On Thursday, May 23, at their annual meeting in Grapevine, Texas, 1,400 members of Boy Scouts of America’s national council are scheduled to vote on a resolution that would revise the organization’s membership policy on homosexuality. If accepted, the resolution would lift an existing ban on youth who are “open or avowed” homosexuals. In its current form, the Boy Scouts’ ban on homosexual adult leaders would remain in place.
The resolution is regarded by many as “incoherent” and potentially leaving the organization open to legal challenges. On the other side of the aisle there are those who do not believe the resolution goes far enough.
I asked Bradley Long to weigh in. He is a PCUSA minister who describes himself as “an evangelical, Biblically orthodox follower of Jesus.” Bradley is also an Eagle Scout, Vigil Honor member of the Order of the Arrow (the highest honor in scouting’s national honor society), a recipient of the National Order of the Arrow Distinguished Service Award, and a lif-long scouter. He currently serves as District Commissioner and the Chartered Organization Representative for the Venture Crew that is chartered at the church where he serves as pastor. In terms of the issue before us, Bradley says, “I believe that homosexual behavior, like any sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage, is sinful and is not what God intends for human relationship.”
With that as background, what does he think about the proposed resolution?
“At first glance, it might seem then that I would be appalled by this change to the BSA membership policy. While I do not fully support the change, I see it as a helpful and well-considered compromise, and do not see this change as a reason for leaving or discontinuing support for the Boy Scouts.”
When asked why, he said, “First and foremost it is important for us to recognize that the Boy Scouts of America is not the church, and it is not the Kingdom of God.”
I asked Bradley to explain the relationship between the church and scout troop.
He said, “A little known fact for those not familiar with the BSA program is that the chartering organization, often a local congregation, actually owns the unit. This means that the church is able to have significant influence in how the scouting program is delivered. As a pastor who has the spiritual well-being of some teenagers entrusted to me, I can think of no better place for a young man who is struggling with sexual orientation to be than in a structured, character-based program with quality adult role models. There is not a better program outside the church for building character and values in youth than the Boy Scouts. This is further emphasized by what the membership policy continues to make clear – that scouting is a youth program and any and all sexual behavior, heterosexual or homosexual, is always inappropriate and contrary to the values of scouting.”
Returning to his reasoning related to the current resolution before the BSA, he said, “Homosexual behavior and orientation are the most polarizing issues in American society today … Traditional, Biblical Protestant-Christian denominations were, for many years, the most influential institutions in shaping American society and culture. This change to the BSA membership policy is a clear indication that we no longer enjoy that place of influence. However, I do not believe that severing ties with the Boy Scouts would be the most faithful way for us to bear witness to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in our world.”
I asked, “What counsel would you offer to pastors and sessions of congregations that are chartering organizations for particular scout troops?”
Bradley answered, “The Reformed tradition has always emphasized the importance of living within and bearing witness to our sinful world, while not being defined by the ideas and ways of the world (see Romans 12:2 and John 15:18-19). From my perspective as a Reformed, Presbyterian pastor, severing ties with the Boy Scouts because of this change would be like trying to run away and hide from the world in which we are called to bear witness to Jesus. This is especially true when we see that the BSA is not the church or the Kingdom of God any more than America is the church or the Kingdom of God.”
If you are a pastor or elder at a church with a scout troop, what do you think and how do you plan to respond to the action of the BSA this coming Thursday?
Additional links:
This is a link to the National Association of Presbyterian Scouters (NAPS) Spring Newsletter: http://www.presbyterianscouters.org/images/newsletters/2013-Spring.pdf
Statement from the National Catholic Committee on Scouting: http://nccs-bsa.org/comment/NCCSComment51513.php
Official statement from the Mormon Church on the current proposal: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-boy-scouts-of-america
Link regarding BSA board’s decision to delay action: http://layman.wpengine.com/boy-scouts-of-america-board-puts-off-decision-regarding-ban-for-gay-membersleaders/
9 Comments. Leave new
For over 100 years, the Boy Scouts of America have developed character and integrity in America’s boys, ages 8 to 18.
Over 64 million American boys have participated in Scouting, and over 2 million have earned the Eagle rank, Scouting’s highest award — including President Gerald Ford, astronaut Neil Armstrong, and baseball legend Hank Aaron.
The Scout Oath and the Scout Law embody the American spirit itself. As President John F. Kennedy observed: “In a very real sense, the principles learned and practiced as Boy Scouts add to the strength of America and her ideals.”
The Scouts’ classroom is the forest; and the Scout Oath (“On my honor I will duty my duty to God and my country….”) and the Scout Law (“A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”) serve as their curriculum.
One thing the Scouts have never been about is sex. So present BSA policy, affirmed only last July, reasonably denies leadership positions and general membership to “open or avowed homosexuals.” But that may soon change.
On May 23 in Grapevine, Texas, BSA’s National Council will vote on a proposal that will open youth membership (in a program for children no less!) to any “sexual orientation or preference.”
Our local Mt. Diablo Silverado [Boy Scout] Council, meanwhile, foreshadows subsequent steps, seeking a national BSA proclamation to “end the isolation and exclusion of LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] individuals” — remember: we’re talking about a program for children.
A policy suggesting “inclusion” will in fact lead to an infusion of sexuality in a kids’ leadership program, inviting young people prematurely to proclaim their sexual orientation or preference. This is a far cry from the knot-tying, tent-pitching, and woodcraft programs that have defined Scouting for a century.
Sexuality simply has no part in scouting. It ought to be the sole purview of parents, to be raised with their children in their own time and in their own way, in the privacy of their homes; not brought up by older boys around a campfire—or in a tent in the middle of the night.
As a Scoutmaster, I dread the sleeping-arrangement complexities the contemplated policy change will create — including potential liability challenges.
Sensible parents don’t want their children sleeping with unrelated opposite-sex tent mates. But overtly expressed same-sex attractions raise the same concern.
If the new policy is adopted, Scout leaders who continue their BSA affiliation will have to conduct sexual awareness and harassment training — for the boys — as well as the adult volunteers.
Sadly, the policy change appears to be primarily dollar-driven. CEOs of various large corporations have demanded the sudden 180-degree turnabout, threatening to withhold millions in donations.
And the thousands of BSA volunteers may be surprised to learn that the top national BSA officers received compensation packages as of 2011 (last public record available) between $240,000 to over $987,000. Local council executives themselves often are paid north of $170,000 annually. That’s a lot of popcorn sales!
American culture is over-sexualized already. Adding sex to Scouting — a program for children — doesn’t help, and isn’t a good idea. Hopefully, the National Council members are listening, and will reject the new sexuality resolution on May 23.
For more information, visit http://www.OnMyHonor.net.
Bruce McIntosh has been involved in Scouting for over 40 years, as a Scout and as an adult volunteer. He is the former general counsel for the Mt Diablo Silverado Council, and is a current Council board member and Scoutmaster. He is also a PCUSA elder.
On May 23, the Boy Scouts of America passed a resolution allowing for gay scouts but continuing the ban on homosexual leaders. Read the story here: http://www.worldmag.com/2013/05/a_sad_day_for_scouting
To those who decry the introduction of “sex” into Scouting because of the recent ruling with regard to gay scouters, I say this: What makes you think that “sex” has not been a part of scouting already? Scouts from the age of 11 through 18 are going through hormonal changes. Their interest naturally gravitates toward “sexual” matters. Our downfall is that we have not helped these young men come to grips with their hormonal urges. And yes, this needs to be done first in the home, then in a religious setting, and then in Scouting. Where else do we have an opportunity to talk frankly with young men? Scouting has never been “sexually neuter”. Oh, perhaps in the rules and regulations, but not in actuality. Could it be that a good open discussion of sexual orientation that includes responsibilities might enable a “confused” young man understand his own life and the urges that are welling up in him? Aren’t we supposed to be developing the “whole person”?
I was a Life Scout, have been involved in scouting all my life, and served as cub den leader, assistant scoutmaster and merit badge counselor. Am a brotherhood member of the OA and am presently an advisor to a Venture Troop.
Beyond being terribly naive, Bradley Long’s responses prove to lack logic and utterly fail to understand the legal effects of the resolution. First, there shall be no opportunity to discuss a Scout’s homosexuality in a Bible-honoring way because anything except acceptance will be a violation of the new membership requirements. Second, Mr. Long should appreciate that even suggesting anything except affirming language will literally subject the speaker (“trusted” “adult leader”) and the local pack/troop to civil litigation in the courts for “discrimination” and at a minimum result in expulsion (for the speaker) from the BSA program. Third, Mr. Long fails to appreciate that whether or not the chartering organizations own their pack/troop or not, those religious organizations won’t be able to share their beliefs about homosexuality and therefore won’t affect how “the scouting program is delivered”. Whether Mr. Bradley realizes or not, remaining in the BSA is forcing religious organizations to sacrifice their religious beliefs and remaining involved is tacit approval of homosexuality as a normative lifestyle. It is also promoting homosexuality as a healthy lifestyle to our youth, when the negative health effects of male homosexual behavior are well documented (although not well-publicized) by the U.S. Center for Disease Control. How can Scout leaders promote what is not healthy as healthy? Why should religious chartering organizations voluntarily remain and be forbidden to to say that sin is sin? The only way to honor God as a believer in Christ is to reject this resolution and terminate one’s relationship with the BSA. To remain in the BSA is to call evil good — you would think as a minister that Mr. Long would know Isaiah 5:20. Eagle Scout or not, minister or not, Mr. Long appears to be grossly uninformed on the topics and the resolution’s effects, exhibits sloppy logic, and fails to provide the proper biblical response to the situation.
When I saw that Mr Long was a DSA recipient in the OA I knew two things before I read his reply -1) he would be politically correct in his reply and tow the party line and 2) he is echelons above reality in what mainstream unit level (non-nationally connected Scouters) think.
Most who earn the DSA are politically savvy and creatures of diplomacy. They rarely venture out against the National BSA thus they would lose their position and status within the “National” organization. His explanation is counter-intuitive in so many ways. Typical of a politician who cannot truly stand on the courage of their convictions.
First, the resolution is not “promoting” homosexuality…it merely says that sexual orientation ALONE cannot be used to deny a boy membership. Less than 2% of the US population is homosexual, so less than 2% of scouting units will be affected by this…are you really willing to deny the program to 98% of the youth who can benefit from it? Isn’t that in effect allowing 2% to control what the rest of us do?
When the military went through this a few years ago, my impression and respect of veterans and soldiers did not change. Similarly, some say the Scout Oath no longer means anything to ANY boy IF a homosexual boy says it. Well, if that’s true, wedding vows should never be repeated again. Mark 10:9 “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” is most often followed by swearing “til death do us part”. If over 50% of the people who say that dont live up to it…. Our boys can still learn the values and lessons of scouting regardless of what some scout 3 states away does or says.
For me scouting has always been more about boys having a safe environment to prepare for life. It’s about building their confidence and self esteem, teaching them to be prepared, allowing them to explore (through merit badges and outdoor experiences) things that might change their career path, and teaching them how to be good leaders, good followers, and work as a team.
Now, do we teach them that they walk away when things don’t go as planned? Or do we use this to show them they don’t have to be of the world to be in the world? That they can maintain their values and character even if surrounded by those without?
When there is a perfect church, or perfect organization let me know. Make no mistake, I don”t agree with this change, but I’m not in the habitat of walking away from everything that doesn’t go exactly as I want. If you teach our young people to do that, they are in for a life full of walking away from jobs, walking away from relationships, walking away from churches, and in most instances walking away from religion. I’ll use this to teach my son that he should surround himself with like minded individuals, but that he shouldn’t abandon those people if someone different comes along. He doesn’t have to condone or participate in the difference and can in fact use that different person as an example of what not to be.
Wow Kent A. can you say “prejudice”? You sure seem to KNOW a lot about someone you don’t know based on an award he was given years ago.
I suppose that is a better lesson to pass on to young people than “you don’t have to be of the world to be in the world”, or “YOUR values and morals are not determined by someone elses, surround yourself with good people, but dont abandon the good IF and when someone different shows up “.
Steve A., this change is not about failing to live into one’s values; it’s about changing those values. The Scouts are not failing to live up to the Scout Oath, they are changing its meaning. In 2000, the BSA argued before the US Supreme Court that homosexual conduct was in consistent with the values of Scouting as expressed in the Scout Law (“A scout is …clean…”) and the Scout Oath (“…morally straight”). Now, the BSA has said “Whereas the Scouts have no agenda with regard to sexuality …”
This is a change. The Scouts are now calling “good” what God declared is sin. The analogies to broken wedding views and the imperfect church are inapt. In both those cases we acknowledge the moral failure: the vow is broken, the church is imperfect. But the Scouts pretend they have kept thier vow by declaring it meant something different all along.
Rev. Button: this change does not merely invite an “open discussion of sexuality, it invites children to identify and declare their “sexual orientation and preferences”. And it removes the ability of the Scouter to instruct that some “preferences” are wrong. This policy does not clear the air, but clouds it. Sexualizing a youth leadership program is a bad idea.
I understand what you’re saying Kent. Back in the day I was the Order of the Arrow Northeast Region Chief and I believe that there were National Committee members who didn’t like me because I never really fit in with them or whatever their adgenda was. I don’t think the BSA should have changed it’s policy but now that it has it needs to go full course. Anyone who knows me would ever accuse me of being gay but now that it’s ok for kid’s to be gay in the scouting when is the BSA going to allow the over 18 scouters to come out of the closet.
In NYC over the last 25 years we lost the best camp director I ever saw, a great borough scout evecutive and countless other adult leaders because of this Gay issue in scouting. Now that Gay marriage is legal in NY, the only thing left to fear in this whole debate is fear itself. I love the scouting program with such a passion and right after my son went to NOAC decided that scouting was boring. Lets face it the program is failing as a result of the membership drastic decline. When are we going to put the kid’s first and bring the program back which will in turn draw the kid’s back. Focus on real issues. Mark Thor Belli 347 216-6716