Today, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) vote on an amended policy for member participation. After reading their proposed resolution, I am surprised to find myself whole-heartedly supporting their position. The current policy for members does not allow youth who vocalize their same-sex attraction to participate in scouting. This is how things would change:
No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.
Given that I think that it’s a very real possibility that social factors, such as rejection and alienation by one’s same-sex peers, parents, and leaders, can contribute to a homosexual orientation, I love this amendment. (See “Aren’t People Born Gay?”) What boys who are struggling with same-sex attraction need most is strong non-sexual relationships with other boys and men, and the implicit affirmation of their gender through that camaraderie.
Here’s the another piece of their policy to be reinforced:
Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting.
What that means is that the BSA will promote sexual restraint for all its members. As far as I know it will be the only non-religious organization that encourages “gay” (and straight!) youth to embrace sexual abstinence as a virtue.
They have wisely decided not to propose a change to their policy on adult leaders:
…the Boy Scouts of America will maintain the current membership policy for all adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America… we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.
I have written about my opinions on the BSA’s policy toward openly gay leaders here.
I don’t know any credible biblical churches who would exclude youth, or adults for that matter, based on an attraction. The BSA is following that scriptural pattern- allowing youth to be honest about how they are feeling but upholding a firm boundary on conduct.
The Scouts have landed in not only a reasonable but beneficial position on the issue of homosexuality for its members and leaders. I will cheer if they pass this resolution and will be more likely to encourage my boys to participate in scouting because of it.
60 thoughts on “The Boy Scouts- Who’da Thought?”
It will be interesting to see the long-term effect upon the Scouts if the resolution is passed
No doubt there will continue to be a huge push by radical activists to change the standards for leadership. And as government and cultural pressure grows, it will be hard for anyone, even churches, to remain steadfast in their convictions. But today, I think that BSA made the right decision.
My 2 cents to this statement: “Given that I think that it’s a very real possibility that social factors, such as rejection and alienation by one’s same-sex peers, parents, and leaders, can contribute to a homosexual orientation..” Rejection and alienation can lead to depression, self-hatred and suicide, not to mention living a life “in the closet”. I can speak to that personally. Why would someone want to be gay if they were being rejected? Being gay oriented is what it is.I don’t think those things will lead to gay orientation in and of themselves.
Thanks for adding your thoughts Judy and sharing your personal experience. You may be right, that rejection and isolation don’t impact the development of one’s sexual identity at all. As discussed in the post “Aren’t People Born Gay” there is no widespread agreement among social scientists about the factors that contribute to a homosexual orientation. But there is something foundational about a kinship with same-sex peers (and parents): a God-given need I would argue. All kids crave that identification and affirmation of their gender from their peer group and their parents. Without that fellowship, a child could internalize that rejection as there being something “wrong” with them. That is why I support the change in the BSA’s policy- because it gives all boys (even those who do not conform to gender stereotypes) something they desperately need- a belonging with other boys.
I agree these are good resolutions. We are who we are (or who we become), for whatever reason; and as far as sexuality doesn’t affect activity, it should be a moot issue. Your sexual orientation doesn’t affect how you tie a knot or read a map.
I think the Quakers have the right idea:- see the link, scroll down to campers rights. http://campdarkwaters.org/about/
I also am in agreement with this decision, but this is not a black and white issue. It isn’t just an issue about equality. It is not just about tying knots and earning merit badges. I was a boy scout when I was young, and through many camping trips and lots of close-quarter living, sexual orientation cannot be ignored. If there is an attraction, then it could be an issue.
I hope there won’t be any backlash, and that those groups who have vowed to leave the organization will reconsider. I just hate that this continuing discussion about gay rights in every aspect of our lives has now put a stain on the great name of the Boy Scouts of America. They have made the right decision, but I’m now constantly reminded every time the BSA comes up on the radio or TV that they are being talked down upon for not immediately changing their rules, as some of those in pop culture would dictate. They have done their due diligence and have made the right decision, both in regards to youth and leaders.
I agree Tim. And like all of us, BSA leaders need to be equipped to divide this issue as needed. I’ve talked with several high schoolers recently who have had questions about all things gay, and the subject flows from public policy, to biology, to family structure, to loving others without compromising conviction, to questions of religious liberty. You kind of have to have a foundation in all of those areas if we are going to give fair weight of this discussion and credible answers for our kids on how to navigate these new cultural waters. And I hope we will be the first and best at loving kids who are asking questions about their sexuality.
Sexual abuse of boys by men occurs in all sorts of settings, including Christian settings. In fact, given the rampant abuse of children in the Catholic church by priests (I’m not anti-Catholic, btw), I daresay that many men who are gay and want to be Godly may gravitate towards the priesthood. Now, that is not to say that being gay predisposes one to molesting boys; actually, that is NOT what I am saying at all. I think being gay and trying to repress those desires while working in a setting that puts young boys in front of you may lead to this behavior.
By way of explanation, imagine what would happen if we told heterosexual men it was wrong to have sexual relations with women. I would entirely expect that sexual molestation of young girls would increase exponentially.
But the bottom line is, I don’t think allowing boys who have an attraction towards other boys or men is going to increase forced sexual encounters during Boy Scouts camping trips. These boys are probably already there, they just don’t say anything.
“…through many camping trips and lots of close-quarter living, sexual orientation cannot be ignored. If there is an attraction, then it could be an issue.”
Valid point Tim.
I wish the national council had gone all the way and fully lifted the ban (both scouts and leaders). The sad reason for why they didnt allow gay scout leaders is because of the delusional idea that gay people are pedophiles…
It seems that the BSA did their due dillignece on that matter and their statements don’t line up with your conclusion above:
“Youth safety and role modeling are two of the biggest concerns mentioned by members who oppose a change in the policy. In addressing issues related to youth protection for the membership standards study, the Boy Scouts of America tasked its director of Youth Protection, Michael V. Johnson, to consult with leading experts in the field of youth protection and child sexual abuse prevention that the BSA has consulted in the past in formulating the BSA’s Youth Protection policies and curriculum:
David Finkelhor, Ph.D.
W. Walter Menninger, M.D., psychiatry
Charol Shakeshaft, Ph.D.
Victor Vieth, J.D.
All four experts were consistent in their findings and recommendations, including:
“The nearly universal opinion among sexual abuse authorities is that same-sex sexual interest or same-sex sexual experience, either in adults or youth, is NOT a risk factor for sexually abusing children.”
I’m glad they were enlightened to that fact! Thanks for sharing that with me!
glad to see we are on the same page sista . . . hahaha
A rather non-bigoted post!
Now, that’s some sweet talkin.
Hi stasisonline – that depends on who is listening. The way I read it, the moment the boy scout turns eighteen/twenty one…..whichever is classified as an adult, we are in the same bigotted position. We can’t trust homosexuals with scouts because they are paedophiles. Essentially nothing has changed.
Tapman, your response doesnt reflect what Askme wrote in the comments section.
The Scout’s new position is not defensible from further attack. First of all, every traditionalist must remember one thing:
Socially liberal activists, the very people the Scouts were trying to placate, do not believe in compromise. Repeat this over and over until it is ingrained in your mind. They are marching through the institutions and will remake them all unless the traditionalists stand up to them and do not compromise. This means that the new policy will not placate these activists. Rather, it will embolden them for more concessions.
Furthermore, the policy itself is inconsistent. Either homosexual acts are morally problematic, or they are not. The Scouts are now saying that these acts are not problematic. It’s true that the policy talks about “preference,” and not acts. But to announce one’s homosexual preference is to presuppose that the acts themselves are morally permissible.
The Scouts have retreated to a new line of defense: banning openly gay scout masters. How will they be able to defend this line, now that they have proclaimed announcements of homosexual preference to be morally defensible? And what about when a former Scout youth wants to be a Scout master? How will they defend his exclusion from leadership? I do not believe they will be able to defend this new position, as they have eroded any basis for doing so.
But setting this issue aside, I hope every traditionalist remembers one thing: socially liberal activists do not want compromise. They want to win, which means they want us to lose. If we are going to preserve what remains of our institutions, we must defend them far more vigorously.
Hi Tilly, thanks for taking the time to comment. You are absolutely right about two opposing philosophies that are at war in our nation- that of the Left which seeks constant social change in the name of “progress”, and those of us who would see that American liberty is unique in the world order and should be protected and defended. (“Still the Best Hope” by Dennis Prager has an excellent summary of these two conflicting ideologies.)
And I understand why conservative groups fear a slide to approve homosexual conduct- because activist have already clearly stated that that is their goal. But that is not what they have done with this decision. In essence, they have allowed youth to be honest about their feelings, but reserved the right to exclude all members for sexual conduct of any kind (very healthy for ALL youth). They have not condoned “homosexual acts.” If my church membership was based on everything that I felt and everything I desired to do, I would rightly be excluded from that body. But my church, like the Boy Scouts, instead bases its membership standards on what I do with those feelings and desires.
Yes, they are going to have challenges as the boundaries get pushed in the scenarios that you have mentioned, but the policy that they have approved gives them the right underpinning to deal with each of those on a case-by-case basis.
Thanks again for your comments here, Tilly.
Absolutely right Tilly – God doesn’t like compromise – thankfully we have liberal activists who have the courage to face up to the might of the Church and the angry and wrathfull God of Christianity. My God creates wonderful people not “morally problematic ones” .
I appreciate your take on this. However, what I see is a cave to political and agenda oriented pressure. This will not be the last concession the BSA makes. If the history of other organizations serves as an example, it won’t be long before the Scouts have to allow girls who think they’re boys, and then girls in general. And I don’t say that in a joking manner.
The LGBT agenda is forcing many groups and organizations to live in fear of political, social, and legal repercussions. I, for one, think the decision was a step in the wrong direction, for it was only made under duress.
Hi Anthony. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. Your apprehension is valid and I don’t think that this is the end of the decision-making for the BSA. Tilly and I discussed this above.
And you are right about the social and political pressure aimed at those who oppose the uber-aggressive LGBT agenda (not all gay people do). I know that I didn’t speak out about my strong support for man/woman marriage for years because I was fearful of the social cost to making my opinions known. There is pressure to not just tolerate, but endorse, gay marriage and homosexual behavior in many contexts. However, responding to the frustration that I feel about the pushing of that aggressive agenda in other areas does not warrant, in my opinion, saying that boys who experience same-sex attraction cannot participate in the BSA even if they are not acting on those inclinations.
I refer to your reference to fear of repercussions – Anthony, isn’t that how it is supposed to be – has the government been given the power of the rod for nothing. They have a duty to protect citizens from bigotted people who can not accept others who are different.
You are confusing bigotry with convictions.
Great discussion! A couple of points (forgive my obsessive list-making…my ADD never lets me make my points, otherwise :))
1. I didn’t get the impression that the BSA accepting “openly gay” youth was an indication that they condone homosexual acts. In fact, if I remember correctly, they do not condone sexual conduct among youth of either orientation.
2. I don’t see the problem with openly gay leaders as predatory behavior/pedophilia. In fact, I’m pretty sure the BSA don’t see it that way, either. My impression (and I may be wrong), is that the problem is how men who are leading boys are viewed by those boys. Boys look to men to learn how to behave…that’s universal and natural. When the men who lead boys are openly gay, yet homosexual activity is not condoned (either by the BSA or within the moral framework of the family of the individual boy scouts), it sends a mixed message of fairly serious matter. And I don’t think it’s restricted to homosexual behavior. I really don’t have any experience with BSA, but my guess is men who are openly living with another woman out of wedlock would not be selected as leaders, either, for the same reason.
3. I am Roman Catholic; I appreciate that many readers and commenters on this blog are not. I am so very saddened and sickened by the abuse of children that has entered into our Church. It is horrible and I fully support those measures which hold priests responsible under due process for any abuse of anyone, but particularly of children. I do ask, however, that those who use the example of “rampant abuse” in the Catholic Church remember that much study has been done in this area and Catholic priests abuse at roughly the same rate as other religious leaders and slightly lower than the general population. Please be clear… I am NOT saying than one child abused is defensible, much less as many as have been reported. What I AM saying is that the Catholic Church does not own this problem alone; they share it with the individuals and organizations of the world. I would ask if you could please consider clarifying that when you refer to abusive Catholic priests.
4. I congratulate the BSA on making what seems like a really solid decision on a tough, tough issue. But I also fear, as many here have pointed out, that this has only bought them time and maybe not much at that. Many people feel that, unless those of us who support authentic Christian morality and traditional values act, the left agendas (LGBT, euthanasia, abortion, religious suppression, etc) will dominate our country. A question: what does that action look like? Is it in our talk with others at work, at church, at recreation? Is it in our voting? Is it in our witness and example? Is it in public demonstration? Is it in putting our jobs on the line if speaking the Truth or even just failing to “Hail, Ceasar” becomes “hate”? Maybe it’s in all or some of these things. When I was single and had just converted to the Catholic faith, I had visions of doing all of these things. And, some of it I do. But when I married and had a child, my fervor was still strong, but my fears grew stronger, too. When you are single, you can scrape by until you get another job or suffer through humiliation with the help of others. But as a mother, a wife, a co-homeowner and the breadwinner for the family, losing my job would be devastating for all of us. Is that too dramatic to think that we would could face losing our job or public humiliation for upholding the teachings of Christ? Will it never happen in this free country? I sure hope so!
Forgive the rambling….just trying to get a sense of what others see as meaningful opposition to some of these issues
What do you guys think?
I only make comment on this is a “tough tough” issue. The further I look into this issue I realize it is not tough at all, the toughness is a lie. It is as simple as love – loving a person that God created different to us. All of the other stuff comes from religious bigotry, societal bigotry and a host of other nasties. I am openly heterosexual and there is no way my openess will have any bearing on the sexaulity of another- a gay role model would have absolutely no bearing on anothers sexuality, to think so comes from incorrect and misleading information that conservative Christians so freely divulge. It is time to celebrate diversity and have our children grow up with openly Gay people so that our next generation will not have the same fears.
Tapman, I don’t believe that you have been able to provide me with a reference from scripture where God affirms same sex attraction or behavior. That would substantiate your accusation that conservative Christians are offering “incorrect and misleading information” about God’s position on this issue. Yes, this is a matter of love. Love rejoices with the truth.
I understand if you reject biblical teaching on the issue, it is difficult to accept. But it would be unloving to “lie” and say that “all of the other stuff comes from religious bigotry, societal bigotry, and other nasties.” No. In the context of the church, or an organization like the BSA which chooses to base much of its values on biblical principles, the position does not come from bigotry, it comes straight from the mouth of God- several times, in many contexts, throughout scripture. In all the discussions that we have had on this blog, you have made efforts to explain away, in vain, each prohibition on homosexual conduct in scripture. And while God has repeatedly condoned and encouraged heterosexual conduct within marriage, you have yet to give me even one example of God condoning or encouraging homosexual conduct.
You may disagree. It is your prerogative. But don’t use the “bigotry” scare tactic here. If you have a problem, take it up with the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. It is His truth.
Bigotry is not a scare tactic…bigotry is a very normal human trait, one that I often have to face in myself. You feel secure standing behind your interpretation of biblical law, good on you. I am confident to do the right thing and discard the laws that are not helpful, just like we have done with hundreds of others. You seem to think you have a rock solid unchanging moral law? You might want to explain to me where it is. Every culture, every epoch has different morals and different views to yours and all use the same “standard”. I choose to use my brain and examine a law that was written for an ancient mid eastern culture thousands of years ago. You don’t need the Bible to do good…..a mind freed from legalism and a little empathy helps.
“I choose to use my brain and examine a law that was written for an ancient mid eastern culture thousands of years ago.”
Thanks for making this plain. Clearly, it is not Yahweh that you believe it. You believe in yourself.
We are all going to stand before God by ourselves, do you think it self serving to go against the flow and stand up for the marginalised? Your barrier of “The Word of God” that you defend yourself with is no barrier at all. Standing behind your own hermeneutic is never a wise idea. It gives you confidence that you have numbers behind you, Gideon was stripped of his confidence before he went to batle……..whose God is themslves?
As previously discussed, Tapman, if I am interpreting passages on homosexual conduct in agreement with what has been indisputably taught throughout the history of Israel and the Church (save the last 50 years when eisegesis has crept in), saying that I am doing so based on “my own hermeneutics” is a stretch.
You’re welcome 🙂 Thanks to YOU for giving me a chance to express my opinion in a safe and respectful community!
Glad you are here and choosing to share your thoughts with us!
I disagree, Tapman. I think the men in the life of a boy are of vital importance and influence. It is to these men that boys look to determine values, relationship to the world, behavior, etc. Whether the man is openly gay or “openly heterosexual”, the impact is significant. It’s the very reason it’s important for a boy to have a man in his life and why two women raising a boy are missing a component to their parenting that neither can provide.
Hi Tisha, yes that is why I don’t allow my children to associate with black people, they might turn black and we know what that means,
Skin color is not behavior.
Neither is homosexuality
Same-sex attraction may not be chosen, but one can choose what to do with those attractions. Many choose not to act on their attractions [behavior] nor to be defined by them [identity]. In that way, it is significantly different from race.
And many have this life chosen for them by people who are to scared to notice that they are wonderfully created by God and free to express the entirety of the good gifts God has given them.
Every time you insinuate that those who experience same sex attraction who chose not to act on their feelings do so because of external pressures, it just gives me more opportunities to provide first-hand stories to the contrary. Don’t just write it off, Tapman. Read it. Consider that you may just be too narrow-minded on the matter.
Tapman, the comparison between race and sexual “orientation” (which is too broad a term to encompass all who experience same sex attraction) is very popular, but erroneous. The two are not the same.
One black man put it this way:
I am personally insulted by the comparison between being black and being homosexual. The very idea of “coming out” implies that you can “be in” and nobody knows… I don’t have to come out to let anyone know that I am black. It is an indelible outward characteristic… and to compare the two is one of the most specious and illogical and irrational comparisons I have ever heard… this is done for the purpose of manipulating people emotionally to get them to buy into acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage. Because if you don’t do that, “it just like what was done to black people…” Bishop E.W. Jackson.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_FrySY8oYM&feature=player_embedded#!
Using the opinion of one black man is like me asking my friends at work and citing that as evidence. There is no credible scientific or medical organization that disputes the fact that homosexulaity is of genetic origin and the further they look all the evidence points in one direction. Being Gay is not a choice, full stop. It is very similar to things like hair colour and race. I am sure you will hold onto whatever strands of “evidence” you think you may have until you look incredibly silly.
“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”
Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”
The above is a summary of EIGHT major twin studies regarding homosexuality in identical twins. It’s not genetic, Tapman. That doesn’t mean that same sex attraction is “chosen” either. You do everyone a disservice by oversimplifying.
You are quoting evidence that proves my point – when non scientific/Christian people make conclusions from data they can come up with anything. Just Google a bit further and you will find out how to interpret the results of twin studies, you can’t just pick dodgy interpretations that suit your agenda – this is not to mention the advances in epigenetics, Google epigenetics. Not sure who this Dr. Whitehead is or who he works for but when I get time I will research for you if you like. You will probably find out he works for NARTH and is a doctor of philosophy.
Google further than a “Christian view”
“Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD., worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.”
Yeah, you’re right. He sounds like a religious, non scientific type.
By the way Tisha, heterosexuality is not defined by behaviour either, I am heterosexual because the good Lord made me this way – same goes for homosexuality.
Tisha, I agree. The importance of a father cannot be understated. The elevated risks for children without a father as cited here are astronomical:
In terms of exposure, as I stated in my post on “The BSA, Love and Leadership,” there is a difference between allowing our children to associate with and have relationships with people who are gay (or in other familial arrangements, or who are not following a sexual ethic that aligns with ours) and placing someone with that conflicting sexual ethic in a position of leadership and authority over my kids. If love means sacrificing for and serving, then we love those in our life who are gay. But those who I allow to lead my children will exemplify the character traits that we want them to aspire toward.
Yes good role models are important – I still can not see how a homosexual role model will have any influence in a negative way for a growing person??? My role models were balding…..perhaps that is why I am now bald also.
1. Bigotry is defined as: “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”. (Merriam-Webster). No one here has expressed hatred of gays. In fact, many have expressed not only tolerance but Christian love and support for those with SSA. I have, however, seen several pointed remarks that show a fair amount of intolerance, if not hatred, toward “conservative Christians”.
2. Reference Askme’s point regarding homosexuality being a “genetic” disorder. However, whether or not homosexual ideology is genetic or not, is not the primary point, but rather a distraction from the true issue, which is that homosexual behavior is not appropriate. Paranoid schizophrenia is genetic, also, and someone who suffers with it is not “wrong” or “bad” anymore than someone who has a homosexual orientation is “wrong” or “bad”. But I wouldn’t encourage someone to act on paranoid ideology simply because it’s genetic. Being attracted to another of the same sex is, arguably, not a choice. But ACTING on that attraction IS a choice. Being strongly attracted to your neighbor’s spouse is not a choice. ACTING on that attraction IS a choice.
3. Comparing sexual orientation to a genetic trait such as balding or skin color is not logical. Acts are not traits. A trait, such as your heterosexuality, is given to you by the Lord. Acting on it is totally within your control, although urges can undeniably be very strong. The only way you could make a logical analogy between skin color and homosexual acts would be if someone was painting their skin black. Otherwise, it is an illogical analogy.
4. My son is too young right now to understand about sexual orientation, either heterosexual or homosexual. However, when he is old enough, his father and I will do our job and pass along to him the values we follow, including the fact that homosexual behavior is disordered. To teach our child this and then tell him “look to this man and act like he does” when the man is openly gay is illogical, not to mention confusing. Given that open homosexuality is a way of life for some in our family, the topic of homosexuality is an immediate one for our family. It’s one thing to say “Aunt ____ or Uncle _____ is living with Aunt ______ or Uncle _______ in a sexual relationship and that’s their decision and we love them no matter what” is much different from choosing someone openly gay for your child to imitate..
5. Are you using sarcasm as a way to connect or to lighten the tension? I’m thinking so…Actually, I hope so because otherwise it’s really not helpful to the discussion.
Thankyou Tisha, you note well that I am intolerate of Christians – I am embarrassed and frustrated and banging my head against a wall. I respond with the sarcasm this powder coated discussion – under the guise of Christian love – deserves. I suppose I could nice up my words a bit, but at the very least, atleast I am honest.
You seem to have a problem with a person acting out their God given desires – perhaps you might be interested in hearing my opinion here:
1. I find your position to be hypocritical. It screams “We MUST be tolerant of others except for those who do not hold my position and then it is okay to be bigoted and rude because I am RIGHT!”. You have much pride for your opinion.
2. Sarcasm has it’s place, but not in a discussion as sensitive as this one where Christian love is key. Christian love is key in any discussion, but particularly in a discussion where there is debate over deeply held beliefs. I will point out that, while Jesus spoke words of Truth when engaging those who opposed His teachings, He never used sarcasm. Sarcasm in this context serves only to make the user feel superior and the receiver to feel inferior. It offers nothing helpful.
3. I read your piece. It was very similar to your posts here.
4. I witness to the Truth as it is taught to me by my Church. But, I also realize that there is a time to move on and let God in….particularly when my core beliefs and the other person’s core beliefs are simply in opposition. In this light, I’d like to ask you why you continue to read Askme’s posts and to comment, with contempt and disdain for her position and that of others.
There is no Christian love in telling someone they are distorted – and that is what the church says – even if they say it nicely.
Sorry, forgot to answer point 4 – not sure why I continue reading as it makes my blood boil – perhaps I am acting in Christian love and pointing out where we are wrong….perhaps – your probably closer to the mark with the superior comment, tis a weakness.
That’s a great article, Tisha. Thanks for sharing.
1. There is TOTALLY Christian love in telling someone their actions are disordered. Jesus shows us this over and over. He spoke in love to the woman at the well, He spoke in love to the woman caught in adultery, He spoke in love to Matthew who became a great Apostle, He spoke in love to Peter who became THE great Apostle, He spoke in love to the Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees. The list goes on and on. Part of authentic love is helping the beloved to live in conformity with Christ.
2. Reading this blog makes your blood boil. Yet, you continue to return. Ask yourself why you can acknowledge the behavior but cannot stop it. Is there an issue here of taking the beam out of your own eye before pointing at the speck in Askme’s eye? Do you feel you are serving a purpose or do you need to prove you are right? I know how attractive it can be to give people the benefit of your pearls of wisdom (BTDT!), but you are not changing hearts and you are getting frustrated to the point that you are disdainful, sarcastic and rude. Does that seem to you like how Jesus would have you witness His words? Not trying to criticize so much as I’m asking the questions I’ve had to ask myself that have helped me come to realize which situations are good for me to use to witness and which are not…..
3. I’m also interested in Askme’s question as to Scripture verses supporting/affirming homosexuality.
Again you compare homosexuality to adultery. How insulting do you think that is for a gay person. How angry do you think God feels when a beloved child of his is compared to sin, You can hide behind your interpretation of a couple of obscure passages but this is not love however you want to twist and squirm.
You mention obscure passages. You have been asked several times to provide Scripture to support your assertion that God condones homosexual acts. I have to assume your silence is inability.
You are simply repeating that your opinion is right, but you do not support it. There is no longer room for growth in our conversation, Tapman, because you can’t converse with someone who plugs his ears and shouts “I can’t hear you” whenever you speak. This is, figuratively of course, what you are doing.
Good luck to you and God bless.
Thanks Tisha, just before you go might I remind all of blog land that the prophets of old were always thought of as noisy pains in the neck – Jesus was a heretic, protestants came about by the heretical thoughts of one rather arrogant man. Your request for a bible verse reminds me a bit too much of the Pharisees out to trap Jesus – there has got to be a law against that! I don’t need a law to do good cheers.
Comments are closed.