Posted on 05/23/2013 3:20:16 PM PDT by Pyro7480
Edited on 05/23/2013 4:27:29 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Boy Scouts of America's National Council has voted to ease a long-standing ban and allow openly gay boys to be accepted as Scouts.
(Excerpt) Read more at kurv.com ...
In the hands of solidly Reformed leaders in a solidly Reformed church, Calvinist Cadet Corps can be extremely useful as a way not only to teach the skills that Scouting teaches, but also to do so in a specifically Christian and specifically Reformed manner. That lack of a doctrinal foundation was a weakness in Scouting all the way back to Baden-Powell, and it is why the Calvinist Cadet Corps was originally created as an alternative to the Boy Scouts.
If you have enough other nearby churches to form a Cadet council, that's even better.
A check of the Calvinist Cadet Corps map of local councils will show that the organization is not strong where the majority of the PCA is located. That isn't a problem and could actually be a huge advantage — you can basically do things the way your churches want to do them, with the support of other likeminded PCA churches (and maybe OPC as well).
If you're in an area where there are a number of other Christian Reformed and RCA congregations, much depends on the local churches. Sometimes, perhaps many times, an interested PCA church will be welcomed with open arms and treated the same way that numerous OPC and URC churches are being treated which already have Cadets. But I would be lying if I said that will happen everywhere.
If enough PCA churches join, that could very well be a major, major help to the Cadets. The PCA is a growing denomination where even most of the weakest churches want to be evangelical. Let's just say a lot of good Southern blood from the PCA would be a godsend to conservative Dutch Reformed people.
Bottom line: I think in nearly all situations, Calvinist Cadet Corps, in the hands of a strong local PCA, OPC, or URC church, or a conservative CRC or RCA church, will be superior to what the Boy Scouts are now likely to become.
As an assistant den leader and knowing the entire leadership of our pack (probably 25 leaders and 200 boys), there was no alcohol or electronics allowed. Different people had different specialties, so we had a broad range of knowledgeable people to cover character building, health (fitness, nutrition, emergency response, etc.), morality, survival / outdoor - and a lot more. Scouting provides a graduated, structured, age appropriate curriculum to learning and experiencing core life skills. The boys in each den get to learn and practice as a group, so they can help each other along the way because they experience the same skills and the stronger help the weaker.
"Pocket knives ? Fathers cant teach pocket knives ?"
Yes, but what I emphasized is the use of them in a supervised GROUP of kids. Our pack met at an elementary school. The boys got to bring their knives to pack meetings of about 300 people at a public school if they demonstrated complete responsibility. That's a lot of liberty within a large group setting. That creates a positive early experience of freedom over nanny statism where all of the underlings are regulated based on the lowest common denominator of human behavior. Isn't that something beneficial and unique these days???
"Fatherless ? Mothers with children and no husband should marry."
Obviously. The grass is green and the sky is blue. Do you think the mother should hook up with the first smiling face after a very traumatic life event? This may take some time. And until the proper circumstance presents itself, according to you, the boys should just sit out a great opportunity to grow and experience wonderful, life-changing events until an all knowing stepfather comes along to shepherd them (hopefully before they start shaving).
"Theres this thing called extended family. Cousins, uncles, aunts, etc. They help get family through the rough spots."
There's a thing called mobility. Many families move to where a career opportunity presents itself. I grew up in a small town and had no extended family within a reasonable distance. My dad was a state trooper and was forced to move on a regular basis. Think of the "military brats" who lost their father. They could be very removed from extended family and the mother is gainfully employed - something rare in this Obama economy.
I was even more remote from family when I graduated college. So again, your and my experiences seem to be very different.
Then, if the limits of extended family are reached, theres something called Church. Church can help with temporary needs.
Growing in life skills is not a temporary need. Getting remarried is very unpredictable. It can take quite some time and that time of imprinting positive behavior and attitude will be lost when young boys are most impressionable. Our friends / neighbor with triplet boys got divorced and the father moved out of state for employment. My son and the triplets were good friends, they were already in our den, so it was no biggie for me to take them to meetings or field trips. They kept growing at a very important time in their life. What better environment is there to show young boys responsibility directly from strong, principled, successful men?
You obviously formed a negative opinion of the Boy Scouts and I doubt I'll change your mind. I have a very positive one and I think there is a HUGE need for this organization based on current social and demographic realities. Very few boys today grow up on the farm and even if they do, they still learn a lot of life skills besides outdoor activities. In my opinion, your view on Scouting is myopic at best.
Do you remember before perhaps the 1970’s just about every boy carried a knife ?
In the 1800’s.
In the 1700’s.
Young boys shot guns, carried knives, rode horses, used axes.
The Boy Scouts did not exist then.
And America was not a nanny state then.
Interestingly, today’s Scouts are learning that they can bear arms (”the boys got to bring their knives”, i.e., they were “allowed”) if and only if a higher authority allows them to.
I loved some aspects of Scouting, I have many good memories. I loved camping outside in the winter - you haven’t lived until you’ve functioned as a sled dog in a frozen, muddy February.
However, at the time I was ignorant of the Biblical teaching of the role of the family.
Jesus commended the centurion for understanding His authority in performing miracles. It is biblical to "be under authority" (that's where disciple came from - under discipline of an elder in the Lord). There is a significant difference in a child being under the authority of an older parental authority in order to teach proper use of dangerous implements... and statist control over all human endeavors - to restrict God given rights from use by a responsible and free people so the statists retain control over the unwashed masses. You won't acknowledge there is a difference after I explained it 3 times.
Yes, I grew up in the '60's and 70's. The public high school I went to - you could see probably 2 dozen guns in the gun rack of pickups on any given day in the student lot. TODAY, today, a kid eats a Poptart into the shape of a gun and he gets expelled.
I was introduced to Christ as a young boy by my den mother in Cub Scouts. Most Scout groups are Christian, but they let boys from other faiths participate - knowing the Scouting foundation is Christian.
Now, you may want to argue that the best way to achieve the Christian life is to set up a totally isolated and biblically ordered community. It's been tried before. But, I think the deeds of Christ backs up my belief that it's more evangelically beneficial to reach out to the broader community and show how a Christ-oriented organization provides a better foundation than Godless, statist indoctrination, which seeks to restrict thoughts and actions to their PC-approved notions so the elites retain power.
Well, it's probably a moot point trying to defend the Scouts with this new homo policy. There's probably no way to turn it back with all of the leftist forces pushing relentlessly to sexualize this organization that's chock full of healthy young boys. SICK BASTARTS!
being under authority...
The Boy Scouts are not part of civil government, the family or the Church.
Though Churches sponsor some groups, the Boy Scouts report up through their national leadership. The Boy Scouts organization therefore is separate and distinct from the particular Church denomination organization. Some Churches are involved in their troops, some not very much at all.
It’s simply two different organizations, even if they both have “good intentions”.
A Church can’t order the Boy Scouts to alter their moral teachings, but at the same time a Church that is Scriptural must insist upon their members adhering to their specific teachings.
One only has to carefully review the Family Life merit badge, required for Eagle, to uncover not only unscriptural teaching, but teaching that is right out of the statist/new world order playbook. I leave the meticulous analysis of this as an exercise for the reader; simply compare a solid Reformed Christian text on child rearing with these merit badge activities. The entire content of the badge covers subjects that parents should be teaching to their sons exclusively by themselves in a Scriptural fashion. In terms of Biblical parenting, parents certainly should not be delegating the instruction of these topics. Mind you, this is the first badge I reviewed in this way.
Also, a Church has no legitimate authority over non-members; the most serious Church discipline is excommunication. So what that means is a Church is sponsoring an external organization over which it has no doctrinal control, children are turned over to this organization, which may then teach contrary to the particular Church’s interpretation of Scripture. Doesn’t make much sense for a Church unless they exclusively staff the whole thing - and then edit Boy Scouts teaching to conform to their own, which would not fly with the Boy Scouts. One then would think that a Church should simply make its own youth organization, which actually is also unscriptural in that since the teaching of youth is such a predominant and important topic in the Bible, if youth groups were acceptable to God they would without a doubt be mentioned in Scripture, yet they are not. There are only the ordained Church offices, i.e., O.T. priest, teacher, etc., none of which are ever commanded to organize youth groups of the congregation’s children in the Old or New Testament, and the head of household that provides for family leadership. This would then mean that adding youth groups to Churches would fall under the category of sinfully “adding” our own innovations to Scriptural definitions of Christ’s Church.
Only a few short years ago I was completely oblivious to most of these concerns.
The totally isolated Christian society is, of course, false doctrine. Christians need to bring the Gospel to unbelievers, to be “salt” and “light”, which requires them to participate in the world - to that end. Of course, there is also the command to separate ourselves from the evil of this world. So clearly this means that if our participation in the world starts tempting us to sin, we need to back off that particular approach and use another. Certainly we need to not only be out and about in culture, business, science, etc., but lead wherever we can, thus furthering Christ’s Kingdom. We need to remember, however, that the Bible defines the roles of family, government and Church.
On that difference perhaps we can’t quite agree; I would only highlight the concept of statism always starting out in very tiny, innocuous measures, and the key controlling point of weapons should always raise a flag. The right to weaponry is unqualified; it is the punishment of wrongdoers and the process of self-defense that restrains (but does not promise to eliminate) wrongdoings committed with weapons.
We certainly do agree on the sitiation as it stands now. It’s time for people to form their own clubs, exactly per their own wishes. They have every right to do so. Don’t bother thinking about tax exemption, IMHO; make it informal or incorporate normally.
Yes, I do agree on this point. There's a way to use the best ideas and curriculum from existing organizations and grow it organically without state or corporate sponsorship. The bylaws can be a collaborative effort.
The one thing that local BSA packs relied on was investigation of anyone who volunteered for a leadership position. The national BSA did a criminal and financial background check with aliases. They keep a history of investigations and outcomes. They also required and tracked various training classes for dealing with kids. Those are all rather advanced protective and instructive activities, which is nearly impossible to duplicate for a small, organic group. The human and legal provisions are what helped the BSA to protect members (adult and child) for 100 years, and until 2013, fend off predators.
And to add a salient point - the fish rots from the head...
CEO of Ernst & Young and Boy Scouts Board Member supports ending ban on gay scouts and scout leaders
CNBC exclusively broke the news tonight that James Turley, the Global Chairman & CEO of Ernst & Young who is also a Board member of the Boy Scouts of America, issued a statement in which he disagrees with the ban on gay scouts and scout leaders and supports a proposed resolution to end the ban:Ernst & Young is proud to have such a strong record in LGBT inclusiveness. As CEO, I know that having an inclusive culture produces the best results, is the right thing for our people and makes us a better organization. My experience has led me to believe that an inclusive environment is important throughout our society and I am proud to be a leader on this issue.
I'll make it easy for the Freepers:
So, no one belonging to a church can work for a private or public company that isn't scripturally approved by some church authority.
"Its simply two different organizations, even if they both have good intentions. A Church cant order the Boy Scouts to alter their moral teachings, but at the same time a Church that is Scriptural must insist upon their members adhering to their specific teachings.
Your "arguments" may work in a vacuum, but not the world we live in. We can debate indefinitely like Jesus did with the Pharisees, but I'm afraid we'd come to the same conclusion. There is religion, and there is Godliness. They are not the same.
[Please read my bio before you attack me as an apostate (if that's your next line of attack / defense)].
To extrapolate this comment back to the topic at hand - you are saying that the Scouts practiced "habitual sin"? That's been the topic all along. I've just been probing your suppositions and proclamations using related situations. [not talking about the Scouts under their current gay policy]
"I'm simply pointing out that the Bible does not sanction any group purporting to provide instruction regarding morality other than the pastors of the Church."
I'd like to see that scripture. In fact, you haven't quoted a single scripture, while purporting to hold a superior knowledge of God's intent. But, it's not the first time I've debated with someone espousing men's traditions versus God's clearly articulated will through scripture.
Paul and Peter had the same debate on Gentiles following the Mosaic law and the conclusion was that the Bible is a spiritual book, only understood through the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees and Sadducees interpreted scripture incorrectly because they relied on their own understanding, excluded knowledge from unassociated groups or people, and focused on legalistic interpretations.
Mark 9:38:
"Teacher, said John, "we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us... Do not stop him, Jesus said. For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward."
David, while evading King Saul, entered a Holy temple and ate the Shewbread - Luke 6:4
"He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Eating the Shewbread was a sin according to Mosaic law, but God imparted to David an understanding of the intent as opposed to the mechanics of obeying the law. That's a key point - the reason laws were introduced was to point the believers to God's love and desire vs rote adherence to rules that none at the time understood.
You made a big deal about parents having the primary, if not exclusive, authority for teaching children anything relating to ethics or morality (making whatever Biblical interpretations and judgment necessary). But then, you contend that only ordained church elders can provide any moral instruction. Whichever - that's as narrow of an interpretation as the Levitical priests denying David the sustenance of the Shewbread. That wasn't God's will and neither is your espoused interpretation of basic Christian and moral instruction led by Scout leaders [not deep theology - simply common sense citizenship like honesty, reliability, stewardship, etc.].
While I agree with the vast majority of your discourse, I keep seeing a highly legalistic interpretation of learning, as well as a vacillation between who is responsible.
Come now, a father is the head of household, responsible for his family, a pastor is responsible for his congregation.
Scouting has purported to teach morals, the example I cited is the Family Life merit badge.
The Boy Scouts have no Scriptural authority to teach what they are teaching in the Family Life merit badge, and the fact that they are teaching the contents of that badge contradicts Biblical doctrine.
Do you know the content of that merit badge ?
I didn’t find the “pamphlet” online, but I found the workbook which contains the questions asked / steps required.
Repeat - I'd like to see that scripture.
You continue to ignore my most salient points from every post. You major on the minor in every way. You drift into obscure, unrelated doctrine. Please go back and read the thread of our discussion.
Please put on your glasses. As I said -
"That wasn't God's will and neither is your espoused interpretation of basic Christian and moral instruction led by Scout leaders [not deep theology - simply common sense citizenship like honesty, reliability, stewardship, etc.]."
"And may our Lord Bless you as well. I must accept full responsibility for starting this. Goodness, it feels so much better not to argue! I am so embarrassed about my conduct."
We reconciled admitting we agreed on probably 95% or more of what we were debating. He apologized to me after I said - for the um-teenth time that I agreed with the vast majority of his statements...
Then I apologized to him sincerely, knowing he was a brother in the Lord.
I apologize to you if I've acted in an unchristian manner. I am not trying to be contentious - I feel like God's great commission is under attack from every dimension and, while predictable, it's hard to accept.
So Brother PieterCasparzen, I hope we can reconcile and be friends / brothers.
God Bless!
Oh, I consider us reconciled, IMHO, we’re having a theological “debate”.
We’ve used nice words. I think we’re just approaching the subject from different theological perspectives. Unfortunately, most people would find it impossible to understand my position unless they first had a grasp of the theological perspective. Certain doctrinal points that are key to my overall perspective are not discussed here but they are essential to understanding the position I’m describing on this issue.
I need to get some info for you, you’ll need to really go through it, then you’ll perhaps understand the perspective on family I’m working from.
I hope to give you food for thought.
It will take me some time to get to what I need to get to.
No need to apologize brother.
As I figured two years ago, it would only be a matter of time before gay leaders would be allowed into scouting.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/be-prepared-gay-men-with-boy-scouts-in-tents/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.