Boy Scouts

[Luther073082]

As I had stated before, if a congregation hosted a BSA troop it was to operate in such a way that does not contradict Lutheran teaching. If that troop had a non-Christian chaplain, for example, that troop would need to find another location to meet. That has been the understanding. The LCMS was not going to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Prayer to Islam's Allah or modern Judaism's god is not a universal thing in the BSA, meaning that not every troop prays to false gods. The issue with homosexuality is very different. Apples to oranges. The acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle by the BSA is a universal practice. Such a policy makes their prayer to the true God hypocritical and in contradiction with the word of God. My prayer is that the synod do the right thing and disassociate itself with the BSA.

But what I don't understand is where in the ruling they decided that they where going to teach that homosexual acts are acceptable? Just because they are letting people in who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts?

 

[illudium_phosdex]

You only have to look at what happened with Girl Scouts to answer that question, Luther. Originally Girl Scouts started by simply allowing openly gay girls and leaders. Now they've moved on to teaching tolerance. But it's not really tolerance it's acceptance. Teaching that being in a gay relationship is just as valid a lifestyle choice as any other. It won't start right away in the Boy Scouts but it will come to that. Just before we left there was some talk of introducing a tolerance merit badge. And again, they will call it tolerance but it's really acceptance.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

But what I don't understand is where in the ruling they decided that they where going to teach that homosexual acts are acceptable? Just because they are letting people in who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts?

Because as it keeps getting pointed out to you, this isn't just about someone who says I fight against homosexuality. That was never the issue. This is about someone who says I'm gay and I was born that way and it's just fine. I can have my boyfriend and be in scouts.

A tolerance merit badge? :o Oy.

 

[DaRev]

But what I don't understand is where in the ruling they decided that they where going to teach that homosexual acts are acceptable? Just because they are letting people in who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts?

They are accepting openly gay members. This isn't talking about someone who is struggling with attraction but remaining celibate. Those would not be considered "openly gay". They are accepting members who are engaging in homosexual relationships and embracing their lifestyle.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

They are accepting openly gay members. This isn't talking about someone who is struggling with attraction but remaining celibate. Those would not be considered "openly gay". They are accepting members who are engaging in homosexual relationships and embracing their lifestyle.

What's the age limit on boy scouts? I know there are seniors in high school who are Eagle Scouts, but aren't they mostly younger kids? Does this mean that the BSA is going to encourage younger kids to "come out" about their sexuality? I mean, they didn't have to say they accept openly heterosexual boys...

 

[Resha Caner]

What's the age limit on boy scouts?

The ages are 11-17, though due to the dropout rate, most are probably under 15.

 

[DaRev]

What's the age limit on boy scouts? I know there are seniors in high school who are Eagle Scouts, but aren't they mostly younger kids? Does this mean that the BSA is going to encourage younger kids to "come out" about their sexuality? I mean, they didn't have to say they accept openly heterosexual boys...

Cub Scouts start in first grade (age 7) and some programs go up to age 20.

 

[Resha Caner]

Cub Scouts start in first grade (age 7) and some programs go up to age 20.

Technically Cub Scouts and Venture crews are not Boy Scouts, but I'm sure the decision applies to them as well, so the distinction is probably meaningless to this conversation. In that regard, Tiger Scouts start in Kindergarten.

 

[DaRev]

Technically Cub Scouts and Venture crews are not Boy Scouts, but I'm sure the decision applies to them as well, so the distinction is probably meaningless to this conversation. In that regard, Tiger Scouts start in Kindergarten.

Forgot about the Tiger Scouts. But they are all part of BSA. And the policy is a BSA policy.

 

[twin.spin]

As far as the LCMS disassociating itself, my problem is that they should have done that a long time ago when the Boy Scouts started allowing in people who pray to false Gods. At this point doing so now looks hypocritical.

This part I agree with... when one doesn't follow the scriptural teaching of fellowship, you can't expect not to be affect by yeast or gangrene. Rationalizing scriptural teachings so that one can still participate in an organization yet not being technically involved was apparently the solution by whomever.

It's the like the one bad apple in a barrel spoils the bunch only in reverse .... as long as we're a LCMS troop, we'll be just fine in the larger barrel of Boy Scouts.

 

[DaRev]

This part I agree with... when one doesn't follow the scriptural teaching of fellowship, you can't expect not to be affect by yeast or gangrene.

The LCMS most certainly follows the Scriptural teaching regarding fellowship. The WELS misapplies the Scriptural teachings by applying t way too broadly. That's their choice.

Rationalizing scriptural teachings so that one can still participate in an organization yet not being technically involved was apparently the solution by whomever.

Properly applying Scriptural teachings is more like it.

It's the like the one bad apple in a barrel spoils the bunch only in reverse .... as long as we're a LCMS troop, we'll be just fine in the larger barrel of Boy Scouts.

We don't throw out all of the apples for the sake of a few bad ones, which is also a Scriptural teaching. And I'll bet a teaching that even the WELS follows to some degree.

 

[twin.spin]

The LCMS most certainly follows the Scriptural teaching regarding fellowship. The WELS misapplies the Scriptural teachings by applying it way too broadly. That's their choice.

Which is why you find a home in the LCMS and I do not.
What you call misapplication is what our theologians would say it's a matter of LCMS making " the decision to tolerate changes in fellowship practices [e.g., prayer fellowship with heterodox and "levels of fellowship"] that fuel toleration of doctrinal differences and often at a "slow" rate."

As was stated earlier ... that they [LCMS] should have done that a long time ago when the Boy Scouts started allowing in people who pray to false Gods.
Luther073082 has the correct resolution .... the 3 step program.

We don't throw out all of the apples for the sake of a few bad ones, which is also a Scriptural teaching. And I'll bet a teaching that even the WELS follows to some degree.

Your rationalizing pretty much validated what the WELS theologian stated.

This is why one of the reasons WELS has supported the Pioneer program, starting back in 1951.
Some of the stated goals of the founding of the Pioneer program is this:

• Through devotions and interaction, proclaims
  the gospel of Jesus Christ and teaches obedience to all He has commanded
• Encourages fellowship with Christians.

Romans 16:17
I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.

​

To be associated with BSA is to not to heed Romans 16:17.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The LCMS most certainly follows the Scriptural teaching regarding fellowship. The WELS misapplies the Scriptural teachings by applying t way too broadly. That's their choice.

And look at the trouble it's caused us...

Oh, wait.

We're not currently the ones in the jam, are we?

Properly applying

Scriptural teachings is more like it.

And again, by properly applying scripture, look at where we're at in the WELS. We're not the ones asking for patience while we figure out what we do about our association with an organization that is now openly accepting homosexuals.

We don't throw out all of the apples for the sake of a few bad ones, which is also a Scriptural teaching. And I'll bet a teaching that even the WELS follows to some degree.

As long as we're dealing with repentant sinners, of course we wouldn't throw them out. But your association with the BSA has long caused divisions, wouldn't you say?


This isn't a case of the WELS saying we're better (at least it wasn't until it was insinuated that we were somehow worse because of our application of scripture) but at the same time, SURELY the LCMS has to revisit some of their fellowship principles because of cases like this.

 

[DaRev]

We don't consider the BSA to be a religious organization but rather a civic organization. When they are operating within one of our congregations they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with Christian teaching. By accepting and embracing openly gay members they can no longer operate in our congregations in a way consistent with Christian teaching.

In a sense it's similar to, say, the phone company. We don't consider the phone company to be a religious organization or else we'd have to insist tat they also operate in a way consistent with Christian teachings when doing business with us. But that's quite impractical. It's probably a given that the phone company employs openly gay people. So, I guess that the WELS and it's members had better disconnect their telephone service lest they be guilty of breaking their broad interpretation of Biblical fellowship. "Have nothing to do with them."

And I find the Lutheran Pioneers goal of "encouraging fellowship with Christians" rather laughable. It encourages no such thing. Rather, it encourages extreme exclusivity and only fellowship with other WELS Lutherans because the rest of Christianity isn't good enough for them.

 

[twin.spin]

We don't consider the BSA to be a religious organization but rather a civic organization. When they are operating within one of our congregations they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with Christian teaching. By accepting and embracing openly gay members they can no longer operate in our congregations in a way consistent with Christian teaching.

Talk about laughable ... We don't consider the BSA to be a religious organization but rather a civic organization. .... only one little problem with that, they do.

Scout Oath (or Promise)
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law

A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly,
​

courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty,
brave, clean, and reverent.
​

In a sense it's similar to, say, the phone company. We don't consider the phone company to be a religious organization or else we'd have to insist tat they also operate in a way consistent with Christian teachings when doing business with us. But that's quite impractical. It's probably a given that the phone company employs openly gay people. So, I guess that the WELS and it's members had better disconnect their telephone service lest they be guilty of breaking their broad interpretation of Biblical fellowship. "Have nothing to do with them."

Wrong analogy ... also unscriptural theological understanding of Romans 16:17 (so I'm told by theologians from WELS or ELS). Which this will eventually come down to ... whose theologians are correct vs. whose is not.

Then of course we got the other scripture of 1 Corinthians 5:11 which apparently is an inconvenient truth

But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.​

*** btw: I do know of a much better analogy that was told to me by some WELS pastors .. but that would take this way off the topic.

And I find the Lutheran Pioneers goal of "encouraging fellowship with Christians" rather laughable. It encourages no such thing. Rather, it encourages extreme exclusivity and only fellowship with other WELS Lutherans because the rest of Christianity isn't good enough for them.

Romans 16:17, 1 Corinthians 5:11 means what the inspired Word says. Cynical laughter doesn't eventually fall at our feet ..... we're following what Jesus commanded: Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11

We know where cynical laughter will eventually have to be answerable to .... Luke 10:16

 

[DaRev]

As Christians, we are called to share the love of Jesus Christ. To do so involves contact, compassion, and a willingness to share the word of God in order to bring one to repentance and forgiveness, to call upon the Lord, and be saved. This does not mean that one's sin is to be accepted or embraced, but the sinner must be recognized and he or she must come to recognize their sin. Jesus Himself did this by associating with, even eating with, sinful people of every type - prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. By doing so He was not accepting or embracing their sin, but extending His love so they would see and know the truth, and turn from their sinful ways in order to be saved. This is the context of the Gospel. The Scripture passages that have been quoted in previous posts MUST be read within this context. To remove them from this context in order to justify some extreme exclusivity is contrary to the word of the Gospel and the work of our Lord.

In Lutheranism in America there are two extremes. There is the extreme of the ELCA that seems to think that to demonstrate the "love of Christ" the sin must be dismissed or even embraced. This is a perversion of the word of God, particularly the word of the Law, and in no way is to be considered a loving act. In this case, the Law is not applied so the Gospel has no meaning. Such a position is misleading. Then there is the extreme of the WELS that seems to think that in order to demonstrate the "love of Christ" one MUST first believe and practice exactly what they believe and practice, otherwise they must stay outside of their fellowship. This too is a gross misapplication of the word of God, particularly the word of Gospel. It is a Law heavy position that dismisses the very work of Christ as revealed in the New Testament.

In the midst of these extremes is the Biblical position held by the LCMS. The love of Christ is demonstrated especially to those who need to experience the love of Christ through repentance, confession, and absolution. Both the Law and the Gospel must be applied as each case dictates. While we never accept or embrace ones sin, for to do so would certainly lead them to hell, we also do not refuse the love of Christ because of their sin, for all have fallen short of the glory of God.

The LCMS has made an effort to discourage the BSA from heading down the path that they have chosen. This decision by the BSA may very well disassociate them from our church body if they insist on continuing on this path. But it can never be said that the LCMS has embraced their sin. We have not. Nor can it be said that the LCMS has outright refused to demonstrate the love of Christ because they do not walk lock step with us, for to do so would contradict what our Lord has called us to do, set by His example set forth in the Scriptures.

Is the LCMS perfect in its application of the Scriptural truth and practices? Of course not. No one is. But the LCMS is much closer to carrying out what Christ has called His Church to do in such situations, following His example in the best way we can.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Pioneers is how we encourage Christian fellowship amongst our members. There are other venues we use to share the gospel. You misunderstand our fellowship doctrine if you believe that we think that one must believe just as we do for us to share the gospel.

I'd rather be where the WELS is now versus the "middle ground" that DaRev says the LCMS has. As I said, look at the conundrum the LCMS is in because of their stance. It is certainly not an enviable position.

 

[cerette]

.

In a sense it's similar to, say, the phone company. We don't consider the phone company to be a religious organization or else we'd have to insist tat they also operate in a way consistent with Christian teachings when doing business with us. But that's quite impractical. It's probably a given that the phone company employs openly gay people. So, I guess that the WELS and it's members had better disconnect their telephone service lest they be guilty of breaking their broad interpretation of Biblical fellowship. "Have nothing to do with them."
.

What makes you think that WELS considers the phone company to be a religious organization?
Sounds to me like you don't have any better arguments than to try and ridicule and make fun of "the other side".
If you don't think that the WELS considers the phone company to be a religious organization, your point above was just plain silly, a waste of time and really bad example of how a Christian should defend their beliefs.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

What makes you think that WELS considers the phone company to be a religious organization?
Sounds to me like you don't have any better arguments than to try and ridicule and make fun of "the other side".
If you don't think that the WELS considers the phone company to be a religious organization, your point above was just plain silly, a waste of time and really bad example of how a Christian should defend their beliefs.

It might be a valid comparison if you look past the part about LCMS not believing the BSA to be a religious association. I'm not sure how an organization that makes its members swear an oath to God is not religious though.

It also shows a gross misunderstanding of the fellowship doctrine that the WELS believes.

 

[DaRev]

What makes you think that WELS considers the phone company to be a religious organization?
Sounds to me like you don't have any better arguments than to try and ridicule and make fun of "the other side".
If you don't think that the WELS considers the phone company to be a religious organization, your point above was just plain silly, a waste of time and really bad example of how a Christian should defend their beliefs.

Where did I say that the WELS considers the phone company a religious organization? No where. I said that the WELS considers the BSA a religious organization. The LCMS does not. It's no different than, say, the phone company. Read the post before making such comments.