Boy Scouts

[PreachersWife2004]

With the vote to allow openly gay boys in the Scouts (but not gay leaders) will the LCMS continue to support the program?

 

[DaRev]

Boy Scouts of America: Why the Proposed Policy Change Matters | LCMS News & Articles

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't answer the question. The vote is now made - this was written before the vote was made.

One of my friends is rather heartbroken about this. She doesn't want to support the scouts, but her LCMS church doesn't have anything to offer - she's brought him to Lutheran Pioneer events a couple of times but she feels a bit out of place there.

I'm hoping that the LCMS will develop its own version of the Pioneers. Do you think that's a possibility?

 

[DaRev]

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't answer the question. The vote is now made - this was written before the vote was made.

One of my friends is rather heartbroken about this. She doesn't want to support the scouts, but her LCMS church doesn't have anything to offer - she's brought him to Lutheran Pioneer events a couple of times but she feels a bit out of place there.

I'm hoping that the LCMS will develop its own version of the Pioneers. Do you think that's a possibility?

I am awaiting Pres. Harrison's response to the vote. Personally, I think the matter is moot. The scouts are clearly operating outside of what we hold teach and confess, and it presents a myriad of problems for member congregations.

But, as in all thing LCMS, it will be a congregational matter. And I am afraid of what some congregations will do. There are even a few churches that still host Girl Scout troops.

I would love to see a Lutheran alternative to Scouts. It's sad that the Lutheran Pioneers are restricted to the WELS only.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I am awaiting Pres. Harrison's response to the vote. Personally, I think the matter is moot. The scouts are clearly operating outside of what we hold teach and confess, and it presents a myriad of problems for member congregations.

But, as in all thing LCMS, it will be a congregational matter. And I am afraid of what some congregations will do. There are even a few churches that still host Girl Scout troops.

I would love to see a Lutheran alternative to Scouts. It's sad that the Lutheran Pioneers are restricted to the WELS only.

Well, can't really blame us for that - otherwise we end like the scouts.

And anyone can actually attend the Pioneer events. My best friend did Sunbeams and whatnot with me for three years before she and her family joined the church.

I hear on the whole individual congregation thing. Is it possible that Harrison will NOT make it a congregational thing? I know that your synod works a bit different from ours with the hierarchy, so I'm guessing the answer is no.

Tough spot to be in, for sure. We're praying for your synod.

 

[Resha Caner]

Very sad. My oldest son is an Eagle and my younger is well on his way. Honestly, I don't think it will impact our specific troop, but I do feel like Scouts is basically done for us.

 

[Luther073082]

My problem with this is why the double standard?

The LCMS was ok with the boy scouts while they where ok with boys who pray to false Gods in the organization. . . No objections there.

But if they let boys in that admit homosexual attraction (which for the record isn't a sin, as homosexual sex is the sin, not the attraction. Lust of course is a sin no matter what your orientation.) then we suddenly have a problem.

It doesn't make much sense to me.

Personally I don't trust the boy scouts and never have since I began seeing things in the confessional light.

Either you are a secular organization and you let everyone in and only promote good citizenship (which for the record I'm fine with), or you are a religious organization and you promote a particular faith and it's practice. But sitting on some "on the fence" position about religion and religious morality does not seem to be a organization that should be trusted.

On another note reading the statement the LCMS posted I'm surprised it was signed by so many Anglicans and Methodists.

 

[Luther073082]

Well, can't really blame us for that - otherwise we end like the scouts.

And anyone can actually attend the Pioneer events. My best friend did Sunbeams and whatnot with me for three years before she and her family joined the church.

I hear on the whole individual congregation thing. Is it possible that Harrison will NOT make it a congregational thing? I know that your synod works a bit different from ours with the hierarchy, so I'm guessing the answer is no.

Tough spot to be in, for sure. We're praying for your synod.

I'm not sure of all the inner workings but I think it would be somewhat difficult for some sort of synod wide order to go out that we don't accept the BSA anymore.

Now he can of course write something which strongly advises LCMS congregations not to host the BSA. And I think with or without that a lot of the congregations will probably refuse to host them anymore.

Rev can correct me if I'm wrong but for an order like that to go out it would require a vote at the next synod wide meeting . . . and possibly a super majority vote at that.

What would make sense is if the pastors, parents and leaders of congregations in one area got together and formulated a Lutheran version of the scouts for those parents who want a religious instruction and element to scouting.

 

[illudium_phosdex]

I'm completely with you, Luther. Of course, we've kind of had this conversation before.

As for the signers of the statement, I don't know about the Anglican Church but I do know that the United Methodist Church has been back peddling since about 2008 as far as social issues and has issued several much more conservative statements on various issues than they had in the past.

 

[DaRev]

Boy Scouts of America: What the Policy Change Means | LCMS News & Articles

 

[DaRev]

My problem with this is why the double standard?

The LCMS was ok with the boy scouts while they where ok with boys who pray to false Gods in the organization. . . No objections there.

The troops that were hosted by LCMS organizations did so with the understanding that they were in a Lutheran Christian location and would operate accordingly. I know of no instance where a BSA troop in a LCMS chruch building was involved in non-Christian activities.

But if they let boys in that admit homosexual attraction (which for the record isn't a sin, as homosexual sex is the sin, not the attraction. Lust of course is a sin no matter what your orientation.) then we suddenly have a problem.

I'm not sure you can seperate "same sex attraction" with "lust" so cleanly. St. Paul does equate "effeminate" with sin resulting in damnation. It's a fine line and I don't see where you can make that distinction.

 

[DaRev]

Well, can't really blame us for that - otherwise we end like the scouts.

Does allowing LCMS congregations to host Lutheran Pioneer groups automatically mean that homosexuals and non-Christians will infiltrate?

Kind of a slap in the face, don't you think?

 

[Luther073082]

I'm completely with you, Luther. Of course, we've kind of had this conversation before.

As for the signers of the statement, I don't know about the Anglican Church but I do know that the United Methodist Church has been back peddling since about 2008 as far as social issues and has issued several much more conservative statements on various issues than they had in the past.

I'm going to be bothered if the LCMS makes a sudden shift now without admitting it made a mistake previously. I do respect the WELS for keeping the BSA out of their congregations entirely because at least when something like this comes up they look consistent.

Because here is the thing, the American civil religion which is a deist religion has made subtle inroads in a lot of Christian churches in this country. It hasn't affected the LCMS as much as other churches but it's starting to look like it may have affected us in small ways.

Personally my view is that the LCMS needs to do 1 of 2 things.

1. They just say that as long as the BSA does not offically endorse a practice which conflict's with our faith we are ok. Even if they have gay scouts and gay scout leaders, we are willing to accept it as long as they don't teach the kids that homosexual activity is morally acceptable.

2. Which I prefer is more of a 3 step program.

Step 1. Admit mistake too all of it's pastors and congregation members, repent to God, and apologize to the BSA for having not attempted to correct them earlier when they started allowing in scouts who pray to false Gods.

Step 2. No longer host BSA troops in the parishes.

Step 3. Institute a policy that we will not under any circumstances host any organization which does not at the very least affirm in it's belief in practice the words of the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds as well as affirm the authority of the holy scriptures. We may want to consider even requiring them to affirm the entirety of the book of concord as being a true and accurate understanding of the holy scriptures.

I would not go so far as to tell congregations that they must have enroll their sons in the BSA since so far they have not made any offical endorsement of homosexual activity or tried to tell boys that it is morally acceptable behavior.

However I would note that it should be something that is closely monitored because I would think that sort of thing will likely come. However we can't make recommendations based on what we are guessing will come but only based on what is actually happening.

As I said before, I'm ok with neutrality from an organization on religious questions. Our government is neutral towards religion and I'm ok with that, in fact I prefer that. But you either stay neutral or you pick a religion. Anytime you try to sit on some in-between fence things get really complicated really fast.

 

[Luther073082]

The troops that were hosted by LCMS organizations did so with the understanding that they were in a Lutheran Christian location and would operate accordingly. I know of no instance where a BSA troop in a LCMS chruch building was involved in non-Christian activities.

Can you guarantee me that every member that was accepted into those troops where Christians or at the very least said they where. If they accepted any non-Christian into the group then it is the same thing as bringing in people with homosexual attractions. That of course includes Jews, Ba-hai, Muslims, Hindu's or anyone who prays to a false God.

My point is that the BSA has been accepting these people for years and we never complained. If we get all up in arms because they allow boys in with homosexual attractions we look rather hypocritical. . . As though we are ok with them endorsing praying to false Gods, but not someone who has homosexual attractions.

I'm not sure you can seperate "same sex attraction" with "lust" so cleanly. St. Paul does equate "effeminate" with sin resulting in damnation. It's a fine line and I don't see where you can make that distinction.

Effeminate doesn't even mean homosexual in English. That's why I avoid that verse when talking about homosexuality. I don't have the training in the greek but I'm wondering if Paul isn't actually condemning cross dressing or trans-genderism here.

In my mind I can separate homosexual attraction from lust the same way I can separate heterosexual attraction with lust. Both certainly can lead to lust, but are not lust in and of themselves. Otherwise every single one of us would constantly live in a state of lust.

Quite frankly all you need is the verses about sexual immorality, which from my research in the Greek it would have been widely understood to mean pretty much anything that is not between a man and a woman who are married to each other, including but not limited to homosexual activities.

 

[Luther073082]

Here is my issue with this. If we start deciding to suddenly drop the BSA, especially without admitting mistake first. . . we look like hypocrites, and here is what it means.

After decades of saying that we don't hate homosexuals and we are not homophobic it's just that homosexual activity is against God's word. After decades of saying that then suddenly we make a change that throws out an organization because they decided to start admitting homosexuals when for decades that same organization has been admitting those who pray to false gods. We have essentially proven to the world that we are homophobic and we do hate homosexuals.

We where ok with bringing in people that not only prayed to false gods but possibly did so in our own buildings? But when they bring in a kid with homosexual attractions, even if he hasn't acted upon it then we just can't accept that.

We've lost moral standing because we have shown that we do in fact hate some sins more then others. Even though quite frankly praying to a false God is likely a more damaging sin then homosexual attractions. Because unlike a person who prays to a false God their whole life, a person who has homosexual attractions their whole life CAN be saved if they believe in Christ and trust in him.

 

[DaRev]

Can you guarantee me that every member that was accepted into those troops where Christians or at the very least said they where. If they accepted any non-Christian into the group then it is the same thing as bringing in people with homosexual attractions. That of course includes Jews, Ba-hai, Muslims, Hindu's or anyone who prays to a false God.

Not any more than I can guarantee that every "member" of a church is in fact a true believer. The BSA is not the Church. It's no different than if a congregation allows AA meetings in their hall. Not all of the recovering alcoholics who attend such meetings are necessarily Christian. But at the same time the church does not allow non-Christian practices to occur while in their building.

My point is that the BSA has been accepting these people for years and we never complained. If we get all up in arms because they allow boys in with homosexual attractions we look rather hypocritical. . . As though we are ok with them endorsing praying to false Gods, but not someone who has homosexual attractions.

Praying to false gods would not be permitted by troops using LCMS facilities. Teaching that homosexual activity is an acceptable lifestyle choice is also not acceptable in an LCMS facility.

Effeminate doesn't even mean homosexual in English. That's why I avoid that verse when talking about homosexuality. I don't have the training in the greek but I'm wondering if Paul isn't actually condemning cross dressing or trans-genderism here.

The Greek word refers to one who is open to homosexuality, which could indeed include the "orientation". Homosexuality is itself a result of the sinful nature of humanity.

In my mind I can separate homosexual attraction from lust the same way I can separate heterosexual attraction with lust. Both certainly can lead to lust, but are not lust in and of themselves. Otherwise every single one of us would constantly live in a state of lust.

But heterosexual attraction is natural and created by God. Homosexual attraction is not. It's a deviation from the created order. It is by its very nature sinful.

 

[twin.spin]

What it will boil down to is whether holding to Biblical teaching or not is the goal:

Romans 16:17
I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who
cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary
to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.

1 Corinthians 5:11
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate
with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is
sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard
or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
​

This is why one of the reasons WELS started the Pioneer program back in the 50's. Luther073082 has the correct resolution .... the 3 step program.

 

[Resha Caner]

My point is that the BSA has been accepting these people for years and we never complained. If we get all up in arms because they allow boys in with homosexual attractions we look rather hypocritical.

You make a valid point, but we can't control what the outside world thinks of us. Here is the difference that is creating a problem:

Our troop has a Chaplain's Aide, and when we are at events involving multiple troops where a religious service is performed, we decline to participate. We gather in our own campsite, and the Chaplain's Aide leads a service just for our troop. The guidelines allow that. Further, since troop members are church members, there is an understanding that we will follow church teachings. It doesn't mean everyone fully accepts confessional theology, but they understand the expectation.

However, this is not a case of a troop withdrawing from a religious service for a private service. When I go to camp is there going to be a boy in the shower house with my son who is openly gay? I am very concerned about how that is going to be handled. Most camps only have one shower house. We don't have a choice to withdraw to somewhere else. Or will this now require camps to have gay & straight showers? Or different shower times? The same question applies to tent mates. This could become a real mess.

And I don't think it's going to stop there. This could be a case where the BSA begins to mandate troop membership. For example, troops in close geographic proximity work together to place boys with special needs. The BSA helps determine which troop can best meet the needs of that boy. Will there be something similar for gays?

 

[Luther073082]

Praying to false gods would not be permitted by troops using LCMS facilities. Teaching that homosexual activity is an acceptable lifestyle choice is also not acceptable in an LCMS facility.

And who is to say that it would necessarily involve teaching that homosexual activity is acceptable just because they let some boys with homosexual attractions in? As far as I know the BSA has not decided that they are going to teach that it's acceptable to engage in sex with people of the same sex.

But heterosexual attraction is natural and created by God. Homosexual attraction is not. It's a deviation from the created order. It is by its very nature sinful.

It is by it's nature due to the sin of man, but that doesn't mean that those who are afflicted with it are themselves engaging in sinful behavior, especially if they are celibate.

 

[Luther073082]

You make a valid point, but we can't control what the outside world thinks of us. Here is the difference that is creating a problem:

Our troop has a Chaplain's Aide, and when we are at events involving multiple troops where a religious service is performed, we decline to participate. We gather in our own campsite, and the Chaplain's Aide leads a service just for our troop. The guidelines allow that. Further, since troop members are church members, there is an understanding that we will follow church teachings. It doesn't mean everyone fully accepts confessional theology, but they understand the expectation.

However, this is not a case of a troop withdrawing from a religious service for a private service. When I go to camp is there going to be a boy in the shower house with my son who is openly gay? I am very concerned about how that is going to be handled. Most camps only have one shower house. We don't have a choice to withdraw to somewhere else. Or will this now require camps to have gay & straight showers? Or different shower times? The same question applies to tent mates. This could become a real mess.

And I don't think it's going to stop there. This could be a case where the BSA begins to mandate troop membership. For example, troops in close geographic proximity work together to place boys with special needs. The BSA helps determine which troop can best meet the needs of that boy. Will there be something similar for gays?

I believe that concern, while valid is a separate concern all together and more in the realm of what the parents and the son decide they feel comfortable with.

But in terms of the issue of congregations should continue to host them, it's an entirely different issue.

If we are ok with Muslims and Jews joining as long as nothing is taught that conflicts with our beliefs, then there is no reason for the church to throw them out because a gay boy might show up, as long as the scoutmaster and organization continue to agree that they will not teach anything which conflicts with our beliefs.

They havn't to my knowledge decided that they are start going to teach that homosexual activity is morally acceptable. If they do then I agree with you, we push them out of our parishes.

But it's pure hypocrisy to push them out because the'll now let openly gay boys show up.

Your concern with a gay boy showering with your son is valid, but I think that's something that is more along the lines you have to determine as a parent, partially on the basis of how your son feels about the whole thing.

Personally, speaking as an adult, I've never been concerned about the presence of a gay man when changing in a locker room such as at the YMCA. It wouldn't personally bother me even if I knew there was a gay man there. I'm just not bothered by that sort of thing.

But that's me and I'm 30. With your son it could be entirely different.