LDS couple not Christian, cannot be scout leaders

There is a current fuss in newspaper reports that a Presbyterian church near Charlotte NC has reneged on an offer to use a volunteer couple as cub scout leaders, because they were discovered to be LDS. It is against the policy of that church to use people who are not “Christian” as leaders in their scout programs.

The BSA does not operate its own programs, but in a sense, contracts with other organizations who want to use its programs. It is clear that BSA understands and expects that these chartering organizations will use the scouting programs to meet their own organizational objectives. For example, in our church we use scouting to help young men to achieve Aaronic Priesthood objectives, i.e., build testimonies, prepare to be missionaries, etc. Accordingly, when BSA charters its programs to various organizations, it gives them the right to set their own policies about choosing leaders, within certain parameters that include being roles models for character, morality, and belief in a Supreme Being. In our church, our leaders would typically not call a non-member to be scoutmaster, although I have heard of exceptions. When I was scoutmaster, I had a non-member, Bill Shepard, who was a very effective Assistant SM. He was always supportive of things about the Church and religion for the boys. I believe he had also served as Cubmaster at one time. It seems to me that in our Church at least, the Cub program is the most nondenominational. We integrate priesthood/Church increasingly with scouting the older the age of the young men served, so might be less apt to use non-members as leaders for the older-boy programs. I believe it would be typical for Bishoprics to individualize the calling of non-members to scouting leadership in our church, seeking inspiration and assessing, in addition to the character issues mentioned above and the age-group of the boys, the existing need for leaders (do we have members who could do it?), the attitudes of the individual toward our church (is it supportive?), and the good that might come to the person and his/her family from the call.

So, when Christ Covenant church backed off from using the LDS parents as den leaders, they were within the rights granted by BSA to define their own criteria for choosing leaders for the scouting programs they sponsor. But now, the reason for this rejection, as not being Christian--

Christ Covenant church is using a sort of specialized, technical definition of being a Christian, not typically understood except by persons who have some theological background or training. It takes its meaning from 4th and 5th century attempts to define orthodoxy in Christian belief, at a minimum, by the acceptance of the Apostles Creed, and perhaps, other creedal statements. It is not the common sense or consensual definition that identifies Christians as believers or followers of Christ or perhaps persons who follow Christ’s example in how they treat other people (“that was a Christian thing to do”). At worst, it is deceptive and dishonest, because those making the accusation likely know that the typical hearer will not understand it as a specialized and uncommom usage of the term Christian.

Oddly, the Presbyterian church, when created by Calvin, Knox, and others over 10 centuries later, was rejected at that time as unorthodox by then mainstream Christianity (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church of that day, and, perhaps, the Church of England). Whatever orthodoxy it has acquired is self-awarded or at least achieved many years after the time of its creation. It is also interesting that Christ Covenant church claims to not include Catholics as acceptable candidates for scout leadership either, although they certainly meet the above definition (acceptance of the early, but post-apostolic, creeds) for Christian orthodoxy. So, this issue becomes a sort of club that is applied discriminatorily by some churches to use to beat us into submission or at least marginalize our church to unsophisticated hearers.

Stephen E. Robinson provides a great anecdote on this subject that happened while he was a doctoral student at Duke University. He had been invited by a large Protestant church to present a lecture on LDS beliefs. Some of his professors were members of this congregation. When he completed his presentation one of these men asked: “Why do you call yourselves Christian, when you are not?” Knowing something of this man’s personal beliefs, and that the congregation mostly would interpret his question to mean that Latter-day Saints do not believe in Jesus Christ, Brother Robinson quizzed him along these lines:
“Do you believe that Jesus was the literal Son of God?"
“No.”
“Do you believe in the divinity of the historical Jesus?”
“No.”
“Do you believe that Jesus had the power to perform miracles?”
“No.”
“Do you believe that he took upon him the sins of the world, as a real transfer of real guilt?”
“No.”
“Do you believe in the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus?”
“No.”
“Do you believe in a final judgment?”
“No.”
“Are you a Christian?”
“Of course, because I am a member and ordained minister of a denomination that traces its heritage back to the New Testament in an unbroken way.”
“As a Latter-day Saint, I believe that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God; that he was and is divine; that he had the power to work miracles; that he took the sins of the world upon him in Gethsemene and on Calvary; that he died for us; that he was literally, bodily raised up on the third day; and that he will raise us up to judgment and a glorious afterlife. Now am I a Christian?”
“Absolutely not.”
“Why not?”
“Because you are a member of a church that is not theologically derived from and dependent on the councils and creeds of the historical church, and because you reject traditional Christianity and its theology after its second century.” (ARE MORMONS CHRISTIAN?, pp. 31-33)

When full information is forthcoming, fair-minded people will easily make the correct judgment as to who is the real Christian (and many in that congregation did).