Tag Archive : homosexuality

/ homosexuality

In Part 1 of this series, we looked at two common objections to a traditional Christian view of sexuality: “What about other Old Testament rules we don’t keep?” and, “The New Testament teaching on sexuality was socially constructed and not intended for universal application.” In Part 2, we will examine two more recent arguments that have become quite popular and to some, deceptively persuasive.

Objection 3: “Later churches added the doctrine. “Porneia” is being mistranslated as fornication.”

Some now contend that there never was an explicit prohibition against extramarital intercourse in either Old or New Testaments. They argue that the word “porneia”, translated as “fornication” and appearing 26 times in the Greek New Testament , refers to other sexual sins, not premarital (or homosexual) sex. Maybe it was pederasty, or sex with temple prostitutes, or adultery, they counter. The odd thing is that this is nearly the opposite of the “cultural bias” argument. While the other argued that the prohibition was a mere social construction; this argues that the prohibition never existed, and the original Christians leaned the other way. Many excellent resources review all the exegetical grounds for rejecting this argument, but two points are in order. First, it embraces the error of the Pharisees by reducing Eternal Law to a game of legal semantics. Second, it is fatally inconsistent with the internal evidence of Scripture and external evidence of historic interpretation.

A compelling internal refutation is found in I Corinthians 7, where Paul writes concerning the unmarried:

“’Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’ But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” (vs 1-2).

Again, in verses 8-9:

“So let me say to the unmarried and those who have lost their spouses, it is fine for you to remain single as I am. But if you have no power over your passions, then you should go ahead and marry, for marriage is far better than a continual battle with lust.”

Twice, Paul urges believers to marry if they cannot restrain their sexual impulses. These instructions are rendered incoherent if there were any other legitimate outlets for sexual activity. If the critics were correct, Paul ought to have told the Corinthians to “quit worrying and have fun”. The critics also must reckon with the words of our Lord Himself, who declared the intent of adultery as sinful as the act. Are we to suppose that while merely thinking about “doing it” with a married person is a sin, actually doing it with an unmarried person is not?

What did porneia convey to the New Testament authors and readers? Clearly, Jesus and the Apostles were communicating with fellow Jews and Gentile converts on the basis of shared assumptions. On this, the historical record is quite clear.

Although the Old Testament law did not explicitly proscribe premarital intercourse, there was a clear expectation that wives would be virgins at the time of marriage. If that bridge were crossed, it was commanded that they would be married. (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) Abstinence until marriage (or at the least, betrothal) was universally assumed.

The Mishnah – a compendium of rabbinic sources compiled between the 2nd century B.C. and the 2nd century A.D, is unequivocal on the subject:

“Rabbi Eleazar says, even an unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the sake of marriage engages in bi-ilat znut [forbidden sexual practice].” [1]

Jacob Neuser, possibly the most noted Jewish scholar of the last century, wrote:

“It is beyond the Mishnah’s imagination for a man and a woman to live together without the benefit of a betrothal, a marriage contract, and a consummation of marriage.” [2]

In New Testament times, there were two noteworthy Jewish authors whose works are well-known and well-preserved, Philo Judaeus and Flavius Josephus. Philo (15-10 BC – 45-50 AD) was the philosopher and his lifetime would have overlapped with Jesus. Josephus the historian came a little latter (37 AD – c 100) but overlapped the later Apostolic period. The writings of both illuminate what the contemporary Jewish culture would have thought about sexual matters at the time of Jesus and the Apostles, and thus what shared assumptions would have been implicit in the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

Philo Judaeus:

“Of the second table, the first commandment is that against adulterers, under which many other commands are conveyed by implication, such as that against seducers, that against practicers of unnatural crimes, that against all who live in debauchery, that against all men who indulge in illicit and incontinent connections”

The Decalogue, 168-169

Josephus:

“But, then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife, and that this be used only for the procreation of children.”

Against Apion Book II

The Didache is considered the earliest Christian document that is not part of the New Testament canon, and dates from 65-80 AD:

“My child, be not lustful, for lust leadeth unto fornication; be not a filthy talker; be not a lifter up of the eye, for from all these things come adulteries.’

The Didache 3:3

This consistent refrain continues through the earliest writings of the Church Fathers:

Origen (184-253 AD):

“Fornication in the strict sense is consorting with prostitutes. Impurity is the generic name, in the maelstrom of our bodily existence, not only for adultery and pederasty but also all the other inventions of sexual licentiousness in all the many and diverse practices.”

Commentary on Ephesians 5:3

Severian of Gabala 380-408? AD

“This is Paul’s reply to those who had written to him about this subject. He forbade fornication because it was against the law, but he allowed marriage as being holy and an antidote to fornication. However, he praised chastity as more perfect still.”

Commentary on I Corinthians 7:1

Chrysostom 347-407 AD

“Paul states that continence is better, but he does not attempt to pressure whose who cannot attain to it. He recognizes how strong the pull of concupiscence is and says that if it leads to a lot of violence and burning desire, then it is better to put an end to that, rather than be corrupted by immorality.”

Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, 19.3, commenting on I Corinthians 7:8-9

In short, spanning a period of over one thousand years with the New Testament in the middle, there is no evidence that extramarital sex was ever acceptable within Judeo-Christian culture, and overwhelming evidence that it was not.

[For a much more extensive review of the usage of “porneia” in New Testament times, see Harper, Kyle, Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm, The Journal of Biblical Literature, (2012) 131:363-383]

Objection 4: “Christian sexual morality has been refuted by modern science”.

The trendiest objection today is to invoke the mantle of “Science”. The obvious riposte to such a claim should be “how, where, and when?” For four hundred years, there has been a quest to redefine morality within a naturalistic, scientific framework. That effort has failed. While philosophers and researchers have made great headway in describing morality (and finding it surprisingly consistent across cultures), the mission of prescribing morality never quite made it to shore. The problem, defined by David Hume in the 18th century, was summed up by the so-called “Hume’s law”: One cannot derive an ought from an is.

“Oughts” can only be assumed. It is here that natural law comes to the rescue. If we accept as a first principle that human flourishing is a morally worthy objective, then we can develop a system of ethics in support of that cause. In that regard, science can be of immense value in identifying what methods and behaviors contribute to, or detract from, human welfare. Science cannot define morality, but it can inform it. Science cannot refute morality; to imagine otherwise is a category error.

We may be born with any number of proclivities conducive neither to our own welfare nor that of others.

A common variant of this argument is that “since same-sex attracted people are born that way, it should not be considered immoral. To think otherwise is cruel.” The premise of the argument is, of course, unproven, and the American Psychiatric Association continues to hold that “the causes of sexual orientation (whether homosexual or heterosexual) are not known at this time and likely are multifactorial.” [3] The implicit claim is not merely that they were born with those impulses but should act upon them, an obvious non sequitur. Many defenders of Christian morality allow themselves to get trapped in an argument over the causes of same-sex attraction, failing to see that etiology is irrelevant to the question of morality. We may be born with any number of proclivities conducive neither to our own welfare nor that of others. More specifically, Scripture has always held that we are born with an innate disposition toward sin. We are all “born that way.” Such proclivities are to be tamed, not indulged.

The accumulated body of scientific knowledge through the second decade of the twentieth century is no challenge to Christian morality. Science cannot prove that lying, adultery, racism, and murder are wrong, or that telling the truth and faithfulness are right. These things must be assumed. As it happens, we find them quite easy to assume because Natural Law is imprinted upon our psyche – and this can be empirically validated.

Conclusion

Over the course of this discussion we have zeroed in on objections to Christian morality that may arise within the congregation of believers and exposed the underlying errors. For the sake of young believers, these need to be taught and understood. There is no back door for the “sexual revolution” within Christian orthodoxy. We should not expect these arguments to have much purchase with unbelievers and others who reject Scripture. For them, we must begin elsewhere. But the foundation has been laid. We are not finished with Natural Law.

__________________________________

  1. Sifra Emor 1:7 (94b) quoted in: Machael L Satlow, Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality (Brown Judaic Studies, 2020) 122.
  2. Jacob Neuser, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women (5 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 5. 266.
  3. David Scasta and Philip Bialer, American Psychiatric Association, Position Statement on Issues Related to Homosexuality, Approved by the Assembly November 2013.

Discerning right from wrong.

What is the foundation of your moral principles?

If you consider that a simple question, you’ve never really thought about it much.

The gut reaction of most Protestants would be “Scripture” – certainly a fitting place to begin – but when one drills down into the details things get complicated rather quickly. For decades, theological liberals have dismissed Biblical teaching on sexuality because they dismiss the Bible. In more recent years, a newer contingent rejects traditional Christian teaching on sexuality arguing that the Bible never taught it in the first place.

One purpose of apologetics is to defend Christian teaching before a skeptical, hostile world that cares nothing about what the Bible does or does not say. But discipleship begins at home, and by all measures the Western Church is failing. Sex has a great deal to do with it. On one hand, unmarried adults who are sexually active are far less likely to attend services. On the other, many young people raised in the church experience a crisis of faith when, on embracing the secular narrative, they come to see Christianity as not merely anachronistic but immoral.

“It’s not science that’s secularizing Americans — it’s sex.” Mark Regnerus

The Washington Post, September 5, 2017

A comprehensive sexual apologetic must begin with the church family. Let us begin by considering two traditional objections against Biblical teaching on sexuality.

Objection 1: “What about the Old Testament prohibition against _____[fill in the blank]?”

Many Christians, perhaps most, view Biblical Law as one might understand the US and State criminal codes: an exhaustive attempt to define and categorize every important wrong one can commit against others or the state. Yet if we assume that is the case, we immediately run into problems. Where was the law prior to Moses? What was the law outside of ancient Israel? Why were there no prohibitions against slavery or polygamy? And what about all the weird ones? These questions may seem quite challenging, but the answer is simpler than you think. For that we should begin with how the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas explained the matter.

Aquinas divided Law into four categories. The first, Eternal law, reflects the mind and desire of God concerning the behavior of humankind and the universe. The universe, of course, obeys. Humanity, not so much. Eternal law is what all believers should aspire to obey but is beyond our apprehension.

The second, Natural law, is the will of God imprinted upon the minds of all people in all places in all times. It is manifested in a universal God-consciousness, the universality of conscience, and the general consistency of moral principles across most human civilizations. As history attests, Natural Law can easily be resisted, suppressed, or ignored.

The third, Divine Law, can also be called the Revealed law and we will refer to it as such. The Revealed law, as found in the Old Testament, expresses Eternal Law (the mind of God) and codifies Natural Law, but with some major caveats. Importantly, Mosaic Law included much that was clearly of ceremonial or civil intent pertaining to the worship and governance of ancient Israel. Those elements did not overlap with Natural Law, and merely expressed Eternal Law as it applied to the nation of Israel.

The fourth category of Aquinas, Human Law, would consist of ordinances created by human agents. Theologically, we predict that it would reflect the existence of Natural Law, which in fact it does.

If one imagines the Mosaic Law as a comprehensive code, it had significant shortcomings. The Old Testament never specifically proscribed prostitution* or slavery – but every time they are mentioned, it is in a disparaging way. Is that not sufficient to know they are wrong? The Old Testament never explicitly proscribed premarital sexual intercourse. If it happened, the law simply demanded that the man must pay the bride-price and marry her (Exodus 22:16). Mosaic Law never proscribed polygamy. Adultery was a one-way street: if a married woman slept with another man, it was adultery. If a married man slept with another women, it was permitted if she were not married or betrothed to another, though he would still have to marry her. [By New Testament times, after polygamy ended, the definition of adultery became more symmetric and inclusive]. These examples demonstrate that the Mosaic Law was never intended to be comprehensive; not that such things were acceptable because they were not prohibited.

Christians are privileged to receive clarification on the Law through the ministry of Jesus and the apostles. When Jesus spoke of the Law, He judged the Pharisees not for their lack of conformity to the Mosaic Law, but to Eternal Law. Hence, on the one hand He could judge them for being too literal in its interpretation (their rules on the Sabbath or divorce), and on the other for thinking mere outward compliance was good enough (declaring lust as equivalent to adultery). At the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15, the Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, ruled that Gentile converts were not subject to the Mosaic Law, but:

“Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.”

Acts 15:20

Without an understanding of Natural Law, this appears to make no sense. Other than refraining from sexual immorality [funny how that keeps popping up] and three dietary restrictions [probably to maintain peace between Jews and Gentile converts], the entire Law was just abolished? Of course not. While Christians were no longer under the Mosaic Law, they remained bound by Eternal Law and Natural Law. Lest there be any uncertainty concerning those obligations, the New Testament reaffirms and elaborates on the demands of Eternal Law through the commandments of Jesus and the instruction of the apostles (establishing a new Revealed Law for future generations). Many believe that the Ten Commandments remained in effect. This approach, however, is not without its problems. According to the Westminster Larger Catechism, the Jesus Film would be in flagrant violation of the Second Commandment, and any sort of recreation on Sunday violates the Fourth (questions 109 and 119).

When we understand the various forms of Law, it makes complete sense to declare that “love is the fulfillment of the law” – without the ludicrous inference that love is the only law.

Christian moral principles are based upon the Eternal Law of God as understood through Natural Law and explicitly affirmed by Jesus and the Apostles. The Mosaic Law is not relevant to this discussion, and the Christian apologist should not rely on it in evidence. While this may seem controversial, it is consistent with the historic teaching of most major Christian traditions. We are not “throwing out” the Old Testament, as some might charge. Old Testament wisdom and historical narrative, as well as prophecy and Psalms, remain an integral part of Christian theology and experience. The crucial moral elements of Mosaic Law are subsumed under Natural Law and the Revealed Law of the New Testament.

Objection 2: “On matters of sex, the New Testament writers were merely accommodating the cultural biases of first century Palestine.”

This argument sounds plausible enough except for the word “accommodating”. That word reverses the flow of information in a fundamental way. It implies, without evidence, that moral teaching was not delivered to the “masses”, but derived from them. According to this narrative, God really would have liked to liberate those early Christians from their sexual hang-ups, but they were just too primitive and barbaric.

Of course, that is all complete nonsense. The early Christians (and Jews) were hardly different from those in the West today – a devoutly religious minority surrounded by a licentious, pagan majority. Christian sexual teaching was certainly in conformity with Jewish tradition, and Jesus and the Apostles all assumed a common acceptance of these principles. But in the broader society, Christian teaching was decidedly countercultural.

In the broader society, Christian teaching was decidedly countercultural .

Now, there are legitimate instances in which certain New Testament instructions – I hesitate to call them commands – are socially constructed. A traditional example of this would be Paul’s extended riff on head coverings in I Corinthians 11:1-16. This has been almost universally understood as a specific application of a much more general principle: when gathering in worship, men and women should attire themselves in a manner appropriate to their sex as understood in their own culture. As explained by R. C. Sproul, “Principles are those commands of God that apply to all people at all times in every culture….Customs are local applications of those principles.”

Many such minor matters come up in the writings of Paul, who was busily occupied with teaching early Christians how to behave and get along. We can infer their moral significance by the degree to which they are, or are not, framed in moral terms. In Matthew, Jesus warned “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” (Matthew 15:19-20). In Romans 1:28-32, Paul describes the reprobate as “filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful.” Nowhere will one find Paul’s instructions regarding the conduct of worship or church governance couched in such language. They are altogether in a different category. All commands of the Law are instructions, but not all instructions are commands of the law. Hopefully, the passages we have considered here help to illumine the distinction.

In our next post, we will look at two more contemporary objections raised to Christian sexual morality. Is it all based on a mistranslation of New Testament Greek? Has Christian sexual morality been refuted by modern science??

Stay tuned. And subscribe now (upper right) if you would like to receive the next post in your inbox!

*Leviticus 19:29 says “do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute” – but it didn’t prohibit her from entering voluntarily.


For a concise, easily accessible introduction to Natural Law from a Protestant perspective, see: David Haines & Andrew A Fulford, Natural Law: A Brief Introduction and Biblical Defense (The Davenant Trust, 2017).

Whatever happened to the Boy Scouts of America?

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 a once-great American institution filed for bankruptcy; a casualty, according to some, of western cultural wars. In “A Badge of Disgrace”, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council blames their demise entirely on policy changes of the last seven years.. It was, he declared, “an unhappy ending we all warned was coming.” Except nobody could have, really. Because the seeds of demise were planted decades earlier.

Growing up

Scouting was one of the formative influences in my youth. I didn’t exactly jump in with both feet; there was certainly some parental “guidance” at work. I was a geek long before it became both fashionable – and lucrative! I would far rather stay indoors building a shortwave radio or reading good sci-fi than catch and clean a fish or crawl through mud. (Fires were always fun, though. Still are.) But with the maturity of age, I came to appreciate what Scouting gave me. Scouting pushed me out of my comfort zone – exactly the sort of “snowflake prevention” we need more of today.

Grammar school and junior high were not a happy time. After two weeks of first grade I was promoted directly to second, leaving me much younger than peers and much smaller. The bullying began in earnest around grade 5 and continued until the eighth grade, when a perceptive and merciful science teacher rescued me from that outer ring of hell known as junior high PE (aka “Lord of the Flies Redux”) and got me transferred to choir. My attitudes, grades, and personal safety rebounded promptly, but I preferred being alone. I could have become permanently isolated, but Scouts kept me engaged. In Scouts, I genuinely enjoyed time with peers closer to my age and we were well supervised. Bullying was rare, and never long tolerated.

Through Scouting I grew to love and respect the majesty of God’s Creation, even – somehow – in central Texas. En route to Eagle Scout, I naturally pursued merit badges in the things I loved – electronics, computers, space exploration – but the required badges brought me proficiency in valuable skills I would not ordinarily have sought –swimming, lifesaving, cooking, citizenship, physical fitness.

After I became a dad, I introduced my first son to Scouting. He grew to appreciate it, and like his father ultimately attained the rank of Eagle. He grew into a highly self-sufficient and responsible adult with great love and respect for the wilderness. My second son came several years later, and we started him in Cub Scouts where he rose to Webelo. During the final two years I served as Cubmaster for his Pack. However, by that time changes were afoot.

In the crossfire of the culture wars

Pressure had been building upon the Boy Scouts to conform to society’s shifting standards. In 2013 the Boy Scouts announced they would accept homosexual youth as members, driving an instant wedge between the Scouts and the many Christian churches that sponsored troops. Personally, I regarded the administrators’ decision as cowardly but of little practical significance. Having been a boy, having raised boys, and having been around many more, it was obvious that for normal, healthy eight to eleven-year-olds sexuality was the remotest thing from their minds. As for the scant few who might be struggling with such issues, perhaps they needed Scouting most of all. Keeping the door open for them seemed to be the compassionate thing to do. But in the aftermath of that decision, the church that sponsored our Pack began pressuring me to find another chartering organization. They wanted a divorce. I stalled them until my tenure ended, figuring it was their problem, not mine.

The next domino fell with the BSA’s 2016 decision to accept homosexual adults in leadership. This was much more problematic. For the preceding two decades the Boy Scouts had been besieged by lawsuits claiming sexual abuse of charges by their leaders, paying out millions in compensation. Essentially all were same-sex assaults, and most victims were pubescent or post-pubescent. It is a matter of heated dispute whether same-sex attracted males are more likely to seek unwilling underage partners, but that assumption is unnecessary. Even if the inclination is exactly equal to heterosexuals, logic would favor prudence. The sex drive is intense in all young men. It would be foolish and naïve to put teenage girls under the unsupervised care of a 22-year-old heterosexual man. How could putting young gay men in charge of teenage boys be any less imprudent? (Years ago, the Girl Scouts began accepting young males as leaders. The consequences were predictable, of course).

The final coup came in October 2017 when the Boy Scouts announced the end of 108 years of gender exclusivity. The Boy Scouts would now just be Scouts. The details were complicated. Troops wouldn’t be technically coed, and it would be a great opportunity for the young ladies, but it would no longer be the Boy Scouts. Perhaps it was a desperate effort to reverse the membership decline. If so, it failed.

Why decline and bankruptcy?

Organizations that endeavor to be ‘inclusive’ somehow always end up excluding many more.

Could the decline and bankruptcy have been prevented? Only by going back several decades. From its peak in the early 1970’s, membership in Scouting has plunged by over half. Much, if not most, of this could be attributed to more general social and cultural changes and increased competition from other activities. The more recent drop, however, might have been slowed or reversed. Membership had been falling for decades but the decline accelerated significantly after the 2013 policy changes. In kowtowing to contemporary sexual mores, the national leadership thumbed its collective nose at the ethics of its major American chartering organizations: Protestant, Catholic, and Mormon churches. (As so often happens, organizations that endeavor to be “inclusive” somehow always end up excluding many more). The most acute hemorrhage occurred at the end of December, 2019 when the Mormon Church (400,000 Scouts, approximately 20% of the remaining membership) terminated its chartering arrangements. Many departing Churches switched to alternative scouting programs like Trail Life but the disadvantages are considerable. Options like summer camp require a critical mass of participants and considerable capital investment. The substitutes usually lack these advantages, nor are all of them specifically for boys. Furthermore, fragmentation by denomination results in more in-group isolation in an era of intense polarization. There is a positive social good achieved by bringing people from differing backgrounds into a common community.

Sexual predators exist and always have. They will always find their prey and they know where to look.

As far as the bankruptcy is concerned, it seems that die was cast decades ago. The so-called sexual revolution of the 1960’s resulted in profound changes in American sexual behavior. Traditional sexual boundaries were increasingly mocked, and by most available measures there was an increase in promiscuity of all types. A monster was unleashed. Sexual predators exist and always have. They will always find their prey and they know where to look. The Boy Scouts became a prime target in an era when background checks were hard to get, legal reporting requirements had not been widely adopted, and a national database of sex offenders would have been inconceivable. Beginning in the late 1960’s there was a notable increase in abuse that persisted into the late 1980’s. It has since declined for a multitude of reasons, but increased vigilance on the part of the Boy Scouts played a crucial role.

The BSA was now at the mercy of the American tort system, which knows no mercy. Once the litigation dreadnought has locked on a target, few institutions can survive the onslaught.

Data compiled by the LA Times and others indicate that charges against Scout leaders rose rapidly in the late 1980’s, peaking around 1990 when expulsions from leadership also peaked. The alleged abuses would have been still earlier, when no one was sounding alarms for the demise of Scouting. The BSA was now at the mercy of the American tort system, which knows no mercy. Once the litigation dreadnought has locked on a target, few institutions can survive the onslaught.

In retrospect, the Scouts probably handled the situation as well as anyone of that era, and almost certainly better than the Catholic Church. Thousands of perpetrators were exposed and permanently banned. A national blacklist was maintained to prevent them from reapplying elsewhere. Sure, there were cases where the Scouts reacted too slowly or cautiously, but that is inescapable in any organization. Predators do not come with labels and are eerily gifted at concealing their nature and intent. Humans by nature are biased toward trusting one another. This is essential to the functioning of society. Trust no one and the system collapses. Trust everyone and you will sometimes be fooled. Maintaining that balance is tricky. A perfect balance is impossible.

Our boys are the losers

The appropriate response from conservatives and Christians should be one of mourning, not “I told you so.” America is failing its young men tragically. While radical mobs with their torches and pitchforks agitate for revolution against the “patriarchy”, reports from the ground indicate it’s been vanquished for some time and is clinging to life support. Compared to women, men are:

  • Less likely to take honors classes, go to college, graduate from college, or earn a graduate degree
  • 2.4 times more likely to be homeless
  • 4.5 times more likely to commit suicide
  • 7.7 times more likely to be in jail
  • 13 times more likely to die on the job
  • And the list goes on

America’s young men are hurting. The causes are well-known. For a multitude of reasons, historic numbers of children are growing up without a father. The disastrous social consequences are irrefutable, and boys suffer disproportionately. Now, more than ever before, boys and young men need long term steady relationships with responsible mature male figures – exactly what the Boy Scouts could, and did, provide. No, it’s not the only solution. Sports provides that outlet for many, but sports aren’t for everyone, and never offered the broad training in life skills. Of all civil institutions, America’s churches offer the best hope for filling this void.

We should all pray for the success of offshoot organizations and revival of the Boy Scouts of America.


Scouting alternatives:

Trail Life, USA: Protestant

Columbian Squires: Catholic

Children and Youth: LDS

For more complete lists, visit:

Non-aligned Scouting and Scout-like organisations (Wikipedia)

Scout-like and Scouting Alternative Organizations (Troop 97, Colorado)