has taken FOTF on a dramatic and radical change of direction in that he is courting the favor of both LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) and abortion activist groups by initiating fellowship with them. In contrast, in Part Two we quote from two messages by Dr. John MacArthur and suggest that Daly’s new approach may be what MacArthur would call "hate talk." In this Part Three we add more concerns about Daly’s position and conclude by saying that FOTF is a Last Days’ psychological and humanistic organization that reflects the psychological and humanistic church—lukewarm like Laodicea.
In his desire to convince people of his soft-sell approach, Daly presents the views of other Christians with whom he disagrees, at times referring to these others as "we" and saying such things as, "We act as if the people who oppose us are beyond God’s reach." He accuses others of a "fortress mentality" and, regarding the woman taken in adultery, says, "We too would be ready to throw the first stone."1 Daly creates a group of strawmen Christians and their so-called treatment of others as a contrast to his own views. In his book ReFocus: Living a Life that Reflects God’s Heart, Daly defends his initiating relationships with LGBT and abortion activists. He often refers to other Christians as "they" and "them" and casts aspersions on "they" and "them."
In ReFocus Daly is less charitable and more critical of other Christians than of those LGBT and abortion activist leaders with whom he has fellowshipped.2 The book is a justification for his initiating fellowship with LGBT and abortion activist leaders and at the same time it is critical of those who do not share his so-called biblical understandings. His reason for doing so is to promote his new-to-FOTF, so-called "evangelistic" approach (minus THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST) to LGBT activists, abortionists, and, by extension, to people of other unbiblical "cultural," religious, and irreligious persuasions.
Daly expresses satisfaction with his new fellowship with those activist organizations that should be regarded as God’s enemies, and his book ReFocus is a justification for it from beginning to end. One of the stellar examples of how Daly practices this new-in-the-history-of-the-church approach is how he boasts about working together with the local Independent (Indy) newspaper through its editor.3 The Indy is a radically pro LGBT and abortion rights sentinel of the news. We use this one example to demonstrate how Daly wants the entire church to follow his example of fellowshipping with those who adamantly oppose God’s Word and His doctrines of the faith.
In his book ReFocus Daly begins describing an award given by the Indy by saying:
In early 2011, Focus [FOTF] was mockingly awarded the "Claim to Shame Award" for, among other things, our continued support of traditional marriage and our ongoing advocacy to protect the sanctity of life… this award was clearly a tongue-in-check [sic], acrimonious gesture, but two of my associates decided to respond in Christian love and have some fun at the same time. I’m glad they did.4
The two employees accepted the invitation and attended the banquet. We digress to say that the editor of the local, LGBT- and abortion-friendly newspaper is John Weiss, whom Daly refers to as "my friend" and, as it turns out, a friend of many years. Daly indicates that, as a result of the two FOTF employees appearing and receiving the award, FOTF "forged a unique friendship" with Weiss, who is pro-LGBT and pro-abortion. Daly contends that "they didn’t compromise any principles." The two FOTF employees "simply treated John as a fellow traveler along this road of life."5
As a result of this friendship, the Christian ministry FOTF and the radically pro-LGBT and abortion-rights Indy have partnered together on a number of community projects. When Focus on the Family joins together with the Indy for a concert to raise funds for a good cause—to help families who had suffered loss from the Colorado Springs fire—one has to wonder why they had to yoke together for any such local event. The loud message here is that FOTF needs to join with the world and its ways in order to be heard. Warren Wiersbe rightly warned: "The attitude of too many Christians today is that the church should court and please the world in order to try to win it. Nothing could be further from the truth!"6
Daly shockingly ends this book chapter by saying:
Our neighbors may know we are Christians by our love, as the old song goes, but they will only know about the love of Jesus if we also share with them the truth about His life poured out as a sacrifice.7
We say "shockingly" because, in all the Indy and other newspaper interviews with Daly and all his personally described conversations and relationships with these LGBT and abortion activists and organizations, we have never heard him describe the details of "the love of Jesus" or any conversation where he did "share with them the truth about His life poured out as a sacrifice" for their grievous sins against God.
In all the interviews, we found only one mention of the Gospel in Daly’s brief response to the Indy question, "What should the ultimate goal of Focus be?" Daly answers, "Our primary mission" is "to introduce people to who Jesus Christ is and what his claims are, and what they mean to us today." But he does not perform that "primary mission" during that very interview, where there appears to be an open door. Notice that even though Daly knows and states the "primary mission," in none of his interviews that we found does he introduce the interviewer to "who Jesus Christ is" (Messiah, Savior, Son of God) and "what His claims are," e.g., the only "name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
It is interesting to note that in effect, without realizing it, Daly justifies his position by misrepresenting those Christians who oppose him as having a half-baked Gospel (our term). To overcome what he regards as one evil, Daly has introduced another equally bad evil. In ReFocus and in many other places, Daly criticizes what we would call a half-baked Gospel of some Christians in order to justify his own half-baked Gospel, not realizing that what he criticizes others for is exactly what he himself is guilty of.
Fellowship with Works of Darkness
To follow Daly’s biased biblical justification for fellowship with activist leaders, one would have to rewrite Scripture and have Peter seeking fellowship with the Pharisees and with the money changers in the temple and saying to them, as Daly does to a homosexual activist, "I know that God loves you as much as He loves me."8 In following his half-baked Gospel, Daly shows too little respect for all of God’s Word and too much respect for LGBT and abortion activist leaders by mollycoddling them.
Daly seeks a common ground of agreement, such as with LGBT activists helping children who are without parents get taken care of and with abortion activists preventing pregnancy. Does he realize that he is thereby promoting the practice of like-sex adoptive parents and pregnancy prevention through condoms and birth control pills? His tone is, "Let’s love and respect each other"; but it is absent THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. By doing so he is inadvertently following a "cultural" mandate that has no biblical grounds. Daly’s initiating fellowship with LGBT and abortion activist leaders is light years away from how Jesus and the apostles ministered to sinners. He fails to preach THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST to these activists whose practices, politics, and activities are leading people to perdition, in contrast to the way Jesus ministered to sinners.
In explaining and justifying his fellowshipping with LGBT and abortion activist leaders, Daly says, with a bit of false modesty:
In my role at Focus on the Family, I’ve felt convicted to do what I can do to break down the barriers in my little corner of the kingdom. This is why I’ve engaged homosexual activists and even abortion providers in conversations. I want to get to know them. I want to listen to them and hear the pain in their hearts.9 (Bold added.)
In addition to fellowship with Planned Parenthood, Daly has also fellowshipped with the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL). NARAL "is an organization in the United States that engages in political action to oppose restrictions on abortion and expand access to abortion."10 To justify his flirting with Planned Parenthood and NARAL, Daly says:
While some abortion rights activists truly are unconcerned about the senseless deaths of pre-born children, my research and conversations with individuals from these opposition camps suggest many are deeply troubled and riddled with guilt. I have personally met with people inside the abortion industry, and some of them are distressed about the consequences of legalized abortion.11 (Italics his, bold added.)
Jeremiah 17:9-10 tells us that:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
Daly is grossly out of touch with the hearts and minds of the LGBTs and abortionists. The activists are as confidently militant and zealous for their causes and beliefs as committed activists of any religion or cult are.
Our experience with LGBT and abortion activists is that, almost to a man and woman, they differ from Daly’s description. Daly, saying that there is "pain in their hearts," would imply that there are some pangs of conscience about their beliefs and practices. We challenge Daly in his next fellowship time with LGBT and abortion activist leaders to suggest to them that they have "pain in their hearts" because of their sinful lifestyle and separation from God, something, to our knowledge, he has never done!
Daly’s comment that abortion rights activists have "pain in their hearts" and that "many are deeply troubled and riddled with guilt" is contrary to our own experiences. We have never heard any abortion activists confess that they have "pain in their hearts" or that they "are deeply troubled and riddled with guilt" because of their involvement in murdering innocent preborns. If they were, they would certainly abandon their involvement in the wholesale slaughter of the innocent. It is doubtful that Daly would even dare to suggest this in conversations with them! It is also doubly doubtful that Daly has ever picked up on the "many" that, according to him, "are deeply troubled and riddled with guilt" to give them the Remedy for their guilt.
In making the case for his new approach, Daly refers to the apostle Paul’s defense to King Agrippa and to Jesus’ response to the woman taken in adultery.12 Daly repeatedly uses these two examples to support his position on how one should approach activist groups. In describing how Paul and Jesus dealt with these situations, Daly overlooks the fact that the apostle Paul, as a prisoner needing to appear before Agrippa, was directly defending the faith while he respectfully addressed King Agrippa and gave a compelling testimony to such an extent that Agrippa said to him, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian" (Acts 26:27). This could never happen in Daly’s initiated contacts with activists, because he never, to our knowledge, shares THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST with them.
Jesus said to the woman taken in adultery, "Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more" (John 8:11). Notice that Jesus said, "Go and sin no more," which is missing in Daly’s contacts with activist leaders and groups. We have read a number of Daly’s interviews and read much advice given by him, but in no case did we see him either giving a compelling testimony to LGBT and abortion activists, as did the apostle Paul to Agrippa, or speaking as Jesus did to the woman taken in adultery, "Go and sin no more"!
After quoting Titus 3:9, Daly says, "If there are two neon signs in the New Testament: Salvation is through Christ and Christ alone and don’t become a Pharisee."13 There are, of course, many "neon signs" throughout the New Testament, but we know of no biblically knowledgeable Christian who would highlight "Don’t be a Pharisee" as one of only two. Two serious omissions from Daly’s two "neon signs in the New Testament" are the Great Commandment and the Great Commission! Daly has a habit of inferring that his approach is irenic and the other approach is Pharisaic so he uses Titus 3:9 and 2 Timothy 2:23 to prove his case. However he has quoted Titus 3:9 out of context and utilized 2 Timothy out of the context of the whole counsel of God.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matt:7:12). Therefore those of us who are Christians should give others what we ourselves would desire if we were in their shoes, that is, the biblical truth about God’s love and His provision for salvation from a sinful life of homosexuality, abortion, atheism, cults, the occult, and those personal sins associated with the flesh.
A Sham & a Shame
We repeat from the FOTF Form 990 Federal IRS return: "Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities"; and the FOTF answer: "FOCUS ON THE FAMILY SHARES THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST WHILE PROMOTING BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES" (upper case in original).
We say bluntly that the FOTF is a sham. The dictionary defines sham as "something that is not what it purports to be; a spurious imitation…a cover or the like for giving a thing a different outward appearance."2 FOTF is "not what it purports to be" and it is a "spurious imitation." FOTF has a Christian façade with a sound biblical mission statement that serves as "a cover…for giving a thing [psychological, humanistic integrationism] a different outward appearance." At first glance the "SHARES THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" mission statement sounds like the "faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3), but the faith that is really often being celebrated by Daly and promoted at FOTF is faith in psychological and humanistic ideas and their therapeutic mindset. The FOTF sham attracts and deceives naïve Christians, including those who are the promoters, as well as the ones who buy into the Bible plus psychological and humanistic ideas.
The FOTF web site offers both current and past radio programs. We listened to a number of them and conclude that they vary from humanistic advice to questionable information, said with confidence by those who are on the program, and to advice that is psychologically oriented and/or tainted. Yes, in some radio programs FOTF "SHARES THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" and BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES," but in those we heard there was no Gospel message about Jesus Christ dying in the place of sinners and being the only way to salvation by grace through faith. However, the web site has such a plethora of broadcasts that we may have missed some with a truly "GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" message, but why should one have to go fossicking about to find one?
FOTF is an integrationist organization, which varies at times from the sole use of psychology and humanistic opinion to integration or amalgamation with Scripture in varying proportions, depending on the personal judgment of the individual. Such integration combines theories, techniques, and ideas and ideologies from psychotherapy, clinical psychology, counseling psychology and their underlying theories with the Bible.
Christian integrationists use psychological and humanistic opinions about the nature of man, why he does what he does, and how he can change in ways that seem to them to be compatible with their Christian faith or their view of the Bible. But, by their unnecessary integration, they demonstrate a lack of confidence in the sufficiency of the Word of God for all matters of life and conduct (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3-4). Instead of searching Scripture and relying on what God has provided through His Word, they use the humanistic and psychological theories and techniques as the base, often absent THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST, even though people’s problems beg for its inclusion.
One of FOTF’s greatest errors is that they too often preach psychological and humanistic messages without one iota of their sole mission to "PRESENT THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST." FOTF’s nationally syndicated Q&A columns in newspapers across America are good examples of the disconnect between FOTF’s sole mission and their literal practice. Every Question has potential for sharing "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST WHILE PROMOTING FAMILY VALUES," but not one Answer includes even a hint of their mission statement. And much of the other material on their web site follows the same error.
The editor of our local newspaper who is in charge of the page with FOTF articles, as well as another nationally syndicated column, "Chicken Soup for the Soul" by Jack Canfield and Victor Hanson, was surprised when we told him that FOTF is a Christian ministry. He commented that "Chicken Soup for the Soul" articles seemed more religious to him than the FOTF articles. From reading both, we agree.
Part of our expose of the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC) is that they are a psychological integrationist organization. The AACC believes in the Bible plus psychology and therefore does not believe in the sufficiency of Scripture for the nonorganic issues of life. Dr. H. B. London, Jr., a vice President of FOTF, recommends the AACC by saying:
In our ministry at Focus on the Family, we are finding that a high percentage of pastors we meet feel ill-prepared to deal with the complex pastoral counseling issues that come their way. AACC is on the cutting-edge as they seek to equip the "called out" minister for the 21st century.14
As one listens to the FOTF broadcasts, a plethora of names of numerous AACC psychological and humanistic teachers and speakers appear and are interviewed as authorities. The few instances in which Daly deals biblically with a topic are overwhelmed by the many psychological and humanistic presentations, which include a whole raft of these AACC types. While integrationists may use the Bible at times, their ongoing reliance is too often on psychological and humanistic ideas. Utilizing unverified psychological and humanistic theories and techniques instead of biblical truth reveals an insufficient confidence in Scripture. FOTF broadcasts a constant signal that the Word of God and the work of the Holy Spirit are not enough for life and godliness. Such integration implies that God gave commands without providing all the necessary means of obedience until the recent psychological and humanistic age.
We repeat, Daly regards himself as "more of an evangelist than a prophet." Oh, really? An evangelist, to quote the FOTF "mission," is one who "SHARES THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST." According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, "Evangelism" is:
The proclamation of the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ with a view to bringing about the reconciliation of the sinner to God the Father through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
Each and every evangelist, including Daly, knows the Great Commission, in which Jesus says:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matt. 28:19-20.)
Each and every outreach of FOTF, including the Q&As, newspaper and online articles, radio broadcasts, help offered to individuals, etc. should be put to the Great Commission evangelism test.Grievously, FOTF too often gives psychological and humanistic answers to questions that have obvious spiritual implications, which leads us to conclude that those at FOTF do not believe in the full sufficiency of the Bible for the issues of the soul or else there would not be the extensive use of psychological and humanistic answers often absent the Bible.
These FOTF answers to the newspaper article Q&As and many of the Q&As elsewhere, as well as online articles, along with many of their broadcasts, are too often a shameful dodging of biblical responsibilities TO SHARE THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST to a world-wide audience, for which they are generously supported. The good news is that after Daly took over in 2005, the total support for FOTF declined, from a total support of $144,770,424 in 2006 to a total support of $95,797,047 in 2010, which was a decline of $58,983,377! The bad news is that FOTF is still one of the largest parachurch ministries in the world, often avoiding their biblical responsibilities TO SHARE THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST and propagating psychological and humanistic ideas world-wide with Daly receiving an annual income over $250,000.
Each of the numerous world-wide FOTF outreaches that leave out THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST would be ideal places to name the name of Jesus, to proclaim the Gospel, and to give biblical answers to the questions posed rather than the psychological and humanistic opinions of men. Often instead of "BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES" FOTF is promoting PSYCHOLOGICAL AND HUMANISTIC FAMILY VALUES. The Q&As on homosexuality are ideal places to confront this heinous sin of Romans 1 and Leviticus 22 with biblical love talk that could save souls. Furthermore, dialog with LGBT and abortion activist leaders and groups, as Daly does, should be filled with biblical love talk that would present them with the biblical truths that would save their souls if they would receive and believe, but not a word from Daly about that to them.
For much of what we examined, we conclude that, shockingly and shamefully, "THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST" and "BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES," which constitute the FOTF sole mission (i.e., commitment, aim, goal, purpose, objective) and should be obvious in all the FOTF material, are too often absent or down-played.
FOTF is a Last Days’ psychological and humanistic organization that reflects the psychological and humanistic church—lukewarm like Laodicea. Those at FOTF, led by Daly, have become so psychologically and humanistically minded that their newspaper and online articles, many of their Q&As, and their radio broadcasts often neglect even the slightest practice of their mission statement or else they have compromised it.
Many people who call themselves Christians have become so blinded by a psychological and humanistic mindset that they have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to FOTF since its inception. This is truly a shame, which adds to the sham of their failed mission, which is "FOCUS ON THE FAMILY SHARES THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST WHILE PROMOTING BIBLICAL FAMILY VALUES," and which they have failed to do in too many instances, particularly in their initiated contacts with LGBT and abortion activists.
Daly and those at FOTF have truly bollixed up the Bible in their rush to embrace the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (some of whom are biologically destructive), and the abortionist individuals and organizations who, unless they repent, will not be in the Kingdom of God and who are politically and personally active in leading others into these biblical abominations before God!! In closing, we ask: Where are the voices of those in the faith who are against the Daly/FOTF embrace of the biblically loathsome corrupters of God-given sexuality and murderers of those whose lives have been given by God and are the most vulnerable? Why are those Christians who are gifted and known nationally and internationally not crying aloud about the FOTF fellowship with the LGBT and abortion activists and organizations and their biblical reprehensible activities that are a serious offense against God and His Word?!!!
1 Jim Daily, "Refocusing Our Lives," Focus on the Family, 10/16/12,
2 Jim Daly. ReFocus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012.
Ibid., p. 106.
Ibid., p. 107.
6 Warren W. Wiersbe. Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992, p. 492.
7 Daly, ReFocus, op. cit., p. 108.
8 Jim Daily, "Refocusing Our Lives," Focus on the Family, 10/15/12, hppt://
Ibid., p. 103.
11 Daly, ReFocus, op. cit., p. 43.
12 Jim Daily, "Refocusing Our Lives," Focus on the Family, 10/16/12, op. cit.
13 Jim Daily, "Refocusing Our Lives," Focus on the Family, 10/15/12, op. cit.
14 [Note: Christians feel "ill-prepared" because of the intimidation of organizations like AACC and FOTF!]
(PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter, May-June 2013, Vol. 21, No. 3)

Article Topics | Titles Top
PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries
4137 Primavera Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93110