Louis, a frequent commenter on this and other blogs has given us part 2 in his series, “Two Thing I Hope Do Not Happen at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in Houston, 2013.” Here is a link to Part 1, about Guidestone’s decision to sell products beyond previous boundaries.
The second matter that I am concerned about is how the SBC responds to the Boy Scouts.
I am sure that several resolutions may be floating around already. I have not read them. Who knows what may be presented on the floor of the Convention.
It is no surprise to anyone that the Boy Scouts made a decision that did not please the SBC. The question is, “What to do about it?”
Here is what the SBC would be expected to do – pass a resolution saying that we believe homosexual conduct is sinful, that we are against normalizing it, and that we disagree with the Boy Scouts’ decision to remove the restriction on disallowing participation by Scouts who claim to be homosexual.
The SBC will also be expected to 1) discourage the members of its churches from participating in the Boy Scouts, and 2) discourage SBC churches from allowing the Boy Scouts to meet on church premises.
I fully expect that is the course of action that will be suggested at the annual meeting. Many people will feel very satisfied to vote for such a course of action.
I believe it is the wrong course of action for several reasons.
1) That course of action will cause the SBC to appear to be fixated on the issue of homosexuality.
There is no confusion about where the SBC stands on issues relating to sexuality. The SBC has spoken clearly in this area. The SBC believes in the creative order and Jesus’ expression of that in the New Testament. The SBC also believes in the recorded witness of Christ’s Apostles as they shared the Gospel in the ancient world, particularly among pagan people who did not see homosexual activity in a negative light.
As it relates to the witness of Christ and His Church, the SBC has remained faithful.
The SBC has spoken numerous times on this topic. Our governing documents address this. I am glad that the SBC remains faithful to the Christian witness in this area.
No one who is paying attention would ever think that the SBC is confused or neutral on sexuality.
If there were some confusion about where the SBC stands, I would understand and support clearing up any confusion. But there is no confusion here. The SBC is on record.
By speaking on this issue again, at this time and in this way, detractors will paint the SBC as obsessed and fixated on this issue.
We have a wonderful annual meeting coming up. We have so much more to discuss at our annual meeting than the decision of a private organization that we do not control.
If we play to type in this area, the only headlines coming out of this year’s meeting will be about the Boy Scouts.
2) A statement by the SBC at this point along the lines of what I have predicted above will have no practical effect.
There is no chance that the Boy Scouts is going to reverse course because of any statement made by the SBC. The SBC is deluded if it cannot see this. The Boy Scouts has already cast its lot.
The SBC is not acting wisely if it thinks another statement on this topic coupled with the threat of the loss of support in the religious community is going to affect change.
There are times to speak, but even Jesus warned about trying to speak to people who do not want to hear what you have to say.
Also, we have been down this road before. Does anyone remember?
We boycotted Disney over this issue, with no success. I supported the action at the time. I regretted it about a day later. I understand the intent, but it was a bad tactical decision. Disney did not change its mind. Other companies followed Disney’s decision. And worst of all, members of the SBC’s churches ignored the boycott and went to Disney anyway.
So, we passed a resolution urging a boycott that even we ourselves did not follow.
Do we want to do this again?
3) A statement by the SBC condemning the Boy Scouts and threatening the withdrawal of support from the religious community places the SBC in the position of an aggressor.
I admire religious organizations that stand by their principles. I believe that most Americans do also, even if they have different convictions.
But most people do not admire groups that appear to be aggressive toward others. The SBC does not intend to be aggressive. I know that. But outsiders do not. This action will easily be seen or characterized as aggressive.
The SBC can certainly maintain its convictions, and it can urge other groups to adopt convictions that are in sync with SBC positions.
But when a private group, such as the Boy Scouts, decides to go in a different direction, even after the SBC has encouraged it not to, the SBC needs to understand that threatening the other organization with consequences can place the SBC in a negative light. Not for its convictions, but for the attempt at forcing others to act the way we believe is appropriate.
The SBC can have a great influence on public morality in the United States, primarily by example. Public pronouncements have their place, but we have to use wisdom. And being seen in positive light helps increase the effect of that moral influence.
One of the things that we often fail to realize is that many of the efforts of groups to remove the moral stigma from homosexual conduct in today’s society are based on the simple desire to be inclusive.
I am not sure that I see a significant increase in the desire of people to engage in homosexual activities over the last few years, but I do see a strong desire to include in society those people who are seen as marginalized. That is part of the narrative of U.S. history, with the primary example being slavery.
I am not saying that homosexual conduct is an equivalent to slavery, and I find any such comparison improper and a terrible failure to see the unique horrors of slavery. Many people, however, do not see things in that light.
The motivating desire for many is love and concern for the one who has been excluded. Many who are advocates do not want their parents, siblings or children excluded from society. We hear this over and over again in the pleas of those who argue for removing the stigma from homosexuality.
We have a hard time seeing that because we see the advocates solely from the position of trying to destroy God’s creative order. There are some in that camp who take joy in destroying vestiges of Christian morality, and negative feelings toward them are justified. But many who favor the Boy Scouts’ decision have no desire to destroy anything. They are wrong, but they are driven by kindness and have no evil intent.
I am not advocating that we agree with them.
I am advocating that we consider what motivates people when we respond. That will help us communicate effectively.
4) I am not sure that the churches in the SBC would want to operate in a way that we are urging the Scouts to operate.
If a student, say a seventh grader, announces that he is gay, and he starts attending church, what do we do? We certainly do not tell him that until he renounces being gay, he cannot attend the youth group. At least I hope we don’t do that.
But we are encouraging the Boy Scouts to have such a rule. I was a part of the Boy Scouts when I was young. I do not remember sexuality coming up at all in the material. I did not stay in it long, so maybe I missed that part.
I know that there are lots of differences here (e.g. the church would help develop the boy’s morals, whereas the Boy Scouts would not etc.), but the illustration brings up the difficulties involved in such a situation.
So, what’s the SBC to do? Here is my suggestion.
The SBC could pass a resolution expressing our disappointment that the Boy Scouts has decided to pursue a course that will communicate things, whether intended or not, that are inconsistent with the teaching of Christ and the Church and the history of public morality in the United States.
But the resolution could also say that the SBC continues to encourage the Boy Scouts in its mission through scouting to help form young men who will make good citizens. The resolution could say that the SBC wants to continue to support the Boy Scouts in achieving that goal, and that despite the disappointing decision of the Boy Scouts, the SBC encourages its churches to make their facilities available for Scout troops.
A resolution like this would not be playing to type. We would not give up a thing in a resolution like this.
Plus the churches of the SBC would continue to have an opportunity to influence the next generation of scouts. That places the SBC in the position of serving the Boy Scouts, even though we disagree with their decision.
I would rather the SBC been seen in that light than any other.
Great article. I thought this articulated my own thoughts very well. Even challenged me to be a little more consistent.
Thanks for this word.
I agree with your major points, As far as your final suggestion part of me says ‘just don’t say anything’ and the other part says, say something positive. I’m not happy with the BSA but they aren’t Baptist, they aren’t a church, they are their own org and free to do as they please.
But saying nothing will not communicate anything. Saying something positive, along the lines of your suggestion is better.
Yes and Amen. Thanks for posting this, brother.
Saying nothing, as if we neither support nor condemn the Scouts, would be the best approach. Simply have a Royal Ambassador Resurgence. The church has no need to point at the sin of the Boy Scouts. That causes curiosity and the need of some to seek out understanding. That is where we begin to break down in holiness. We simply need to separate ourselves by creating a focus on a more desirable source of godly living.
I was a Boy Scout at one time and had to get out because my dad said I was not going camping on Saturday night and missing church on Sunday. That is just a serious as the homosexual issue.
Bruce. Amen all around
I’m in full agreement with Bruce here. An RA Resurgence would surely be a great thing for our churches as well as the boys in our communities. Instead of a resolution about the Boy Scouts how about a resolution encouraging churches to revive the RA and GA programs of the SBC? The time and effort many parents put into Scouting could make the RA program in a local church a stellar example of ministry.
Thank you for your article. I would suggest going a little further.
I would suggest that we have a motion (or resolution) encouraging every SBC church in America to adopt a Boy Scout Troop.
Each scout takes an oath which includes being “pure”. Therefore, all sexual experimentation should be out of bounds. Just because a seventh grader announces that he is a homosexual does not make him one. If we believe it does, then we have given into the homosexual agenda. What it means is that he (like all kids his or her age) is trying to figure our who and what he really is. What he needs is a strong male figure who shows him what it means to be a man, a husband and a father.
We talk about wanting to be missional and evangelistic with a heart for discipleship. What better way than for young men to walk alongside a Godly man who is helping him through these very difficult times. This is a critical time. The fastest growing demographic in American is single family homes where the mother is the sole bread winner. Talk about a need for young men to be exposed to strong male role models.
If we abdicate our relationship with the Boy Scouts we remove the possibility for young men to see what a Godly man really looks like within this organization. In doing so we advance the homosexual agenda and increase the likelihood that those who are advocating this agenda will have influence on our young people.
Therefore, I would suggest a positive response on the part of the SBC. I am not very good with resolutions, but here are some of the elements I would like to see in one.
Whereas the SBC believes that it is important for the young men of America to have positive Godly male role models.
Whereas this is true in all areas of life including those who are involved in Boy Scouts.
Whereas the Boy Scouts of America encourage churches to sponsor troops.
Whereas those who are in scouting are at a critical time of their lives and need to see what it means to have a strong Godly character.
Whereas Christ has called us to be salt and light in our world.
Be it resolved that the SBC encourages every church in the Southern Baptist Convention to adopt and sponsor a Boy Scout Troop so that the young men going through this program will be exposed to strong Godly men of character who can help them understand how they too can become the men God has called them to be.
By the way I am a strong advocate of the Royal Ambassadors and when I first saw this I thought that sending all of our young men to the Royal Ambassadors was the answer. But on further reflection I decided that we cannot abandon the hundreds of thousands of young men who are in the scouting program.
I did not think I could agree with anyone more than I do with Louis until I read your reply. Congrats brother!
John Fariss
John,
Thank you for your encouragement, but it would seem that we are in the minority.
Tom
I would say the opinion here has been split pretty well, Tom.
Dave,
You are probably right. Especially when you count people not comments.
Tom
Comparing this to the Disney boycutt is apples and oranges. One was a diversified compnay that owned far more than theme-parks, which made them very difficult to boycott. Furthermore, the Disney boycott entailed not going to a place.
The potential for this is whether a congregation will allow an organization that is now in fully approval of blatant homosexuality into its facility to conduct its business, and to interact with their congregants.
If individuals want to send their boys into Troops with homosexual leaders, then that is their business, but I do not believe that churches should embrace this as an opportunity to reach-out.
Maybe the SBC doesn’t need a resolution, but what if your church currently allows Boy Scouts to use your building? Do you think your congregation will want that partnership to continue?
Nate:
Our church does not have a Scout troop using our building.
I cannot speak for my church as to what it would do.
From what I know about the Scouts’ recent decision (which I understand is only to not exclude children from Scouting based on their claim that they are homosexual), I suspect that our church would not object to the Scouts using the building.
I believe that David Rogers makes a good point below. Each church has to make its own decision.
How can Bible beilieving churches affirm a pro-homosexual organization for “making good citizens?”
“Come out and be separate” seems a more biblical approach.
I could say more but emotion might take over
Come on Frank… We wouldn’t want to speak truthfully and offend anyone, because the gospel isn’t offensive. Instead let’s put forth a resolution to rejoice that the Boy Scouts caved over a miniscule minority amongst them. We could embrace Planned Parenthood as well. Hey we love everybody!
Just in case it wasn’t clear, I wasn’t speaking against Frank…
I can’t agree. Too many times, churches say nothing or next to nothing for fear that it will be spun negatively. However, evil tends to triumph when good men say nothing (or as little as possible). The SBC’s purpose here should not be to force the Boy Scouts to change position but rather to make clear to everyone through “actions” that the church’s opposition to sin (in this case homosexuality) is non-negotiable. If past failures were dispositve of future success or the seeming futilty of an effort must necessarily be a reason not to undertake it, then the Boy Scout issue wouldn’t even be on the table in the first place because gays would have given up on turning society on its head a long time ago. Allowing “openly” gay scouts, without any qualification on the inappropriateness of their intended (or current) behavior, says to boys that homosexuality is OK. Gays know it and I think you know it. In the past, churches have said that they can embrace the sinner while rejecting the sin. Gays have made their very identity the sin such that it implicitly means you must embrace the sin with the sinner. This sophistry is the work of the devil. SBC should make a strong statement opposing the Boy Scouts on this issue. If SBC is attacked for the statement, then stand up straight and say it again.
Yes, perhaps we should say something.
The question becomes WHAT we say. I like Louis’ suggestion here.
I think Rick B. makes perfect sense. Clearly the BSA IS saying that there is no conflict between homosexuality and being “morally straight.” This is clearly wrong, and the SBC should say so.
As far as any statements that we as Southern Baptists will withdraw our support of the BSA over this, if that was actually a concern for the Boy Scouts, they would have already listened. The BSA made the decision to embrace the homosexual agenda because they knew that they could well weather any abandonment by Baptists better than they could handle the cost of doing things the way we wanted.
As to a Royal Ambassador Resurgence, that program is an utter shambles at the moment. A year ago, when it was, and had been, the domain of NAMB, no one I talked to at NAMB could provide any guidance about how to get a group started. There was no support available other than that I was told to buy one of all the manuals and figure it out myself. So, that’s not going to happen unless we fix the program, or, at this point, unless WMU fixes the program.
The better direction for the SBC on this is to just move on. Already SBC officials have spoken their condemnation, there’s no real reason to revisit it, and nothing contrary to those views are going to be brought from the Resolutions Committee.
So let’s demand that the RA program be revived and rejuvenated.
I wrote about this back in January: http://www.downshoredrift.com/downshoredrift/2013/01/al-mohler-the-boy-scouts-and-the-great-unraveling.html
The thing about the Boy Scouts is that they have always reflected prevailing cultural mores. They used to affirm segregation in the South because that is what the culture of the South affirmed. They do not set the cultural agenda – they simply reflect it. In that regard, they kind of are like many churches.
In reality, though, we only tend to disagree with the Boy Scouts when they disagree with us, not always when they are wrong.
While I certainly don’t think the SBC should go on record suggesting anything close to saying one’s view on homosexuality is a merely a question of situational ethics, I think the decision on how to relate to the Boy Scouts should be handled on a church by church basis. I’m not implying that local churches are in any way obligated to abide by SBC resolutions, but I think it is better for the SBC not to even recommend what local churches should do in this case. The BF&M already states that “Christians should oppose…all forms of sexual immorality, including…homosexuality.” But, as I argue in my “Missional Boundaries” post, many, if not most, SBC churches already partner, in one way or another, for missional purposes, with many organizations and initiatives which, in one way or another, are not totally on board with our SB core values and doctrinal beliefs. Why single out the Boy Scouts? I think it is wiser to leave it up to each local church to decide if, given their particular set of circumstances, working together with the Boy Scouts, or allowing them to use their church facilities, either “helps [them] or hinders [them] with respect to [their] ultimate objective, which is to make disciples of Jesus Christ.”
David,
I think you really hit the nail on the head with “Why single out the Boy Scouts?”. This was my question to my father when we were talking about this the other day. He remains in favor of a resolution against the boy scouts but was unable to answer this question.
Because so many of our churches have packs and troops, and because so many of our boys are involved in scouting through the BSA.
David,
Off the subject here. There is a Christian radio station here in Houston that has a slot at 3:30 PM daily with your dad preaching. I listen as often as I can. It is KHCB 105.7 (Keeping Him Close By). http://www.khcb.org This is the best Christian station around.
Louis,
I agree with you often, but on this issue I believe you are wrong. I pastor a church with a Boy Scout charter and I have been my son’s den leader since he was a tiger cub. It is not easy to tell your son that he won’t be continuing his path toward his Arrow of Light or even Eagle Scout rank, but I assure you, I had no hesitation doing so.
My only frustration is listening to our SBC leaders tell us that Royal Ambassadors is a viable alternative. The convention has practically killed RA’s through neglect and finally outright gave it away to the WMU, and now it is supposed to be a wonderful opportunity for our boys. Hindsight is 20/20, but let’s not kid ourselves about what we have done to RA’s.
Here is my response to your points:
“1) That course of action will cause the SBC to appear to be fixated on the issue of homosexuality. ”
Standing for truth is not a fixation. This particular issue with the BSA has a direct affect on many of our churches and untold numbers of our boys.
“2) A statement by the SBC at this point along the lines of what I have predicted above will have no practical effect.”
A strong statement will strengthen the position of pastors who will have to stand in front of their congregations and encourage them to break long standing ties to the BSA. There is a BSA culture that will be hard for many people to let go of. Pastors who take a stand ought to know that their fellow Southern Baptists are supportive.
“3) A statement by the SBC condemning the Boy Scouts and threatening the withdrawal of support from the religious community places the SBC in the position of an aggressor.”
Who says we are not supposed to be aggressors in our society. The Great Commission is about going out and confronting the world with God’s truth.
“4) I am not sure that the churches in the SBC would want to operate in a way that we are urging the Scouts to operate.”
This is not about telling a homosexual student that they cannot come to youth group activities. This is about membership. You cannot be involved with Boy Scouts without membership, and membership carries rights and responsibilities.
If we had an openly homosexual student who was a member of our church, I can assure you it would not be ignored or accepted.
“So, what’s the SBC to do? Here is my suggestion.
… despite the disappointing decision of the Boy Scouts, the SBC encourages its churches to make their facilities available for Scout troops.”
To be unequally yoked is not what we should encourage our churches to do.
“A resolution like this would not be playing to type. We would not give up a thing in a resolution like this.”
Nothing that is, except our integrity and our position as the pillar and ground of truth.
The way to influence future generation of scouts is not to send the message that homosexuality is all right, as long as your under 18. By the way, 70% of sexual assaults within scouting are not adult predators, but boy against boy. We all know that this policy will be dangerous. Continuing to support the BSA would send a terrible message. The real answer is to provide a viable alternative that, unlike the BSA, really will stand for timeless values.
Matt:
Thanks for the link to the Website “On My Honor.” As I have said, I do not think that the BSA policy is good. I agree with much of what that website says. But I don’t get a vote in BSA decisions. The only thing that I am addressing is whether and how the SBC should respond.
One thing that you said, however, appears to be a misstatement. You said, “By the way, 70% of sexual assaults within scouting are not adult predators, but boy against boy.”
The On My Honor website does not say that. It does not mention sexaual assaults within scouting.
The website says that 70% of the assaults on boys are committed by teenage boys. I am not sure there is a citation, but even if that is correct (and I have no reason to believe that it is not), there is a significant difference from what you said.
I do not know the rate of sexaul assault within the BSA. I am sure that the BSA would try to not let that happen and would take steps to prevent that. But, again, I am not defending what the BSA did nor do I agree with it.
I am only saying that the SBC can do better than just saying the same thing again in a way that is not likely to have any positive effect.
We have already taken our stand. We do not need to do so again, especially when we know it will have no effect and will only be used to make us look mean and/or foolish.
The Boy Scouts, like any other worldly organization, bends to political pressure eventually. It is inevitable that everything, but the true church, is going to take the road less traveled to avoid the fiery furnace and/or the lions den. Article VIII of the BF&M has been regularly violated by the Scouts and nothing that I know of has ever been said. They have camps, events and other activities on Sunday causing Scouts to miss church, if they even go to church. We may be better off putting more of an emphasis on Sunday’s and going to church. Of course, that may have a negative effect on the church’s sports enthusiast and hunters. (cricket sound) Personally, I think we have bigger fish to fry internally.
Matt:
Thanks for your perspective. I really appreciate your taking the time to write the response. We don’t agree, but I see where you are coming from and understand your disappointment.
2 questions:
I know some pastors who have already planned on saying nothing. Parents have asked him if they should withdraw from Scouting, and he has told them no. If they enjoy it, then they can make the decision to continue and are not doing anything sinful in that regard. Do you agree?
Also, I do not know the rate of sexual abuse in Scouting. I see your reference to sexual abuse statistics. Can you direct me to that study? That would be interesting to read.
Thank you.
Louis,
I have already personaly encouraged every family in my congregation with boys in the BSA to remove them. I would never encourage my people to allow their children to think that denying truth and compromising sexual purity is all right.
The problem is that Scouting is a culture unto itself. Scouting can become a large segment of one’s life. It can consume a great deal of time, effort, and money. It is not easy for an eagle scout to walk away. Perhaps it is even harder for a young man who has worked for years and is within sight of of becoming an eagle to give that up. For that reason, I expect many people to find ways to rationalize their continued support of the BSA, even though they know they should not.
I am not willing to go along for the ride as the world slides into sexual debauchery. The eklesia is to be called out and separate. We ought not yoke ourselves with organizations that are heading in the opposite direction.
We are exploring our options and looking for at an alternative scouting organization that we can offer not only to our own boys, but also to the many unchurched families in our community who see the real danger in the new policy.
The youth protection policies of the BSA are great at protecting boys from adult predators. The two deep policy is great, but the new policy means that the buddy system for the boys will powerless to protect them from under 18 predators. The Scouts have just opened themselves up to a host of problems.
Finally, I would point you to http://www.onmyhonor.net. They have some helpful information about the dangers of the new policy.
I think Louis distracted us from the central problem by bringing up Boy Scouts and homosexuality.
Resolutions are dumb, antiquated, and vain.
Actually, I know of several churches who were spurred to action by resolutions. The Regenerate Church Membership resolution a few years ago certainly had an effect on some churches.
Resolutions are also great ammunition for our ERLC to use as they talk with lawmakers.
Further, they encourage discussion about the issues of the day and help us all to think more clearly about them.
Those are just a few good reasons I can think of for keeping them.
Oh yeah, some of them can be almost as entertaining as some ofthe silly motions. Nobody can accuse the SBC of having boring business meetings.
I’ll offer that the occasional useful resolution that is focused at the Convention or the churches of the Convention is a worthy exception to the finger pointing at the world around us. I’m not sure that you could name more than a couple of resolutions in the past 20 years that truly were that impactful. I certainly cannot but I’m sure those that favor resolutions can drum them up.
Greg, having followed you on this blog, I would have thought you might see some value in resolutions.
I don’t think we often agree, but I do agree with you on this point.
I am being somewhat provocative. But since I’m a child of Robert’s Rules of Order–having learned it from multiple required learning sessions due to both parents being in them–I’ll offer that parliamentarianism itself is a necessary evil. Resolutions are unnecessary.
I am not sure, Greg.
I think that a Resolution on Peace in Syria or a Resolution urging corrective action with respect to IRS absues would be good things.
They would be timely, they would be correct (if well written) and they would be warmly received by all.
Louis:
I don’t dispute that there are potentially some good resolutions that could be made. I dispute that the resolutions do much more than permit those on the floor of the Convention to vent and then feel good about themselves.
Now if in 1847 the Convention had passed a resolution against slavery in repudiation of their reasons of separating from the northern Baptists, I might have a different opinion. But most of the resolutions are predictable, boring, mundane, and lead to very little meaningful action.
I think allowing resolutions so the members on the floor of the Annual Meeting can gently correct the Convention is necessary. The other uses are preening and strutting for the most part. Pardon me for not liking that in a faith association.
Greg, having followed you on this blog, I would have thought you might see some value in resolutions.
I don’t think we often agree, but I do agree with you on this point.
Actually, I know of several churches who were spurred to action by resolutions. The Regenerate Church Membership resolution a few years ago certainly had an effect on some churches.
Resolutions are also great ammunition for our ERLC to use as they talk with lawmakers.
Further, they encourage discussion about the issues of the day and help us all to think more clearly about them.
Those are just a few good reasons I can think of for keeping them.
Oh yeah, some of them can be almost as entertaining as some ofthe silly motions. Nobody can accuse the SBC of having boring business meetings.
Sorry about the double post.
That’s unforgivable.
That’s unforgivable.
Dave,
This is for you . . . 🙂
The reason I would oppose a resolution calling for churches to withdraw, etc, is because of church autonomy – I don’t think resolutions should say what churches should or should not do.
I would support a resolution expressing disagreement and disappointment with the Boy Scouts. Such issues must always be kept before us. Our position must be stated, not assumed. One will not find in Scripture any indication that we should remain silent when people already know what we think.
“If a student, say a seventh grader, announces that he is gay, and he starts attending church, what do we do? We certainly do not tell him that until he renounces being gay, he cannot attend the youth group. At least I hope we don’t do that. But we are encouraging the Boy Scouts to have such a rule…”
Scouting is different – much different. The scouts take an oath to be morally straight, and homosexuality is now included among the things Scouting considers morally straight. Scouts go camping together, share tents together, etc. There are reasons we do not put boys and girls in tents together. Among those reasons, boys and girls left alone might be tempted to certain degrees of sexual activity because of the nature of attraction and tension. It would be no different here. If a homosexual youth attended my church, he would hear the call to repentance, salvation, and biblical sexuality – he will know he lives a lifestyle sinful before God. Will that happen in the scouts?
I’m having difficulty believing some of what I’m reading here. You men who are fathers, would you actually send your young, impressionable son on a camping trip with a troop in which there was one or more “openly homosexual” boys?
Further, the BSA ban on openly homosexual troop leaders will fall within 12 months. Would you then send your young, impressionable sons on camping trips with openly homosexual troop leaders?
Church-sponsored pedophilia, anyone?
God have mercy.
Grace to you, brothers.
Troup leaders would change my reaction.
Randall, should our youth not be around gay kids? Should they not engage them and minister to them and befriend them?
Dave,
I have no problem with them being “around them” with close, immediate, and constant adult supervision. I even encourage my youth to witness to them and befriend them, but to never be alone with them.
But brother, I would wade through blood belt deep to keep young men in my church from spending the night in a tent with an openly homosexual boy.
Grace to you, brother.
Dave:
My daughters spent time in the St. Louis Public School system back in the early 90’s. One of them had an openly gay principal. Was I initially uncomfortable? …Yes.
Did the man wind up fulfilling my worst fears about my daughter’s educational experience at that school? No. In fact, he conducted himself always with the utmost professional and ethical decorum.
His approach to his work was a huge blessing to the kids he was responsible for as well as their parents. This in one of the most politically liberal and potentially violent municipal school districts in the nation.
I don’t know ultimately about his spiritual condition, but I do feel like God might have been pleased with the work the man was doing vocationally.
“””but I do feel like God might have been pleased with the work the man was doing vocationally.”””
The end justifies the means? How about, “the medium is the message.”
Though some of Randall’s comments, as Dave points out, may have gone to the extreme, the counter-arguments are much more dangerous in my opinion.
How does someone with poor character teach good character? But, then again, not everyone cares about the character issue of education as long as they learn how to do math.
The irony is: the overwhelming proof is that without the former the latter simply isn’t happening.
What about Paul’s admonishment to “come out and be separate?” Surely that has some application here.
You would do well to read what folks actually write Frank.
I said: “I do not know ultimately the man’s spiritual condition”. In other words, l leave the consignment of his soul to heaven or hell up to God.
Is is possible for a lost person to have good moral character? If not, perhaps we should encourage them to flesh out that only which is most depraved about their characters.
Finally, I don’t think “come out and be separate” is a standing motto of the St. Louis Public School System
Scott, I read exactly what you wrote. You do not know the man’s spiritual condition. OK. No problem with that. But, you do know his moral condition.
I said absolutely nothing about the man’s “consignment to heaven or hell.” Maybe you should take your advice and read what other actually write–but that’s another issue.
I did say that I do not believe God “blesses” the work of an openly sinful person. God may use that person but is never pleased with such a person. That, too, is a different issue.
As far as the fact that a school district ignores the Word of God and mocks the God of the Word would, to me, seem to bolster my view that this is no place to send our children. Again, that is a whole other issue.
Your view of God and my view of God are fundamentally different in regard to what pleases Him. I respect your point of view but cannot accept it.
Again, you argue about the destination of this man’s soul. I spoke to the comment you made about his moral influence. Sorry if I was not clear.
“”Is is possible for a lost person to have good moral character?””
This is a $64,000 question that atheists and theists have been debating since long before Commodore 64 and blogging.
Can an homosexual be as “good” as a non-homosexual if good is defined without reference to God’s Word? Yes, I suppose he could be.
I might ask: is this teacher as good–by that standard–as you think he is? I’m not so sure. I know for a fact that one of my teachers abused young boys and he was considered one of the best teachers in the school and a pillar in the community.
One of the boys he molested, one of my best friends, died of a drug overdose in his twenties as a result of being really screwed up by this man.
To this day, almost nobody in the community knows what happened because boys, like myself, were too embarrassed and afraid to say anything.
So, assigning goodness to this man: 1) may not be accurate even by human standards; and 2) is certainly not accurate by Biblical standards.
Now, if by “good” you mean “better than a serial killer.” I guess if you choose the right standard of measure so as this, a lot of people are doing quite well.
That’s my honest opinion in regard to your question. I understand that you take a different approach but I wanted to give the context for why I replied as I did to your post.
Dave,
I think you may be missing an important nuance. “Being around gay kids” in the common course of human interaction is not the same as “being around gay kids” in a “fraternal organization” where the child and his parents do not have command and control.
If the Boy Scouts do not have enough principle to stand their ground after having won at the Supreme Court level, it makes me suspect that perhaps “Another Spirit” is controlling the agenda of the Scouts.
This will lead to the same argumentation as the “public school” –evangelism vs. discipleship– debate. Yet, this time we are talking about a civic organization for which there is equal alternatives; unlike public school where the alternative may cost money.
Not with you on this one, Dave.
Does “common course of interaction” mean also going to school with its extracurriculars, Frank?
Does “common course of interaction” mean basketball trips, school-sponsored venues etc?
I’m sure your questions are “gotcha” questions that you feel have no reasonable answer, but I think they do.
Your question belies the fact that you have just met me on the blog. You would know that I am not an advocate of public schools and in fact donate about 30 plus hours a week to administer a private Christian school.
So, my quick answer is: stay out of public school.
A longer answer would suggest that an occasional field trip or trip to a sporting event is not exactly the same as sleeping together in a tent in the middle of no where on a regular basis. Also, most public schools I taught at would have frowned on a teacher following the motto of the Boy Scouts: “to honor God.” That is an intentional character shaping organization that has a view of character diametrically opposed to God’s Word. It is “religious,” not extracurricular in nature.
Hopefully, that cogently expresses my point of view in regard to the questions you raised.
Thanks Frank for your answer and I had no idea you were involved with home schooling.
My question about home-schooling had nothing to do with “gotcha”. Had to do with me testing my perception on whether or not my hunch about you based on your answer was correct.
I have no problem at all with folks who home school (how could anybody given the state of public education in most areas of the country anymore?).
I would also agree that were the Scouts to remove God from their motto and principles, it would be a tragedy and probably cause a lot of Christian parents to start considering other alternatives. I’m not sure the Scouting concession has been driven to that point yet. If so, I stand corrected.
I’m just as concerned as you are about a lot of the “positive tolerance” grids being established in culture and society.
But in all honesty, the same things you’ve described in the molestation scenario at the hands of a teacher has occurred to others at the hands of pastors, priests and church staff members.
I think some of the other comments beside mine on this subject have expressed reservations about assigning arbitrary intent based on “what might happen.”
Scott,
Correction: I’m in private education as well as homeschooling which is supported through our private school.
Second, I don’t deny that some religious leaders are closet molesters. I never suggested otherwise.
Third, it is one thing to have a child molested by a trusted religious leader who breaks that trust; it is another thing to put a child in the intimate care of someone who has advertised a serious moral flaw–as with homosexuality.
And, for the record most adult abusers are homosexual men. It is not politically correct to state that fact, but it is a fact.
Finally, I am talking about your post supporting a homosexual teacher, not the posts concerning what may take place–will take place–when homosexual leaders are accepted into the Boy Scouts.
That will happen unless Jesus returns soon. You can take that to the bank . . . of course, they will only pay you about .35% interest. But that’s another grievous evil for another post.
Dave, an issue that must be considered with the BSA policy change is the fact that as boys near Eagle, they move more and more into a leadership role – so if an open homosexual eagle candidate graduates the program and “ages out”…..does anyone really think that the BSA will say to that openly gay young man who has been in student leadership for years that he now no longer qualifes because he’s gay? Even if they did – is there any chance that action would pass the crucible of the certain civil lawsuit? They’ve Eliminated thier own legal defense to keep gay leaders out.
Your argument here is not with the current actions of the BSA, but with your perception of what they might do in the future. Frankly, I think your comment is a little shameful.
How so, Dave?
The idea that anyone was advocating “church-sponsored pedophilia” – isn’t that a little over the top?
You mischaracterized what people were saying and took it to the point of absurdity.
Dave,
It was certainly not my intention to enter a “shameful” post.
Virtually every individual I have talked to who is involved with the the BSA is convinced that the ban on homosexual troop leaders is only a matter of time. BSA has capitulated to the pressures of the homosexual agenda, and it won’t stop with only admitting homosexual boys. Some here seem to be insinuating SBC churches should continue to sponsor troops. Those who do so in this environment will soon be required to admit homosexual troop leaders. Churches that do so will be in real and present danger of sponsoring pedophilia.
I really am at a loss as to how pointing that out is “shameful” or “absurd.” Given the weakness of the cultural stance of so many churches today, it is certainly not inconceivable that some SBC churches would continue to sponsor in this all but certain scenario.
But leaving the homosexual troop leaders aside, are you comfortable with SBC churches sponsoring troops/camping trips in which their young men will, sooner or later, be subjected to spending the night in a tent with a homosexual boy?
Grace to you, brother.
Dave,
Well, there it is. My concern is immediately justified by a SB pastor at June 6, 2013 at 6:04 pm on this very thread.
smh….
Randall:
At the risk of becoming a proverbial fly in your ointment of concern about the Boy Scouts.
Do you think an SBC statement on the Boy Scouts is going to mean anything if SBC messengers say nothing about the sexual abuse of children within its own ranks?
Scott,
I believe Peter Lumpkins, at whose cite you have been pitching quite the fit about the CCR, is presenting a resolution on precisely that issue.
Isn’t he? 🙂
Brace to you, brother.
Yes he is Randall as I understand his intent.
You should hope it passes so as not to take any thunder off a resolution some feel needs to be directed at the Boy Scouts.
Child sexual abuse has obviously been an internal problem with the SBC. The Boy Scouts and Mormons are issues external to the SBC.
Scott,
That statement really needs some qualification.
I think I know where you are going with this, and I will not go down that rat hole with you…but if there is a problem with child sex abuse within the SBC I am unaware of it.
Grace to you, brother.
Randall:
I haven’t said anything about sending my son on anything. The only thing that I am talking about is whether the SBC should say anything about the BSA’s action of no longer prohibiting homosexual boys from being Scouts.
I understand your concerns. The question now is whether the SBC should bash the Boy Scouts for its decision.
Louis,
Brother, I don’t think the SBC should ever “bash” anyone.
But if there has ever been a cultural issue that must be addressed firmly and without equivocation, this is it. To suggest that SB churches continue to sponsor troops, as some here are suggesting, is genuinely baffling to me.
To not resist–with ever fiber of our being–the grouping of our young men with homosexual boys in settings such as camping trips is, in my estimation, a breathtaking dereliction of our pastoral and ecclesiastical responsibility.
Grace to you, brother.
We will continue to sponsor troops.
And since most of the scout leaders come from within the ranks of the church I believe we can ferret out any avowed homosexuals.
Problem solved. No resolution needed 🙂
Scott,
Yet you are now required to admit openly homosexual boys into your church-sponsored troop…and put them in tents at night with your young boys.
I find it difficult to believe you do not see the inherent danger.
Grace to you, brother.
Another danger inherent in accepting the policy in a church sponsored troop….I am not a lawyer – however it seems to me that once the invitation to “invite” a person (i.e. an open homosexual youth to scouting) then a court could very well expand the church(s) duty of care to include open membership “in the church” as well as equal opportunity for employment for open homosexuals, as well as opening leadership positions in the church – this despite what bylaws and membership covenants say. Once the church is opened in one area, the enemy will look to shut down the church altogether. We have been protected in this country by the First Amendment and free association. The danger is apparent. Do you not see?
Rob
I have all girls Randall
No wonder Scott you see no problem. I have three sons – I see the problem that you don’t.
Rob
Thanks, Randall.
I question the effectiveness and propriety of addressing the actions of the BSA after our leadership urged them not to take this action, but they did anyway.
We only look like we are mad at them because they did not do what we wanted them to do.
Someone has said it already–a couple times I think–but I’d like to reenforce the view: this is a great opportunity to push Royal Ambassadors.
We know from past experience that the Royal Ambassador program not only builds sterling character, but instills lifelong mission-mindedness.
Why “outsource” the training of our children?
I agree, Frank. Promote it and improve it. We certainly capable of doing a better job than the BSA is currently doing.
…”are” certainly capable…
Randall, I hope you are healing from the black eye your received. While I hope you heal well, I’d have to say you were a bit harsh in your post and over-extended the metaphor so to speak.
I just wanted to let you know that I’ve made these same kinds of statements “for affect,” as we say. Hope you don’t get discouraged by the reaction.
And, thanks for chiming in on behalf of RA’s. We never did youth work with boys as good as when we put RA’s front and center of the youth program. I am encouraging all of us old covers–I’m near the grave as I turned 57 last month–to bring this old-time youth program back.
Frank L,
I’ll survive. I’m slowly getting used to being smacked around on these threads. 🙂
I still contend my statement was not “harsh,” “over the top,” or “absurd.” Take a gander at the comment at June 6, 2013 at 6:04 pm. An SBC pastor on this very thread inadvertently validated my concern before the ink dried on my comment…yea, even while I was being smacked around.
I’m with you on the RA’s. Golden opportunity there.
Grace to you, brother.
PS–Is there going to be a resolution that the Convention put millions of dollars into promoting RA’s and GA’s? I think that would be a much better alternative than a resolution denouncing Boy Scouts.
Why not follow Paul’s example and turn the Scouts over to the Devil?
Wasn’t it LifeWay that kinda phased out RA’s and GA’s?
Maybe the difficulty is the somewhat weakened influence of Baptist Men (RA’s) and WMU (GA’s) in our churches. At least in the churches with which I am familiar.
Dale,
I’d blame the apathy of Baptist Men. Over the last four decades I’ve seen the work among Baptist Men slip to abysmal levels–not everywhere of course, but in most places.
I believe if we revive the work of Baptist Men and RA’s we may see the kind of revival many of us pray for daily.
I agree. And I say that to my own shame. I was personally involved with RA’s when my sons were of that age, and I was directly involved with Baptist Men and Disaster Relief. Over the past few years, though, I’ve not promoted or encouraged it. And the tale has been told in the lack of revival that is so desperately needed. I guess it’s time that I “cowboy up.”
1. Didn’t we vote to disband the Brother Commission and relegate its role to NAMB?
2. Isn’t NAMB’s focus on planting churches as opposed to supporting established church ministries?
3. Didn’t we give up on RA’s and hand it over to the WMU? Do we really think that the WMU is the one to build a faithful program for our boys? – I, for one, do not.
4. Look at the difference between the Assembly of God Royal Ranger Program and our Royal Ambassador Program. We could have had a faithful Baptist version of Royal Rangers. We chose a different path.
Frank,
Amen and Amen. The GSA now sends most of their money to WAGG’s and their leadership is pro-planned parenthood. Even a cursive bit of research proves this to be true.
It broke my heart to tell the girl scouts I could no longer support them at cookie drive time. I wanted to explain, but paid attention to time and place. I have no idea if the adults that were present knew what was going on, but I didn’t want to risk having to explain this to 8 year old children in a very public place. It’s sad. I can still remember my own Brownie ‘Fly-up’ ceremony.
We do not sponsor a girl scout group at my school for these reasons and I will not allow a Boy scout troop now. I think the truth is that the Boy Scouts as we knew them are gone forever. Light and darkness cannot inhabit the same place.
I do understand Louis’ point of view, but I’m very sure that within a year, openly homosexual scout masters will be present. There is no way I could approve of that and saying nothing only invites trouble. Do people not realize that openly homosexual children – encouraged – turn into openly homosexual adults? Have we not seen their despair?
Come Lord Jesus.
Chief,
Kind of a sideline: I see a lot of the changes in the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts being reflected in our military with disastrous results.
The blurring of gender lines is weakening the military.
One practical example: the physical requirements for women in boot camp are about half of the men. This is not new. It was the same way thirty years ago when I went through boot camp.
The difference is not that there are different requirements for male and female recruits but there is NO LONGER any difference in where they will serve. Many of the female sailors, if not all, that graduated in my son’s division would not be able to carry a fellow soldier up an escape ladder if needed.
God made them “male and female.” There is nothing ambiguous about that statement but even some Southern Baptists seem to think it means something different than what it says.
The nation has lost her moorings. Chief have you ever seen a ship lose it’s mooring and drift onto shore? No, they always drift out to sea.
Frank, I could not agree more. Although Phyiscal Fitness in the services has gone completely mad. The thinnest get the best marks and the rest are quietly maligned. The problem is two-fold. One, He created them male and female for a reason. Two, though the standards are disparate, they are also nonsensical. Women aren’t anatomically prepared to do some of the things we were asked to do and it took five years to get the brass to see it.
But more than physical strength is the impact on the family. If you listen to military leadership, most will say women can do any job a man can do. My experience is that for the most part that is true. For the Navy in particular, long deployments already play havoc with families, now add in ships with women aboard during those long deployments. Trust me Frank, stuff happens. Our Chaplain even cautioned people who had been unfaithful to their spouses not to confess adulterous behavior. I guess she (yes, the Chaplain was a ‘she’, a Lutheran) thought lies were better!!!! BTW, she had just given birth a few months before deployment. The doctor on my ship had to leave her 15 month old baby girl for six months. How is this beneficial to our families, let alone the health of the ship? It was a nightmare. In the last two years, more Skippers (some women) and Command Master Chiefs have been relieved for ’cause’ and that ’cause’ always had to do with some inappropriate behavior with the opposite sex. It was a bad idea to begin with and its still a bad idea. Yes, our nation has lost its mooring and you are right, it never comes home to a strong foundation. The only thing worse is a DIW and that is surely on its way.
As I said “Come Lord Jesus”.
Frank:
There’s an idea.
Guidestone can also say that the SBC should get into the investment sales business to the public so that we can fund RAs and GAs.
LifeWay could also open up movie theatres in their facilities to show Christian movies, and LifeWay could open up hamburger stands to compete with McDonald’s.
All of the proceeds could go to fund Mission Dignity, RAs and GAs.
Louis,
Excellent ideas!
Here is the depravity of the moment, staring us right in the face and we have squishy kneed brethren willing to give in and retreat to the next barricade. Do you not know that weakness merely makes the aggressor more aggressive? When will we take a stand for righteousness and holiness? If not know, when?
“Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord? And who may stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood, And has not sworn deceitfully.” – Psalms 24:3-4 NASB
The evil of the current BSA policy is thus: The National Council has determined that this is a national policy. The sponsor chartered organization (in this case many churches) will be forced to accept into membership of their scouting organization any youth who is openly homosexual. This is in spite of that sponsor’s beliefs on the subject of homosexuality. BSA cannot say on one hand that their desire is to help boys toward becoming “morally straight” while at the same time forcing chartered churches to accept into scouting those of whom they would consider “immoral.” That is the crux of the matter. Enough of the ivory tower enumerations here and the pie-in-the-sky missional carp. In this case they don’t meet where the rubber meets the road. Either the church of Jesus Christ stands or it does not. This is not about homosexuality. This is being a witness and standing for the truth of the Gospel.
As many have said, the BSA is not the church. That sponsor usually has little sway within that group of scouts besides the fact that they sponsor the pack, and might have some prominent members involved in scouting. Very little witnessing occurs within unless it is one to one. In others words that pack is not easily swayed or controlled like church groups under their own roofs. However what happens in that group the church OWNS. We would never allow teen boys to sleep in the same tent as teen girls. Allowing youth with same sex attraction to be within a close environment is just asking for trouble, headaches, heartaches and lawsuits – as well as all the wrong messages we are sending to the world about our supposed morals and truth. God have mercy and help us all!
“Come out from among them and be separate.” Our job is to be a witness for Jesus Christ. If our associations send the wrong message, we must change it. We welcome all people to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. We encourage Christians to witness to everybody despite ethnicity, gender, and yes sexual orientation. Jesus dies for sinners of which I am chief.
The BSA is not a witnessing organization. They did stand for most of the same values – now they have succumbed to political pressure because it works. Here is to every SBC sponsoring church to withdrawal their membership. Here is to the SBC bringing both a compassionate yet strong message as a resolution in the convention about the actions of the SBC. Here is to every parent and participating leader to take a stand – withdrawal of boys and human capital in leadership always sends the clearest of messages to those in charge. Here is to getting a viable alternative that supports the goals of the BSA while maintaining the witness of Jesus Christ to the world without muddying the waters with the depravity of open sin.
Rob
Well posited, brother.
Rob, well said my Brother.
Rob:
The policy of the BSA is not the church’s barricade. “We” are not retreating from anything.
We would be if the churches maintain their troops under current conditions IMHO. Effectively what the church would be saying is, “sorry, open homosexuality is not acceptable as a lifestyle alternative, a church leader, and subject to church discipline as a member. However, we will accept you as a member of our scouting organization in good standing as person who is openly and flagrantly in defiance of our morals and beliefs as Christians.” Tell me once again how you fail to see the hypocrisy of that Louis. Or the inherent danger to our little ones who the Lord toward us, “…it would be better for you to put a millstone around your neck and throw you out to sea than to harm these little ones of mine.” That is the church’s barricade Louis.
If churches wish to maintain their current status that is their prerogative. Don’t say you were not warned.
Rob
As a former Boy Scout, I find this all very sad. But the idea of a resolution, though predictable, is regrettable. Even in this blog post comment section there is not a consensus about what is the best way to respond to this. I recommend that no resolution about cultural issues is ever passed in the SBC without a 75% secret ballot vote. Maybe that would slow us down a bit from shooting ourselves in the foot (like the Disney “boycott”). Southern Baptists are well-known for our opposition to homosexuality. No one contests that. Maybe would should dedicate some time at the convention praying for the Scouts and wisdom for the churches instead of rushing to condemn again.
You “assume” the Disney boycott failed or was a bad thing.
You “assume” standing for truth is equated to condemnation. It is apparent that Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 would never be preached, and Steven in Acts 7 was fully deserving to be stoned.
The prayer for revival friend is not prayed for the world or people in the world. “If my people…would pray” is the prayer for revival. Indeed we need to pray that on our knees today and now.
Rob
If the Disney “Boycott” wasn’t a failure it sure was the source of a lot of jokes and bad PR at the expense of the SBC.
Whoopie doo. If I feared bad PR or being the butt of a lot of jokes then I would never be a Christian.
What spineless jellyfish we have become. God have mercy. What is going to happen when the REAL persecution begins?
Rob
Then go ahead on Christian soldier, have it thine own way.
Rob you are certainly free as a Baptist to go that route. Drawing unnecessary PR and such.
In my opinion the culture will beat the living daylights out of you (both within and outside the church) if you go with nothing more than a “darn the topedoes” representation of your Christian god (as seen through eyes of nonbelivers/of course).
Rob,
Would you care to outline five significant long–term benefits from the Disney boycott that offset the negative impact?
As far as considering me a “spineless jellyfish” for not intentionally antagonizing lost people, let me direct you to The Lord Jesus: “he came full of grace and truth” according to John. Notice the order: grace, then truth.
Your language could be interpreted to suggest that your version is “truth” and let God sort out the dead bodies.
Frank,
I really don’t believe I will play the game with you. Why five benefits? Is that a magic number somehow? Come on. The purpose of the resolution and boycott was to take a stand against evil. I have not read the “Disney Boycott” resolution lately, but If memory serves I don’t believe it was a “bashing” kind (and of course the difference between “condemnation” and “graceful communication” are in kind of a flux these days – I would love to see your definition) but merely a statement of principles with an encouragement for Southern Baptists to avoid Disney (for a reason). Regardless if it worked or not is not the point. I never knew you to be a disciple of pragmatism – this is a first.
For one who prides themselves in logical consistency, I am disappointed in you. My “spineless jellyfish” comment was not in relation to “intentionally antagonizing lost people” (though you would have to concede that is exactly what Steven did in Acts 7 for eternal results) but in this insipid fear that somehow bad jokes and bad PR should stop us from sharing the truth. Our Christian faith is already ridiculed and is the butt of bad jokes and PR. Thus my “jellyfish” statement. I stand by it.
Rob
After thinking about it Frank I have thought of five significant long term benefits of the Disney Boycott. In fact the short-term number is “seven” while the long term number continues to multiply.
There are many people who wail and moan and complain that the Boycott did nothing but bring the SBC into the scuttlebutt of ridicule and derision. I found that the boycott allowed me to have a conversation with people I would never have before. Because there is no such thing a bad “PR”, I as well as a couple of other guys were able to share and participate in the leading of seven men and their families (numbering at the time about 26 people) to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. All of them are still strong believers, stalwarts and members of their churches, leading and teaching Sunday School, called as Deacons and servants, going on mission trips, and testifying to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ in their lives – which all of it began by having a conversation about a “stupid boycott.” I see your five and raise you eternity.
Rob
Scott,
What condescending tripe. My concern is not what the culture will do to me. That is irrelevant.
Since you do not know me or nothing about my “presentation” that are pretty judgmental words coming from your keyboard. I would suggest coming to Sedalia, set down, and have some Kehde’s Barbeque with me. Then you will figure out my “presentation style.”
My “God” is the Lord Jesus Christ, the one who was risen from the dead and is Lord of all? Which one do you have?
Rob
Sure I assume that the Disney boycott was less than productive. It’s called an opinion. Others disagree. No problem. I do not assume that standing for truth should be avoided because of condemnation. I believe we have been consistently making our position on homosexuality very clear. But I think “how” we stand for truth is important and that a resolution condemning the scouts isn’t quite in the same as Peter preaching at Pentecost or Stephen in Acts 7. And I don’t think praying for the scouts and for wisdom for our churches on this issue precludes praying for genuine revival among God’s people. In fact, I would strongly encourage us to do both.
I am happy that you have shared your opinion. It at first sounded like an absolute to me 🙂
If you do not see the similarities between truth sharing as a resolution standing for truth with the truth shared by Peter and Steven, then there is nothing that I can say that will convince you. I imagine I would never hear from your pulpit the thunderous words of Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” or the angry words of Charles Spurgeon from “The Down Grade.” Perhaps I should have been born in an age where things were black and white rather than grey. I do hope for the best that you would speak truth from Romans 1:18, “For the wrath of God is revealed…” Pretty harsh words, huh?
“These facts furnish a lesson for the present times, when, as in some cases, it is all too plainly apparent men are willing to forego the old for the sake of the new. But commonly it is found in theology that that which is true is not new, and that which is new is not true.” – Robert Shindler, “The Down Grade” from “The Sword and the Trowel”
Rob
These facts seem to furnish a lesson on theological intolerance.
How do you know Roy that the guy would never have Edwards in his pulpit? Has he been to yours?
Mr. Shaver –
It is quite obvious you know little.
Edwards and Spurgeon are dead (yea, sorry to break it to you). But their witness and testimony are always graced by my pulpit thank you. Their elegant words, though not Scripture, bespeak a common sense and an understanding of grace and truth that is rarely found in these dark times which we live – quite obviously they are over your head (I say that in sadness, not snarky).
Talk about results: Edwards spoke in a monotone a sermon and thousands came to know Christ as Savior. Spurgeon roared in his pulpit during the dark days of Baptist subordination to the world in Great Britain. Yet hundreds if not thousands of people came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ because of his stand on grace and truth.
“The black clouds of God’s wrath, full of the dreadful storm and big with thunder, now hang directly over your head; and were it not for the restraining hand of God, His wrath would immediately burst upon you. The sovereign pleasure of God, for the present, stays His rough wind; otherwise it would come with fury, and your destruction would come like a whirlwind, and you would be like the chaff of the summer threshing floor.” – Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”
By the way it is RO (wait for it) B.
Rob, Scott, dial it back. Talk or walk away. This is not conversation.
Rob:
You are the first person I have ever heard argue that the Disney Boycott was successful.
I understand that your logic is based on the fact that you talked to people about the topic and led some people to Christ.
As I undersand boycotts, I think that the point is to urge change by flexing economic muscle by not patronizing the object of the boycott. As the object suffers, they reverse course and change their policy or they go out of business because they are so despised.
Is there any other way in which you perceive the boycott was successful.
Rob:
How do you interpret the fact that “Jesus grew in wisdom, in stature, and in favor with God and man.”
LOL.
Thanks Rob for bringing me up to snuff on the passing of Jonathan Edwards.
I have no doubt he visits your pulpit quite frequently 🙂
Louis,
I don’t view “results” in terms of temporal reality. I cannot speak for those who penned that boycott resolution what their purpose was, and if they wanted to affect change by the purse or not. Money does talk – just speak to the BSA right now. The internal survey they sent out to leaders and parents came back with over 60% in favor of maintaining the current ban. That was with pretty much a “loaded and charged” set of survey questions. But because their main contributors kept pressing for change, change is what they got. As the Lord Jesus said, “…for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.” – Luke 16:8b NASB.
The only thing I can tell you about me being the first is perhaps you don’t get out that often or run in the wrong circles. I know of 60+ changed lives directly due to that “stupid boycott.” 10,000 angels sang choruses each and every time one soul agreed with God to change their lives. So yes = while no one can claim that there were any “temporal” results = the eternal ones are a plenty. I thought that was what we are all about anyway.
Rob
My friend Scott,
How do you interpret the fact that they crucified Jesus on a cross? Obviously he did not get the memo you think He did.
Your last snarky comment will be ignored. I pray that the Holy Spirit overwhelm my words and deeds in and out of the pulpit. I pray the same for you too.
Grace,
Rob
Steve,
As a former Life Scout I also find this very sad. More so, this decision is a deal breaker between believers and scouting. A resolution would send that message.
There are other issues at play in this decision, and it may be time for a reboot of scouting thru another organization. BSA has seen a large decrease in donations due to the growing unpopularity of their previous stance on homosexuality. When your CEO makes $1,000,000 a year the dollar speaks louder than the convictions of your members.
BTW, we got a lot more grief for adding article XVIII to the BF&M than we did for the Disney boycott.
Ain’t that the truth.
I’m teaching through the BF&M on Wed. nites and have been on XVIII for a month now. A fresh crop of young families in our church are being powerfully influenced by that article.
Grace to you, brother.
Steve:
You echo my feelings 100%.
One thing you can do with the RA’s is combine several ideas together that already exist. Since the Boy Scouts teach a boy to be a man, and that is a good thing, we can simply create similar activities. Part of it would include the dad, as well. Then, combine some of the AWANA activities. Once a week meetings would not work well, so, add a couple of extra days a month. Our own kids are a mission field in today’s world.
I know this isn’t a committee meeting, it’s a blog. If our convention felt the need to support reform in the RA’s and GA’s it could work.
Rightly stated, Bruce. I fully agree.
The point you are missing is that the convention no longer has any control over RA’s. The convention did not want RA’s and gave it away to the WMU. The WMU is not an entity of the SBC.
Perhaps we recommend beginning a new organization. Incorporate the best ideas. Maybe we call on SBC who are scouting experts (there are many) to start Kingdom Rangers or whatever is best. Perhaps we resolve to do something positive.
Indeed. We have already started.
Rob
I thank God for that effort, and I am praying for its success.
Louis,
Thank you for a thoughtful post. You have provided a direction that emphasizes both holiness and grace. I hope more of our brothers and sisters read this and respond in a similar manner.
Thanks, Cody.
When an organization takes a non-biblical stand we must, while graciously loving them express the biblical view. SBC has a great organization that mirrors the Boy and Girl Scouts along Biblical lines. Drop the Scouts and promote Royal Ambassadors. Use the scouts as an outreach tool to the community.
Steve:
I guess that is the main issue here.
I do not think that the church is called to express a biblical view whenever an organization takes a non-biblical stand.
I personally do not find that in the NT.
I do agree with the gracious and loving part, which I sense is true for you from the tone of your comment.
I disagree with the Scouts, as I have said.
I have been a scout. My sons are in scouts. I have become their scoutmaster. I am a Pastor. I was involve in a couple of attempts to develope RA’s in my childhood. I am looking for ways to work through all these issues because I see value in scouting. I think we need to move slow enough to have a good understanding of the facts.
For one thing, the trouble with RA’s is not that the SBC gave it to the WMU. Just to remind us all, The WMU started RA’S in 1908. Their president, Fannis E. S. Heck Declared “Save the boys for their sakes and for the future of the gospel.”
Dennis:
I appreciate your confirming it was WMU that started RA’s in 1908.
I’m a little fuzzy on the slow transition within SBC churches away from RA’s/GAs.
Was it during the brand of LifeWay or prior when programs like AWANA began more and more to take the place of RAs? Any vestige of good RA basketball teams, by the way, have come to be replaced by scoreless basketball for younger kids (i.e. Upward). But I digress.
Was AWANA the program which required signing a statement of belief or an agreement to teach the material in harmony with a specific theological construct before permission of its use and reproduction was granted?
RA’s was led by the Brotherhood Commission for years before it was rolled into NAMB. From NAMB the RA program was sent back to the WMU. Regardless of who started it, the question is whether or not the current WMU, which has no accountability to the convention, is the proper place to put our efforts.
Thanks Matt:
So it’s been promoted by at least two different SBC ancilaries.
SBC retired and pretty much buried RAs, GAs, and local churches now subcontract the need those programs used to address to various other product suppliers (i.e. Awana etc). The type of approach to Baptist churchmanship etc. contained in the earlier RA/GA training materials would not at all be suitable to the current mindset of denominational heads.
Seems that any reproduction of RAs/GAs type programming would have to resurrect independently and at the local church level. I would love to see it happen.
I often wonder if the absence of those programs over the last several decades is part of the reason why no more than a handful of “Southern Baptists” can agree on anything anymore.
Thanks for all of these great comments, even the ones I disagree with.
I do find it sad that after having won in the Supreme Court that the Scouts has allow themselves to be pushed in this direction.
I believe that the Scouts have made an unwise decision. As one can see from these comments, a lot of good people will be leaving the Scouts over this. It will get worse if they adopt a policy about gay Scout leaders.
This track ultimately leads to an erosion of public support and signifies decline and/or irrelevance.
But the issue that I return to is whether it is wise for the SBC to act as it is has some affilation or partnership with, or a voice in, BSA matters. It does not.
The SBC publicly urged the Scouts not to do this. We are already on record.
A resolution bashing the Scouts is not necessary, will not be effective, and will actually hurt the SBC.
I hope that we can avoid that.
I cannot think of a better argument made in this thread than “we are already on record as having asked BSA not to do this.”
Thanks Louis.
This is issue illustrates the great challenge for Bible-believing Christians in today’s culture. How do we stand for biblical values with clarity, conviction and compassion. I don’t agree with the decision the scouts made. I respect the decision of any SBC church to sever ties with their local troop. I am concerned that a resolution against the scouts will send a message to any person who is struggling with homosexual feelings and confused about their orientation that the SBC is not a place that welcomes you or really wants to help you. After all, what have we got with the scouts’ decision: sexual behavior is prohibited among the scouts, leaders are not to be homosexual, young people are welcome no matter what orientation they may be. Sure, this may not last as their policy, but it sure won’t last if all biblical Christians abandon the scouts.
I think wording can be put in the resolution that affirms not only our standing against the sin of homosexuality and our disdain that the BSA is seeking to aid its societal legitimization, while at the same time addressing your concerns that the gospel calls all sinners to repentance and the church, by way of the gospel, offers a “open for business” healing station for sinners.
I think this is not an either/or proposition, but instead is a both/and.
If worded correctly, we can emphasize that both condemnation of sin, and affirmation of gospel is important, both point to Christ, both focus on the gospel as the solution.
In fact, if it is not worded in such a way. I will vote against it.
In fact Steve,
There is the possibility that with this concession of inclusion the BSA has perpetuated its ability to keep emphasizing belief, faith and fidelity to God as a non church organization under the law.
Historically, when the weight of law and culture has backed Christian people and their programs into a corner, they seem to adjust their approach and keep preaching the gospel any way they can.
Would this not be akin to the approach Paul utilized in his debate with Stoic philosphers on Mars Hill in Athens?
Louis,
Thank you. Thank you! THANK YOU!
The worst possible thing we could do is have the Houston Convention most remembered for passing a non-binding (i.e. useless) resolution encouraging churches to isolate themselves from people Jesus died to save.
Well said Louis, and I agree completely. Hopefully we will wise enough not to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.
SB’s should have a prophetic voice….we should state that the Boy Scouts are wrong for trying to legitimatize homosexuality as being okay.
David
As I stare at my Eagle Scout Badge and my Vigil Honor triangle, I would prefer that the Southern Baptist Convention do nothing, this year.
Let’s put this year into revamping and revitalizing the Royal Ambassadors. Let’s integrate the hundreds of young men and parents leaving Scouting into the RA program and listen to their input into shift the Royal Ambassadors into a viable alternative to Scouting. Let’s be honest, right now, it’s not. I was in both programs.
Then come back with a resolution on Boy Scouts AND with an alternative, Royal Ambassadors.
I can’t help but think it’s a win/win situation at that point.
That is something that could work–as I look at all of my material, and my Eagle Badge, and my newly renewed NESA membership. Never put the Vigil Honor triangle on, but spent years in BSA and loved it then.
I’m very conflicted–at this point, I cannot imagine that putting my son in Cub Scouts would be a problem, but I agree with the general analysis that the long-term impact of this year’s decision is going to be much worse, and probably about the time he would be a teen that is starting to deal with sexual issues.
Doug, assuming that your children are younger than mine.
The thing that will protect your kids from those years you fear most is exactly what you and your wife are doing with them personally now (i.e. church, values, training).
I suspect the God you serve is going to honor those efforts with your kids in a way not even RAs or the Boy Scouts can supplement.
Love the chef’s hat by the way.
The first step to that in my opinion is wrestling the RA’s away from the WMU!
Please see my comment posted June 7 at 9:54 am. The RA’s were founded by the WMU. As I remember the conservative resurgence there were “discussions” about bringing the WMU into the convention so that we could elect their trustees rather than have them remain as an auxillary. I am glad that never happened.
The strongest missions education I have ever seen in the churches I have been a part of has been guided by the WMU. My mother credits her knowledge of the countries of the world to her studies in WMU.
I am of the age that I was a Sunbeam. Lets not forget Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong Missions offerings sponsered by the WMU. The SBC owes a great debt to the WMU. We don’t need to wrestle anything from them.
My point in my previous post was that the SBC needs to slow down and understand the facts about RA’S and Boy Scouts. What does the RA program offer that makes it a replacement for BSA. Boy Scouts have youth protection policies in place that should mean that homosexual activity should not be a part of scout events any more than heterosexual activity has a place at scout events. For now as a Pastor, former scout, father of two scouts, and a scoutmaster I am wondering how this new policy will be implemented. I am going to wait and see.
The Boy Scouts is not church but the Scout Law includes as one of its twelve points “reverence”. As Scouts we are religious but the Scout and his family and their clergy determine their practice while respecting the religion of others. In our world we are going to have to find ways to get along with others who do not share our views. From what I hear from my scouts they already have these discussions among themselves and their friends outside of scouts. If SBC churches leave wholesale then what will our witness be?
Dennis:
I’m sorry for one, for having not addressed the primary reason of your post.
RA/GAs the way Southern Baptist used to do them is something I would like to see resurrected in local churches—-however that material and that approach has long since been shelved by the SBC.
Used to be that RAs and Scouting were the two best things you could put a kid in. One of those is gone.
Scouting as a supplement to home and local church training is still one of the best things we’ve got going for us in spite of any decisions about “inclusion”.
You will not find me throwing rocks or being anything less than supportive of scouting at this point.
“””If SBC churches leave wholesale then what will our witness be?
Dennis the concerns you raise are no small matter in the on-going culture war. I appreciate your point of view.
You admit that scouting is a “religious” organization. It promotes a religious point of view. Whether that point of view was ever “Christian” more than civil religion has been debated. The point of view they now propose is definitely opposed to Christianity. There is no doubt from Scripture that the only point of view in regard to homosexuality is that it is sin and must be rejected as a point of view.
The problem arises when one tries to “accept” a person that does not reject their sin. That is not an easy road to navigate. However, a Christian cannot have a “religious” relationship with someone in open rebellion against God and His Word–that is not evangelism. That is compromise and sin.
This same issue has been debated for decades in SB life in regard to whether a Christian can be a Mason. In my college days one of the debates was should Christians go into strip bars to worship God, or adult bookstores to put tracks into the magazines. That was four decades ago.
I feel there comes a point when the only effective evangelism is separation. If I read you correctly, you leave this option open for yourself as you await how this new policy plays out. So, we at least have some point of agreement on the matter.
My leaning at this moment is to cut all ties with the Boy Scout organization. I had already considered this before the new policy because of Sunday camping events. This just pushes me further away.
I am going to help my scouts who are currently working on Eagle projects and then I am done with scouting.
I feel the potential for any evangelism–and over the years it has been sparse–is greatly outweighed by being in “fellowship with darkness” an promoting a moral point of view directly opposed to God’s Word.
When, not if, they allow adult homosexual leadership I will have already solved the issue for myself and my church.
Frank L.
I said BSA was religious because they have a belief in God as a core value. I did not say Christian because BSA lets the scout, his family and their clergy decide their religious affiliation. It has been interesting to me to discover some things in my affiliation with BSA. All of my scouting as a boy was in packs and troops chartered by Southern Baptist churches. Most of my leaders were members of those churches. I worked on the God and Country award. Consider this for your information if you do not know: there are God and country awards for Roman Catholic scouts and an award for Protestant scouts. You can even get the award specific to your denomination such as Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, etc. There is a Morman version, a Jewish version, Hindu, Muslim, etc. As I said, my scouting was with Southern Baptist Church chartered churches.
I have a scout book from my uncle from the 1940’s and when it discussess the point in the scout law, “reverent” it talks about the Ten Commandments and confessing sin to the heavenly Father. In the next edition of the scout handbook from the 1950’s, being reverent is for the scout, his family, and his clergy to decide…
Scouting is religious. The thing that has surprised me in all of this is how uninvolved in scouting the SBC is. The Mormons sponser the most troops. Methodist, Catholics and Presbyterians sponser more than SBC. The troop my sons are in and that I have recently joined as scoutmaster is chartered by a PC(USA) church.
When I was a scout and a campout invloved a Sunday, we always had worship conducted by a local pastor but I admit that was just my experience.
BSA is pluarlistic in its views and I am taking a wait and see approach. With the Youth Protection Polices as I understand them there is no place for sexual conduct at scouting events. I am assuming that I will be able to share my moral perspective in my dealings with any who are in scouting and will be able to make a case for my views. The Scout law says we are courteous, kind, as well as reverent. The boys already express all kinds of views on all kinds of topics. and it is a challenge to be a Christian witness to them as their scoutmaster who just happens to be a SBC preacher. If the time comes when BSA says a Christian view is not allowed then more than scouts will have been lost. I am a Christian before I am a Scoutmaster and will not promote a moral view opposed to God’s word. I wonder how BSA will acommodate these opposing views in their members.
I too am helping some boys finish their Eagle. If there is value in earning the Eagle now, why should we be so quick to get it and get out without other boys having the opportunity to get their Eagle as well.
I took the troop because the scoutmasters had either retired or move because of jobs and no one else would take the troop. This brings me to RA’s or whaterver alternative the SBC will seek, who will lead? As people have mentioned RA’s I’ve wondered what they know about what RA’s is and offers.
“”” The thing that has surprised me in all of this is how uninvolved in scouting the SBC is. The Mormons sponser the most troops. Methodist, Catholics and Presbyterians sponser more than SBC.””
My quick response to this is that these groups have more in common with the civil religion of the scouts than do SB’s. Your statement is not what I would consider a strong case for SBC participation. If all religions are equal, then no religion is valid.
“””why should we be so quick to get it and get out without other boys having the opportunity to get their Eagle as well.”””
I made an agreement to help our present Eagle Scout. His project is near completion. I am keeping my word to him, and making my position open to others.
I would also support this Eagle Scout in refusing to accept the honor if he so chooses which he may do. He finished 99.5% of his scouting under rules that were acceptable to me and my values as a pastor.
That ceased to be the case last month.
Let me add, again, that I am not sure the scouts would have had my support much longer even absent the view on homosexuality. I’m not sure that “civil religion” is better than no religion at all–or even anti-religion. In the latter two I know where a person stands.
Russell Moore just said at the Baptist 21 meeting that he hopes we don’t do a repeat of Disney, but that we speak cautiously as this issue may take years to resolve and in the meantime diffident churches will work this out differently. We should not respond as we did to Disney or ae we did in encouraging people to pull their kids out of public schools.
I like that perspective and hope if a resolution is passed it will be along those lines than the others.
Russell Moore just said at the Baptist 21 meeting that he hopes we don’t do a repeat of Disney, but that we speak cautiously as this issue may take years to resolve and in the meantime diffident churches will work this out differently. We should not respond as we did to Disney or ae we did in encouraging people to pull their kids out of public schools.
I like that perspective and hope if a resolution is passed it will be along those lines than the others.
One more reason I love Russ and am thankful he is at ERLC. Let the churches work through this over time at the local level where the particular moral complexities will reveal themselves. Who would have thougbt such would need to be suggested at a meeting of Baptists?
I am disappointed that Russell Moore is going to take the same “hide your head in the sand” approach to the Boy Scouts as he did (and does) in regard to forced government schooling.
I am disappointed, but not surprised. Both the scouts and forced government schooling are predicated on a particular world-view that is opposed to Christianity.
We will fight an imaginary doctrinal battle to the death–aka, Calvinism–but we won’t take a stand against an open assault on biblical values. Sometimes, I think we are too smart and theologically sophisticated to see the forest for the trees.
Why would we ask BSA to do something that SBC will not ask of its own churches?
Simply put: Place lettering on the church marquis that reads: “No Homosexuals Welcome.” I don’t know of a single baptist church which has gone to that length. Sees that individual churches are known rather than advertised to be “Welcoming and affirming” or Welcoming and not affirming.
I’m afraid Christian contention with culture will have to become a little more creative than strictly prohibitionary these days.
“Forced government schooling”? We have homeschooled our children at times and currently have them in a Christian school. No one from the government has given us a hard time about this. Isn’t it a good thing for a government to insist that children must go to school or have a viable alternative (homeschooling, private school, etc.)? I don’t like the secular philosophical basis of much of the American education system, but the concept that education is important and that every child should have access to education isn’t inherently perverse. Furthermore, the characterization of Russell Moore’s position as “hide your head in the sand” is false and unfair.
Steve,
First, I stand by my opinion of Moore’s statement. It is what it is. That is why I’m taking a “wait and see” attitude as I said in my post.
Second, homeschooling has been your option because more than a few people in the past fought the government on your behalf to consider homeschooling, schooling. The fact you have not experienced intimidation and threats does not mean they do not exist.
In summary: the government’s position is not that a child receive an education but that a child receive a “government approved education.” At this point they reluctantly accept homeschooling under certain conditions as well as some private schooling under the same conditions.
I will tell you, however, that in my state the University system uses arbitrary rulings and stonewalling to make matters difficult for homeschoolers and private school children. So, I’m not sure your perspective is a completely informed one.
Third, forced government schooling is NOT the same as “providing education for all children.” In fact, for many children, including many in my city, being forced into failing schools focused on social engineering is not a blessing.
The point is a response to the term “outsourcing parenting.” Government forced education and Boy Scouts are but two issues that impact upon “outsourcing parenting.”
So, that was my point, not intending on debating government schooling as I know where that will lead.
I have long been of the opinion that the words in Scripture that we translate as “homosexuals” do not refer to the direction that a person might be tempted, but to a person’s actions. So we are not defined in Scripture by an inclination, contrary to the homosexual agenda.
Nevertheless, when a young man “comes out” and says that he is a homosexual, I take it to mean that he intends to embrace the Sodomite life style. It is not a statement of an area of spiritual weakness, which he intends to resist, with the grace of God.
The Boy Scouts have said that Boys who openly express their identification with Sodomy can nevertheless be considered “morally straight.”
From the tenor of the comments on this threat, I perceive that the full horror of this has not sunk in.
I would think that if the SBC remained silent in the face of this action by the BSA that it would be failing in its duty.
Blessings…………………
Jim
Jim, thanks for an excellent analysis
I would like to restate my hope that the Southern Baptist Convention does nothing, absolutely nothing, concerning the Boy Scouts of America until we have a definitive alternative to Scouting active and being implemented.
We all know that Royal Ambassadors in its current incarnation is hardly an alternative since it doesn’t go far enough on any level.
And when we have an alternative, I hope that we don’t follow in a hundred years’ worth of track records and scrap the program before the ink dries on the pamphlets and start some other program.