The difference between what is Christian and what is not is widening in America. The chasm between the two has been increasing rapidly. This widening is really a manifestation of a clash between two worldviews—one that consists of Christian morality, which ultimately comes from the Bible, and one of moral relativism that is based in the belief that autonomous man determines truth.
This battle and chasm can be seen in the greatly publicized controversy surrounding the Boy Scouts of America and whether they will allow gays to be admitted to the institution. It’s also a reminder that, although in the past many Americans accepted much of the Christian worldview (which comes from the Bible), without God’s Word as the foundation, Christian morality will eventually collapse in this nation. We see this happening in many areas, including with the Boy Scouts.
I suggest that if Christians want organizations to be truly Christian and have a worldview that stands on a solid foundation, then they will have to build their own institutions that acknowledge God’s Word as the truth (not just that there is a God or that one must only adopt Christian morality). The Word of God is the only foundation for a Christian worldview.
AiG researcher and writer Steve Golden has written today’s lead article on the AiG website about the Boy Scout controversy. I encourage you to read this article, which begins as follows:
The Boy Scouts of America (B.S.A.), which only last summer confirmed its policy that kept homosexuals from joining, has now been debating the possibility of ending its ban on gay membership in the organization. On Wednesday, the organization announced that it is delaying its vote on the issue until May.1 The proposal, if passed in May as it is currently written, would take a sort of “middle ground” on the issue: the decision to admit openly gay members to the Boy Scouts would be left to individual troop leaders.
Of course, leaving the decision up to individual troops would essentially be a non-answer from the Boy Scouts of America. What’s more, it would essentially serve as an affirmation of homosexual behavior as much as it would be if scout troops were forced to admit gay members. The organization, if it chooses the route of simply leaving the decision up to individual troops, will have given in to a false idea of neutrality. The B.S.A. will have bought into the idea that by not voicing its opposition to or support for homosexual behavior, it can avoid conflict and not force anyone to violate his beliefs.
You can read the entire article at this link.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,