Progressive Parents...

[Horizon]

weep all you like, Rooster7. While you weep, I will continue to follow what I believe to be Christ's commands to minister to everyone. When we both approach the Lord, we can determine which of followed the New Covenant of love, and which of us followed the Old.

 

When churches in America are welcoming homosexuals, including COs, I think that the BSA is going to have to adjust. We are already facing struggles with some meeting places, and we are going to face even more struggles when churches choose either not to associate or to downplay their relationship with the BSA. I have personally had to hold meetings with two Pastors and one Rabbi to discuss whether my troop teaches homophobia. Those three were questioning whether they should actively DIScourage their members from being Scouts. I was fortunate in being able to convince them that there was nothing active being done (though a sin of ommission is certainly there). 4 of those boys are now Eagles, and 3 more are on their way.

 

However, I think that the CSE is still referring to racial minorities at this time. I do think that in the next 15-20 year we will see some version of "local control" by the Charter Organization in regards to homosexuality.

 

I will also again restate that I believe that spirituality and the Law of Reverence is a different issue from whether or not Homosexuality is a violation of Morally Straight.

[skeptic]

In regard to this discussion about the Gay issue, I think Neal's description of the development is fairly on target. What bothers me though is the idea that somehow BSA, by taking the more traditional path has become a pariah to so many, at least publicly. Scouting no where says that these individuals are bad people, only that their particular "open" or "public" displays of acceptance of what is called a lifestyle is not an acceptable role model for leadership. This has been beat to death in this forum, as well as in many others. The real problem is that a small group is trying to force a quick change, and that will not happen. All the changes of this type are slow, and sometimes revert due to new information or the possible backlash against an overly aggressive program. I can see that coming.

 

I have to wonder how much the Gay Agenda has contributed to the recently discovered inaccurate statistics on AIDS within that community. Somehow, the idea that it now okay to live this way may have caused many to be less careful in their personal lives. Too much emphasis in the wrong place, while down-playing a real danger within their midst.

 

Certainly, this is one of the areas on which the "poor example" is based. There seems to be a reckless attitude among the most outspoken and over the top individuals who spearhead this agenda to the public.

 

JMO and observation.

[evmori]

Horizon,

 

Yep as Christians we are to minister to all. And as Christians, we are to live in the world, not of the world.

 

New and old covenant of love? Interesting theory. Would you care to explain? Maybe start a new thread!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Horizon]

Happy to have the debate, but it will have to kick off next week (off camping this weekend and I need to leave to get my truck packed!).

 

Happy Scouting.

[BulldogBlitz]

isn't america fun? an admittedly small portion of people request catering to their special needs to the detriment of the whole. whose rights are more important? your right to live "progressively" or someone else's right to remain in the status quo?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Are you talking about gays today or blacks in the 1950s? I can't tell without some context.

[TheScout]

Couldn't it apply to either?

[Rooster7]

Horizon,

 

A couple of points for you to ponder before you head out the door on your camping trip -

 

1) The God in the OT is the same God in the NT. As believers in Christ, while we are free from judgment resulting from the laws of the OT (or rather our inability to conform to those laws), we are still called to be Holy by God's standards, which is Christ. He did not abolish the standard set by the law but exceeded it. The law says do not commit murder; while Christ says do not hate. The law says do not commit adultery; while Christ says do not lust.

 

Jesus words: 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Mathew 5:17-20

 

2) My church welcomes homosexuals, just as we welcome everyone and anyone else. However, unrepentant sin tends to disqualify folks from leadership positions, especially when that position is viewed as having spiritual headship over others.

 

Pauls words (interestingly from the NT): 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10

 

Just to be clear, I know that Christs blood covers all. But clearly, the NT (as well as the OT) teaches that homosexuality is a sin. It is not to be celebrated. It is an unholy practice. God fearing followers of Christ, if practicing this behavior should repent and seek Gods forgiveness.

 

4"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Luke 12:4&5

 

[Rooster7]

And since some of us are trying to be glib, let's make this very clear - although, for those with common sense, it need not be said:

 

Being black is not a behavior or a choice.

 

Having sex with other men is a behavior - and partaking in such behavior is a choice.

 

So please stow the 60s Civil Rights comparisons. It doesn't hold up.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[eolesen]

 

The younger generation clearly doesn't hold the animus against homosexuality that older generations do.

Not many years ago, we criminalized their behavior. The pendulum is swinging.

Everyday, more churches are opening their doors to homosexuals. States are recognizing their right to form legal partnerships.

 

 

It wasn't too long ago that divorce, having children out of wedlock, showing blood & guts violence on TV, and cursing in public had stigmas attached to them.

 

Now, they're commonly accepted. Some days, I hear the "F" word uttered more in the workplace than I did when I saw "Goodfellas" for the first time...

 

Just because something is accepted doesn't make it good for society in the long run.

 

 

Rooster, thanks for quoting scripture. I know the NT might not be followed by all faiths, but if you believe God knew what the future held 2000 years ago, then what was written isn't open to progressive interpretation. The NT isn't the Constitution and open to amendment.

[Trevorum]

"Thanks for quoting scripture"? Yeah, well I guess so. As a heathen, I know I always get a chuckle out of people who quote their Bible book as if it proves something.

 

Anyway, back to the original thread, I think Neil has a pretty level headed perspective on this issue. Partially for those reasons, I don't like the label "Traditional". Neither do I like "Progressive", which has a holier-than-thou ring to it (ironic huh?). If we are to come up with labels for the opposing stances on the membership issue, I'd like them to be more descriptive, with fewer automatic connotations of left/right, new/old, heathen/bible thumper () As I mentioned earlier, the phrase "Big Tenters" appeals to me to describe those who think BSA membership should be for all boys. Scouting is a big enough tent for everyone. But I'm not sure what might be comparable for the other argument. It's a pointless exercise, of course, but sorta fun.

[GernBlansten]

Trev,

I like your Big Tent term. Got a scouting flair to it.

 

The republicans used it well during the 90s to describe their platform. Of course, we all know what happened to that when the social conservatives controlled the tent poles! The moved the tent, right out from over me!

 

The antonym of the Big Tent would be the exclusive private club. One with membership restrictions to keep undesirable people from joining. In my humble opinion, that is exactly what the BSA is engaging in, to their detriment. Of course they do it not like country clubs that use racial/economic status, but with traditional/moral labels. The result is the same. Now wouldn't it be silly for an exclusive private country club with declining membership to be complaining about their declining membership?

 

 

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

OGE - I suggest that the opposite of Progressive isn't Regressive in this case, but is Static. Progressive implies forward movement while regressive implies backward movement. Traditionalists (or conventionalists) aren't neccessarily looking to go backwards, usually they are looking for things to remain the same - but as has been pointed out - how to define tradition is a rather big problem. So, I offer a newly coined word (maybe someday it will become accepted) - Staticist (not to be confused with Statist, please) - meaning "one that likes things just the way they are and wishes no movement in either direction".

 

As for traditional - it's rather difficult to define just what is meant by traditional mostly because society has changed - as one starts going back in historical time to try to determine just what is traditional, it becomes apparent that one can just keep going on and on and on without ever getting to a stopping point - yet we have to stop somewhere - it's where each of us stops that causes arguments about what it all means. For instance, since it's being brought up - the so-called traditional immorality of homosexuals. The fact is that being gay was not seen as immoral in modern times until just after World War 1 - it was quite accepted in this country during the 1700's and 1800's. In "biblical" times, it was only seen as immoral among the Judaists - and mostly because it was seen as an impediment to the growth of the Judaist people's - growth needed to rise up in opposition to the stable populations of the dominant cultures of the time (in fact, if you analyze things, you can see that a modern version is occuring right now - population growth amongst most races in the US is pretty stable - the exception is in Hispanics, where population growth is outstripping everyone elses - its this baby boom amongst Hispanics in this country that is leading them to a significant minority, (and possible majority in a few dozen years)). In the grand history of human population on this planet, homosexuality has been seen as "immoral" for an extremely brief period of time. So too, the tradition of marriage, which gained its strongest foothold when the Church decided to use the "institution" to ensure that their property remained within the Church - at one time, the Church (as an entity) was not allowed to own it's own property - monasteries, chapels, churches, etc. were owned, in the eyes of the State, by the individual priests and monks, and when they died, because most had no legal heirs (they could not name the Church their heir), the property reverted to the State. The Church got around it by embracing the State institution of marriage and issuing a same sex marriage ceremony - which gave a male priest an heir in a generally younger male priest or acolyte of the church - and which was recognized by the State. So we could go back to that point and say it's tradition that people of the same sex can get married. Anyone who has ever remodeled a home will understand this concept - the question of "where do you stop?"

 

 

As for so-called "moral relativism", it has pretty much been the way societies have advanced throughout the centuries - at one time slavery was considered right - it was "moral relativists" that brought about a change in that thinking. I, for one, hope we never regress in our society where slavery is once again acceptable. Jesus Christ is arguably the most famous "moral relativist" in history - he of the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" outlook - which is classic moral relativism.

 

Calico

[OldGreyEagle]

OK Calico, I like how you think. I was thinking Regressive was the antonym to Progressive mostly because they both end in gressive. Its lucky I didnt think much more about it and went with Agressive as in the abscence of going back or forward but Staticist has a good ring to it. It means things are acceptable the way they are now and there is no reason to change. I think I have that, let me know if I dont.

 

The issue then becomes, Acceptable to who?

[OldGreyEagle]

See along time ago, really long, after Brownsea Island but before the end of the red berets, I was a youth and was learning the definition of Liberal and Conservative. I was told, though I have ni idea by who, that a liberal was someone who was not afraid of change and was open to new ideas. That there are those that look at things the way they are, and ask, 'Why?' while others dream of things that never were, and ask 'Why not?'

 

And that Conservatives were people who liked the way things were, and how much better things were in the "good old days".

 

So, I thought I would like to be a liberal and always thought of my self as one. Until I was accused of being a liberal on this forum a few years back. I didnt realize it was meant as an insult until someone PM'ed me with an explanation