Boy Scouts

[Luther073082]

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.

For the record my main problem with the BSA is their on the fence attitude towards religion and beyond that towards religious morality.

If they where just entirely neutral on the subject saying everyone has the right to believe what they like on that issue, we're just gonna teach kids that they should be good citizens and some wilderness survival skills. I'd be fine with that, and I'd let my son join that if that was something he wanted to do.

But this whole thing of, yeah you gotta believe in God, but it can be any God sort of thing is fence sitting. You don't know where those organizations are going to go or what they are going to do. You can't trust an organization like that because they pretend to have a position but it's a hollow position. It's the position of the American Civic Religion.

And if parents want a religious element taught along side the good citizenship and wilderness stuff then we should create a Lutheran program specifically for that.

 

[Resha Caner]

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.

...

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.

It's not about comfort level so I don't buy this. But I'm not sure you got my points.

Point 1:
There are Muslims in society. My kids go to school with them. So what's the difference when it comes to Scouts? When interacting with Muslims in society, I am not forced to worship with them. I'm not forced to create a false sense of spiritual communion, and thankfully that has carried over to Scouts. We have separate services. The situations would only be equivalent if the BSA said my son must attend a religious service with those other faiths.

Point 2:
Regardless of what you say, by including them they are teaching something. They send a message that the behavior is acceptable. If the BSA solution was separate shower houses, separate gay troops ... something like that, then they highlight that there is a difference in the same way it is highlighted by allowing us to have a separate religious service.

But that's not what the gay community wants. My guess is that they will not accept a "separate but equal" solution because it doesn't send the message they want - doesn't teach what they want.

Point 3:
I've heard this "it doesn't bother me" line before. Come on. I suspect the reason it doesn't bother you is because you haven't actually had to face the situation before. Maybe you've been in the shower with a gay man, but it wasn't in your face. The first time you get hit on while you're naked, I think you'll change your mind.

If you came home and found your wife in the shower with another man, what would be your reaction? And if they said, "Come on, we're all mature adults here. We can handle this without a problem," would you say, "Oh, OK. Go right ahead."

Don't you remember what your middle school locker room was like? I do. I don't see how this is going to work. There will be an incident. Not only am I worried about my son, but the safety of the first boy who announces he is a homosexual and they gets beaten in the shower for it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Actually, I just realized there is a point 4: conflicts of interest.

Suppose the Scoutmaster knowlingly accepts a gay boy into his troop, and that troop is sponsored by a church that teaches homosexuality is a sin (e.g. the LCMS). Is the Scoutmaster bound by rules of confidentiality not to tell his pastor about that? Because, if the pastor knows, he will (appropriately) try to counsel that boy.

And then the troop gets sued for sexual harrassment or something like that.

 

[mirla]

I'm a bit confused.

Does the LCMS prevent non-practicing homosexuals from attending church or Sunday School? If they are prevented, where are lcms christians allowed to associate with them to share the word of God? If they are not prevented, why is it OK for gays to attend Church-sponsored Sunday school and the divine service but not church-sponsored Boy Scouts?

Does LCMS prohibit LCMS member children from public school Enrollment? If not, why should LCMS prohibit boys from BSA just because the BSA allow openly gay members? I'm willing to bet there are a lot more openly gay boys in school than in scouts.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

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?

It isn't about hosting. Many WELS churches host AA meetings, but we don't sponsor or support these meetings. We only provide the meeting place. The LCMS supports and sponsors the BSA - this to me would say "We approve of the stances that the BSA takes".

It's also not about infiltration - and I think you know that.

I'm a bit confused.

Does the LCMS prevent non-practicing homosexuals from attending church or Sunday School? If they are prevented, where are lcms christians allowed to associate with them to share the word of God? If they are not prevented, why is it OK for gays to attend Church-sponsored Sunday school and the divine service but not church-sponsored Boy Scouts?

Does LCMS prohibit LCMS member children from public school Enrollment? If not, why should LCMS prohibit boys from BSA just because the BSA allow openly gay members? I'm willing to bet there are a lot more openly gay boys in school than in scouts.

I've known gay people who attended WELS churches, but they did so with the understanding that they were seeking counsel and guidance on turning away from that lifestyle. Someone who was openly gay and not repentant about it would certainly be allowed to attend church, but with an admonishment that the church does not condone the sin. I mean, we're not gonna kick someone out of worship, but we're going to make it clear that the sin is not accepted. And this would be for ANY sin, not just homosexuality.

I believe the LCMS works similarly, but I'm sure DaRev can provide a much better reference point.


And yes, this is why the WELS has never joined forces with the BSA. We cannot show unity with people who don't believe the same things we do. I liken it to some of our congregations becoming schools of choice. They receive government funding, which is nice for the school and great for enrollment, but the minute the government intervenes (and at some point in time, it will) and tells them that they have to teach evolution and acceptance of alternative lifestyles, they'll be forced to lose the funding and the enrollment. And then it looks like they just did it for the money. Which, who knows why they did it in the first place...

Slippery slopes and religion never mix well.

 

[mirla]

I've known gay people who attended WELS churches, but they did so with the understanding that they were seeking counsel and guidance on turning away from that lifestyle. Someone who was openly gay and not repentant about it would certainly be allowed to attend church, but with an admonishment that the church does not condone the sin. I mean, we're not gonna kick someone out of worship, but we're going to make it clear that the sin is not accepted. And this would be for ANY sin, not just homosexuality.

I believe the LCMS works similarly, but I'm sure DaRev can provide a much better reference point.

...

Slippery slopes and religion never mix well.

I think I may be lost in the terminology. A PP had stated that an openly homosexual person who did not lust and did not act on their feelings should not be included. With that understanding, what part of the "lifestyle" is left to condemn? Are we to start analyzing everyone's "lifestyle" to find out if there are male members who may like show tunes too much or female members who get too much enjoyment from the Super Bowl? Or what are we talking about?

I can see refusing those who practice homosexuality, or who advocate it, or who have uncontrollable lust. But to refuse those who don't do anything about it except admit it? That's what I struggle with.

 

[DaRev]

I'm a bit confused.

Does the LCMS prevent non-practicing homosexuals from attending church or Sunday School? If they are prevented, where are lcms christians allowed to associate with them to share the word of God? If they are not prevented, why is it OK for gays to attend Church-sponsored Sunday school and the divine service but not church-sponsored Boy Scouts?

Does LCMS prohibit LCMS member children from public school Enrollment? If not, why should LCMS prohibit boys from BSA just because the BSA allow openly gay members? I'm willing to bet there are a lot more openly gay boys in school than in scouts.

I'm not sure where your confusion comes from. There's a big difference between acknowledging and embracing/condoning a sin. One cannot be forgiven without repentance, and one cannot repent without being confronted with God's word of law. So, of course one who struggles with the sin of homosexuality is able to attend church. That's where the Word is preached and where the pastor can counsel in order to help the sinner repent and seek God's forgiveness.

Having said that, the LCMS does not, cannot, and will not accept, embrace, or condone any sin. The very fact that the BSA has chosen to accept openly homosexual members is an indication that it is something they intend to accept and promote. The Church cannot condone such a policy. If the BSA did not intend to openly embrace homosexuality, the issue would have been handled differently. Members' would be encouraged to keep their sexual preferences to themselves. Instead, they have voted to make such preferences a matter of public record.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I think I may be lost in the terminology. A PP had stated that an openly homosexual person who did not lust and did not act on their feelings should not be included. With that understanding, what part of the "lifestyle" is left to condemn? Are we to start analyzing everyone's "lifestyle" to find out if there are male members who may like show tunes too much or female members who get too much enjoyment from the Super Bowl? Or what are we talking about?

I can see refusing those who practice homosexuality, or who advocate it, or who have uncontrollable lust. But to refuse those who don't do anything about it except admit it? That's what I struggle with.

What is a PP?

And what do you mean by refuse?


Remember, we're talking about openly gay people here. I also have a few friends who would find your stereotypes sorely lacking. I hope that was tongue-in-cheek on your part.

 

[mirla]

I'm not sure where your confusion comes from. There's a big difference between acknowledging and embracing/condoning a sin. One cannot be forgiven without repentance, and one cannot repent without being confronted with God's word of law. So, of course one who struggles with the sin of homosexuality is able to attend church. That's where the Word is preached and where the pastor can counsel in order to help the sinner repent and seek God's forgiveness.

Having said that, the LCMS does not, cannot, and will not accept, embrace, or condone any sin. The very fact that the BSA has chosen to accept openly homosexual members is an indication that it is something they intend to accept and promote. The Church cannot condone such a policy. If the BSA did not intend to openly embrace homosexuality, the issue would have been handled differently. Members' would be encouraged to keep their sexual preferences to themselves. Instead, they have voted to make such preferences a matter of public record.

Ok. This is how i understand your response... The issue is not with homosexual scouts being allowed in as an individual. We would allow them in our scout troops the same way we would in the church service. The issue is a fear that the BSA organization itself is showing acceptance and an intent to embrace homosexuality, and that we therefore don't want to associate with the organization for fear that we would be condoning the BSA's intent. Is that right?

If so, my confusion is due to a difference in my reading of the BSA ruling. I do not see them as embracing or showing acceptance of homosexuality itself. I see them only embracing and accepting the boys who struggle with this, just as the church should. Perhaps that is a misread on my part.

 

[mirla]

What is a PP?

And what do you mean by refuse?


Remember, we're talking about openly gay people here. I also have a few friends who would find your stereotypes sorely lacking. I hope that was tongue-in-cheek on your part.

Pp = previous posters. This is my interpretation of how the discussion had taken place. I can't see other posts when I write my responses.

Refuse = deny admittance. To kick them to the curb. It sounds like people are saying, as soon as someone says they are gay, we need to kick them out of the scouts. I am wondering if that is the policy of the LCMS, that we deny them access to the church if they admit homosexuality.

I am talking about homosexuals who are not lusting, do not have a gay partner, and do not intend to have a gay partner, but have told people they are gay. I am interpreting the thread here to say they should not be allowed in BSA because they are "openly gay." I am struggling to figure what "Lifestyle" such a person has that they must turn away from to be in BSA. I struggled with writing those stereotypes because I do not believe in them, but could not think of another way to convey how lost i feel. I frankly find the stereotype statement ridiculous. I see how it could be read otherwise, however, and apologize to anyone I may have offended.

 

[Aibrean]

In my opinion "openly gay" means they aren't dealing with their sin. It's not something to flaunt. Labeling it a lifestyle makes it seem "normal", when it's not.

Even in a church service, they would be denied communion.

 

[DaRev]

Ok. This is how i understand your response... The issue is not with homosexual scouts being allowed in as an individual. We would allow them in our scout troops the same way we would in the church service. The issue is a fear that the BSA organization itself is showing acceptance and an intent to embrace homosexuality, and that we therefore don't want to associate with the organization for fear that we would be condoning the BSA's intent. Is that right?

If so, my confusion is due to a difference in my reading of the BSA ruling. I do not see them as embracing or showing acceptance of homosexuality itself. I see them only embracing and accepting the boys who struggle with this, just as the church should. Perhaps that is a misread on my part.

It has to do with their accepting "openly gay" members. If it was only those "who struggle with this" it would not be an open issue. As far as I understand, there was never an issue with those "who struggle" to join the Boy Scouts as long as it wasn't an open issue. I'm certain that those who desired would receive counseling by leaders or clergy. But now it's an open issue that is being accepted and embraced by the BSA.

Those who struggle are certainly accepted in the Church to receive counseling to lead to repentance. But the lifestyle is never to be accepted or embraced.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Pp = previous posters. This is my interpretation of how the discussion had taken place. I can't see other posts when I write my responses.

You can review the last 10 posts of the thread while you're typing, assuming you're on a computer and not a mobile version.

Refuse = deny admittance. To kick them to the curb. It sounds like people are saying, as soon as someone says they are gay, we need to kick them out of the scouts. I am wondering if that is the policy of the LCMS, that we deny them access to the church if they admit homosexuality.

I am talking about homosexuals who are not lusting, do not have a gay partner, and do not intend to have a gay partner, but have told people they are gay. I am interpreting the thread here to say they should not be allowed in BSA because they are "openly gay." I am struggling to figure what "Lifestyle" such a person has that they must turn away from to be in BSA. I struggled with writing those stereotypes because I do not believe in them, but could not think of another way to convey how lost i feel. I frankly find the stereotype statement ridiculous. I see how it could be read otherwise, however, and apologize to anyone I may have offended.

Depends on if they are repentant. If they say "I'm gay and I was born that way and this is normal" and do not wish to turn from it, then they will be handled as Matthew 18 commands us to handle them.

I have a dear dear friend who struggles with same-sex attraction. She is married to her husband, has children, but has to see her pastor every week because she struggles. She is repentant and she knows it is wrong. This would not be living the gay lifestyle.

 

[Luther073082]

In my opinion "openly gay" means they aren't dealing with their sin. It's not something to flaunt. Labeling it a lifestyle makes it seem "normal", when it's not.

Even in a church service, they would be denied communion.

It has to do with their accepting "openly gay" members. If it was only those "who struggle with this" it would not be an open issue. As far as I understand, there was never an issue with those "who struggle" to join the Boy Scouts as long as it wasn't an open issue. I'm certain that those who desired would receive counseling by leaders or clergy. But now it's an open issue that is being accepted and embraced by the BSA.

Those who struggle are certainly accepted in the Church to receive counseling to lead to repentance. But the lifestyle is never to be accepted or embraced.

Openly gay just means they have homosexual attractions and they have admitted that publicly.

Personally I think it's high time we admit that we can't "cure" homosexuality. I do believe it's a defect, one brought on as the results of the condition of sin in this world. It's also a defect in which they can choose not to engage in, just because they have the attractions does not mean they have to engage in homosexual activity or lust. They will just have to treat it as something they will struggle with for their entire lives.

But my epilepsy is a similar defect (in that in comes from the condition of sin and can not be cured.)

 

[Luther073082]

I think I may be lost in the terminology. A PP had stated that an openly homosexual person who did not lust and did not act on their feelings should not be included. With that understanding, what part of the "lifestyle" is left to condemn? Are we to start analyzing everyone's "lifestyle" to find out if there are male members who may like show tunes too much or female members who get too much enjoyment from the Super Bowl? Or what are we talking about?

I can see refusing those who practice homosexuality, or who advocate it, or who have uncontrollable lust. But to refuse those who don't do anything about it except admit it? That's what I struggle with.

This is sort of my point, lots of sinners in an organization like that. Why the targeting of homosexuals.

Heck it's the boy scouts. Even if they are lusting or acting upon it. . . so what? They arn't there to teach that homosexuality is ok, they arn't there to upset church teaching. They are there because they want to be part of the boy scouts.

Unless they are a part of the church, it's not really our business what they do in their free time. (1 Cor 5:9-13)

As long as they don't engage in teaching it in the church.

 

[Luther073082]

It's not about comfort level so I don't buy this. But I'm not sure you got my points.

Point 2:
Regardless of what you say, by including them they are teaching something. They send a message that the behavior is acceptable. If the BSA solution was separate shower houses, separate gay troops ... something like that, then they highlight that there is a difference in the same way it is highlighted by allowing us to have a separate religious service.

But that's not what the gay community wants. My guess is that they will not accept a "separate but equal" solution because it doesn't send the message they want - doesn't teach what they want.

I can understand separate shower houses or at least separate shower times. But outside of that sort of thing, how in the world does having a gay boy in the camp force any sense of communion upon your son?

No need to have freaking gay troops. They are members of our society and our community, no matter if you like that fact or not.

Point 3:
I've heard this "it doesn't bother me" line before. Come on. I suspect the reason it doesn't bother you is because you haven't actually had to face the situation before. Maybe you've been in the shower with a gay man, but it wasn't in your face. The first time you get hit on while you're naked, I think you'll change your mind.

I've known gay people in the past and been friends with them. I would not be at all bothered by changing in a locker room in front of them. If some man I did not know hit on me, it's a quite simple process of saying "Sorry I'm not gay." or "Sorry I'm straight" Just like if a woman hit on me I'd say "Sorry I'm married."

If you came home and found your wife in the shower with another man, what would be your reaction? And if they said, "Come on, we're all mature adults here. We can handle this without a problem," would you say, "Oh, OK. Go right ahead."

I'm not talking about showering with them. I'm talking about changing in the same locker room in a public place with them. There is a major difference between taking a shower with them and sharing a locker room. Total straw-man argument there.

Don't you remember what your middle school locker room was like? I do. I don't see how this is going to work. There will be an incident. Not only am I worried about my son, but the safety of the first boy who announces he is a homosexual and they gets beaten in the shower for it.

If the boys in the BSA are willing to beat someone up because he came out as gay then those kids are the kids I'm worried about my son being around. Not the gay kid. This isn't freaking prison, or at least it shouldn't be.

And I remember middle school locker rooms only because 3 kids at the same time used to bully me daily there and the gym teacher doing his level best to never notice. Mostly because I was smaller I suppose, of course the fact that it was 3 on 1 never really helped either. Wouldn't have remembered it otherwise, changing in front of other guys didn't really bother me.

Besides if you are so bothered by the idea that your son may change in front of them in the boy scouts, why are you not concerned about this in gym class at school?

 

[Resha Caner]

I can understand separate shower houses or at least separate shower times. But outside of that sort of thing, how in the world does having a gay boy in the camp force any sense of communion upon your son?

No need to have freaking gay troops. They are members of our society and our community, no matter if you like that fact or not.

You seem to have overlooked some of what I said ... and I also get the impression I'm upsetting you. If you're not involved with the BSA (which is also my impression) it's not worth an argument.

But, to reiterate, I doubt the gay community will accept separate showers.

Further, living nearby someone is much different than living in a community with them - spending a week at a camp with them. The "communion" might possibly be forced. I don't know that it will, but I expect the pressure will continue to increase. At work we have to sit through "diversity training". Suppose the BSA does something similar. A gay boy is chosen to share his experiences with the troop. Will we be allowed to share our view as well? I doubt it.

I'm not talking about showering with them. I'm talking about changing in the same locker room in a public place with them. There is a major difference between taking a shower with them and sharing a locker room. Total straw-man argument there.

How is this not what we're talking about? I take it you've never been to a BSA camp. Some of the shower houses are just an open room with a line of shower heads. The boys shower together.

You seem to miss my point. I expect it doesn't bother you because you've never been attracted to a man, so you don't even think about it when you're around them. That was my reason for making the comparison to showering with women. How many women would be comfortable with showering in front of you? That is what is happening here. That you can't see that may mean you're not sensitive to the issue, but the issue is there nonetheless.

If the boys in the BSA are willing to beat someone up because he came out as gay then those kids are the kids I'm worried about my son being around. Not the gay kid. This isn't freaking prison, or at least it shouldn't be.

Speaking of straw men ... or red herrings ... or whatever you think you're doing with this comment. I'm worried about it too. It does happen, but not because the BSA is comparable to a prison or because the boys in the BSA are any different than any other boys. It happens because there is sin in the world.

Maybe another missing element here is you unfamiliarity with BSA rules. Adults are not allowed in the boys bathrooms/showers/tents. So there are no adults to supervise these situations. The boys are trained to supervise each other ... with the older boys having more responsibility than the younger. Though, if it gets serious, the adults do step in ... and it does sometimes.

And I remember middle school locker rooms only because 3 kids at the same time used to bully me daily there and the gym teacher doing his level best to never notice.

So was your school like a prison? Was your school worse than others? Those are rhetorical questions as I'm sure you realize. But a real question would be: Do these boys need any more to deal with than they already do? Maybe we adults should step up and face these problems for what they are rather than pretending like it's not an issue.

Besides if you are so bothered by the idea that your son may change in front of them in the boy scouts, why are you not concerned about this in gym class at school?

Who said I'm not? Here is not the place to share the details of what my boys deal with at their schools.

 

[Luther073082]

Resha for the record I'm not at all interested in this debate from the prospective of being inside the BSA. That is for them to handle.

You are right I've never been involved with the BSA.

My interest in this debate has more to do with if the LCMS is gonna suddenly throw the BSA out because they started accepting homosexual members.

My feelings are that I've never trusted the BSA because they take an on the fence attitude towards religion by making it that everyone must believe in God but it doesn't matter which one.

Instead they should either declare total neutrality towards religion or pick a religion. Don't sit on the fence. Groups who sit on the fence like this can not be trusted.

The LCMS IMO should have either dumped them when they started bringing in members who worship false Gods or just accept this the way it is as long as the BSA does not try to teach that homosexual activity is acceptable.

 

[Resha Caner]

My feelings are that I've never trusted the BSA because they take an on the fence attitude towards religion by making it that everyone must believe in God but it doesn't matter which one.

I agree and disagree with you. I also hate that the BSA is on the fence regarding religion.

But so are many other organizations, and many are hostile. Since you brought it up, what should the LCMS position be on public schools? Teachers can't express their faith, and it's becoming increasingly difficult for students to do it as well. Should the LCMS abandon public education and provide parochial education for all its members? My church did that at one time, but gave it up because of the expense.

So, back to Scouts, should the LCMS abandon the Scouts or fight for it? It's not easy to answer when that point comes. Maybe that time has come, but it's not an easy answer. It's not as if we've been inactive with respect to religion in the Scouts. Rather, what we have to admit is that we appear to have been rather ineffective about it ... at least at an organizational level.

Given the definite benefits that I have seen Scouts providing the boys in our troop, I think that if the LCMS decides to abandon Scouts, they need to develop and support an alternative.

 

[Luther073082]

I agree and disagree with you. I also hate that the BSA is on the fence regarding religion.

But so are many other organizations, and many are hostile. Since you brought it up, what should the LCMS position be on public schools? Teachers can't express their faith, and it's becoming increasingly difficult for students to do it as well. Should the LCMS abandon public education and provide parochial education for all its members? My church did that at one time, but gave it up because of the expense.

Public schools in my experience having been to them up until I went to college are more or less neutral on religious faith.

It's never really been difficult in most circumstances for students to express their faith. Students who want to pray during down times can pray. If they want to read their bible during down times, they can read their bible. You can maybe find a couple instances where a teacher went overboard, but the reality on the ground does not see students being in trouble for praying before eating lunch.

My school also allowed Christian groups such as FCA to organize at the school.

Teachers are not allowed to conduct class wide or school wide prayers which I fully support. Nor are they allowed to teach their faith which I also support.

Again just because something doesn't have a religious component to it, doesn't mean it's bad. Instruction on matters of religion should come from the family and from the church.

Why the heck would I want teachers in a public school teaching my child religion or leading prayers? You never know that teacher could be a Baptist, Reformed. . . or even a Jew or Hindu...

Quite frankly I find the solution of not having organized discussions on matters of faith in public schools to be the best solution there is. I've never understood the Christian objection to all of this other then a complete inability to accept that not everyone in this country, in fact in reality is that for all practical purposes the majority of people in this country are not Christians. Most do not attend church on a regular basis. Even fewer accept the scriptures as having any moral authority. We are for all practical purposes a minority. We should learn how to operate like it again.