The Boy Scouts of America made the news recently for their proposal to allow gay scouts, but to continue banning gay leaders. Up to this point, gay scouts have been banned.
You can read the NBC News article on it here.
I recently posted a blog series based on a sermon I did with Jim Decke entitled “Gay Christian”. In this series, a commenter, Jeff, pointed out that Christians typically choose to vote against gay marriage based on our biblical conviction that homosexual acts are a sin. But that this stance in and of itself is hypocritical because we don’t vote to take civic/legal rights away from other people who do things we believe are sins, such as premarital sex, viewing pornography, or any other personal sin along the list like pride, anger, etc. You can read more about Jeff’s point in my post on gay marriage, and how I agreed with him.
I bring these up because I think they also need to apply to a Christian’s view on the Boy Scouts’ homosexual policy controversy.
I found one of the quotes from the article particularly interesting:
“This resolution would introduce open homosexuality into the ranks and eventually the leadership of Scouting,” Perkins said in a statement. “This is totally unacceptable to the vast majority of Scouting parents who want to keep their exclusive right to discuss issues of sexuality with their sons.”
This quote suggests that it is actually possible to completely shelter your child from outside influences, which in actuality is not possible and when is attempted, is extremely damaging to a child. While yes, a parent needs to show discernment in protecting their children from certain influences, they also need to prepare their child for the real world, and prepare their child to make their own decisions someday.
The quote also assumes that sexuality will be a primary topic of conversation at scouting events. First we’ll learn how to make an arrowhead, then we’ll learn about sex. I’m pretty sure there will be no merit badge on that any time soon.
I think the topic of homosexuality brings up a lot of fear. The “vast majority of Scouting parents” mentioned seem concerned with their sons going on overnight camping trips with gay leaders, or being around gay leaders in general. These parents (and Christians who may hold similar views) need to understand a few things:
- There are gay people in the world. (I address different types/situations of being gay here)
- Attempting to completely avoid them is silly, as well as unloving and unkind. And teaching your child to do the same is even worse. As Christians, this is the last thing we should be doing.
- Your child is not at any further risk of being molested by a gay person than by a straight person. Or by someone you think is a straight person who actually is bisexual, but you didn’t know it / can’t tell. My point here is, it’s the Boy Scouts of America’s job to not put your child into any vulnerable situations. “Vulnerable” means any situation where there is only one adult around, which means there is no accountability, or around adults who don’t pass a background check. If you don’t trust the Boy Scouts to do this, then don’t leave your child in their care at all. But is your child more at risk with one gay leader and one straight leader compared to two straight leaders? No. To tell a gay person they can’t watch your children because you’re afraid they’ll molest them is first and foremost very ignorant and uneducated. Worse than this, it’s very unloving and insulting; again, the last thing a Christian should be doing.
I write this because much like the gay marriage debate, Christians need to be consistent and not confuse religious rights (i.e. church membership, which are based on having the same faith beliefs) with civic / human rights. And we also need to realize when we rail on policies like this, it gives the wrong message to the GLBT community, which creates an unnecessary chasm. And as already mentioned, the message given is inconsistent in its rationale.
Fact: The Bible says homosexual acts are a sin.
It also says a whole lot of other things are sins.
But we don’t create these chasms with these “whole lot of other things” sins, like premarital sex for example. We only do it with the homosexual community, many of whom are not even Christians (yet we are trying to hold them to Christian standards).
So there’s likely something deeper at play here.
It’s easier to preach judgment about a sin I don’t struggle with than it is about one that I do.
It’s a lot easier to point the finger at someone else, than it is to point it at myself.
It’s a lot easier to ban people from civic groups than it is to ban myself.
Related posts:
He is:
Author of Beyond the Battle: A man's guide to his identity in Christ in an oversexualized world
Host of the The Flip Side Podcast
Join an online men's small group led by Noah and team at BeyondTheBattle.net
Indeed. So your kids might end up knowing a gay person – gasp! That is pretty much the end of the effect on your kids. Gay does not equal pedophile, and as you also pointed out, they won’t be sitting around a campfire telling the kids about their sex lives.
I wonder if the issue is less about the sin of homosexuality and more about how other sins have become so accepted as regular, expected behavior. If there was less premarital sex, there would be a lot fewer unwanted and unplanned pregnancies and many fewer abortions as well as a lower incident rate of STDs. All of that leaves aside the emotional ramifications of sexual involvement, and whether or not one is prepared or old enough for it. While I believe that Satan loves to use shame as one of his favorite weapons, I also think that we’ve lost a sense of propriety. We allow ourselves to engage in all sorts of behavior that would have been considered unacceptable years ago. I wouldn’t want to go back to the days of secrecy and shame, when spousal abuse and pedophilia were thought to be practically non-existent; those problems existed just as much then as today. But I’m having a problem with the idea that some sins are more okay than others.
Thanks for the comment Kim. I think there are different ways sins end up getting categorized: the sins Christians commit/struggle with (we don’t want to legislate against these, nor speak too harshly about them), the sins Christians generally don’t struggle with/commit (we love to legislate against these/speak harshly about) — some in this category are things society agrees with us on (e.g. murder, theft, etc.) whereas others are things society does not agree with us on (e.g. homosexual acts) — but my point is I think we end up being a lot like the Pharisees where we like to preach at other people’s sins, while not being consistent in speaking against the sins that we struggle with (e.g. pride, anger, impatience, greed, etc.) as well as the ones we commit but aren’t repentant of (e.g. premarital sex, lust, divorce, etc.) and this latter category, the sins Christians commit but don’t seem to care / are unrepentant of, are starting to blend in with the the first category of the things we no longer want to speak truth about, because they are things we don’t want to give up / be held accountable on
Saying, “to allow gay scouts” isn’t really accurate and points out what you are trying to work through in your article, entitled, “Can a Gay Christian still identify themselves as “Gay”?”
I tried to work though the vocabulary issues related to the articles written about the Boy Scouts recent policy change. I wrote this after reading the article about the SBC perspective:
Yup, I thought the language would be unclear and it is in regards to the SBC and the Boy Scouts:
http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2013/05/21/southern-baptist-convention-rejects-the-boy-scouts-proposed-compromise/
These are some questions that came to my mind out of this article:
· What is avowed?
· What is open homosexual?
· What is avowed homosexual?
· But bisexual scoutmasters – they are still okay to lead a troop….? Since they aren’t gay…, or are they?
· So would they allow an sga-nga boy in their scout troops?
Even Albert Mohler wouldn’t agree with, “Southern Baptists do not believe embracing same-sex orientation is biblically acceptable”. He would say that it is good to embrace the orientation (to be honest about your attractions) but not to pursue same sex sexual behavior.
Again, what does openly homosexual mean? Does this mean someone is engaged in homosexual behavior…, or does it mean that homosexual behavior that is conducted in the open……….?
Is it okay that straight scouts just have sexual exploration experiences with each other? Since they aren’t openly homosexual in terms of their orientation.
I was even amazed at the different definitions of the word, avowed. And just look at how these various synonyms of avowed could be viewed:
Synonyms:
accepted, acknowledged, admitted, affirmed, avowedly, professed
So, do you get the idea that these folks in the SBC, who are writing this article and such, want sga+ boys to just hide their sga? Or to be changed? Or to be single for life? Or what?
Or do they just want you to still feel shame if you are sga-nga, so that you are not avowed:
· 1: to declare assuredly
· 2: to declare openly, bluntly, and without shame
Again, remember Jonathan Merritt. He is ridiculed by gay activists for being sga-nga.
Still, do you feel that Albert Mohler is compassionate in this article, where he is trying to address the sga-nga position (somewhat): http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=40413
It’s amazing how he isn’t clear about whether his usage of the word, homosexuals, refers to behavior, identity or attraction.
So, in my mind, even this article by him is a mess.
I wrote this about the Boy Scouts vote:
Yes, this is positive,
The Scouts put out this kind of interesting note about sexual orientation v. sexual behavior:
We are unaware of any major religious chartered organization that believes a youth member simply stating he or she is attracted to the same sex, but not engaging in sexual activity, should make him or her unwelcome in their congregation.
However, I don’t think this is the issue of why the Boy Scouts changed their policy. It wasn’t for those boys who were sga-nga, but those who were openly gay and most likely sexually active.
So, hummmmmmm. Reading through the entire membership resolution points of clarification article link….
But just because they say that any sexual conduct of scouts is contrary to the virtues of scouting or that sexual conduct needs to be appropriate and moral, that doesn’t seem very clear about where that “moral” activity (or lack thereof) pertains to (outside of scouting events, or just within them…?), and what any given scout views as moral and appropriate, (remember the definition today isn’t even long-term, but just “loving committed” or what sexual activity is (does this include masturbation…? or just sexual conduct with another person) and what do they define as “sexual” in the context of sexual conduct…?
So, I’m not so sure what the clarification actually clarifies.