Part of me wants to be cute and suggest that there already is an organization for boys who wish they were girls. The Girls Scouts USA does accept transgender applicants; GSUSA has openly supported, actually promoted the LGBT agenda for years, even allowing lesbians to serve as leaders. With such an open and diverse attitude, I can't imagine how they could refuse a boy membership if he felt inclined to apply. This would allow the Boy Scouts to remain as it has for 103 years an organization for boys who want to learn to be men of character. Let the Girl Scouts handle the rest.
The foregoing makes perfect sense to me, but I know it is not realistic, nor is it the reason I fired up the computer this morning. I am troubled by the reaction of some "evangelical" Christian leaders to the decision by Boy Scouts of America (BSA) leadership this week to allow openly gay boys to join Boy Scout troops. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention said, “Frankly, I can’t imagine a Southern Baptist pastor who would continue to allow his church to sponsor a Boy Scout troop under these new rules,” he said, predicting “there will be a mass exodus of Southern Baptists and other conservative Christians from the Boy Scouts.”
The reason for my pique may seem petty, but I think it reveals a serious misstep by the church leaders in question. The issue revolves around the interpretation of the last phrase in the Boy Scout Oath (see below). A scout must pledge to be "morally straight." The pun is too obvious, but the meaning is at the core of the cultural battle we are currently fighting. What are the standards of morality by which we will judge behavior? Even if one allows the church leaders in question to find homosexual practice to be immoral, does this stance necessarily prohibit the involvement of boys who declare their sexual preference to be for other boys.
The dissatisfied church leaders seem to be implying that a boy with a moral position that differs from theirs is not acceptable in their organization. What if this standard were applied to church membership? If only morally perfect individuals were granted membership, the roles would decline to the remaining few who were either delusional or devoid of understanding. No honest person who understands the Scriptures would qualify. As I understand it, the church is not a gathering of those already perfect, but a collection of those wanting to be made perfect -- wanting to mend their immoral ways.
Most churches (except maybe Westboro Baptist) would allow gay boys to attend with the intention of "reforming" them. I chose the word "reform" purposely. Scripture teaches that we are all being reformed into the image of Christ daily. No one should be excluded except those who are militantly against reforming. If a boy says he is gay, but practicing "chastity" in his relationships, can he be considered the same as any other sinner. Compare this situation with a man who dabbles in pornography. As long as he is not browsing it on his smart phone during the service, would we exclude him? What about the gossip or the child who is regularly disobedient to her parents? Are these people to be excluded from the church?
What if the Boy Scouts were to say, as the church should, that gay boys are welcome as long as they are not practicing their preferences during scouting activities and would listen to the advice of those who would counsel them against a homosexual lifestyle. Does this differ from a scout policy towards a boy who is sexually active with girls? I assume scout leaders would counsel sexually active boys to curtail their activities in general; there are several reasons why the practice of any sexual activity would be inappropriate at scout-sponsored events. Why does it matter if the activity is hetero- or homosexual? The Scout Oath does call the boys to "do [their] duty to God." The question before the BSA is how to define that particular duty in light of today's culture.
There I go dreaming again. I was dreaming that the BSA leadership would be counseling boys against adopting a homosexual lifestyle, just as the church should. It is more likely that they will go the way of the Girl Scouts and fully embrace the LGBT lifestyle. That is the true meaning of the vote: it represents another loss for Christians in the culture war. But I still think the Christian leaders missed an opportunity to correct a misperception the public holds about us. We don't hate gays, nor do we (should we) exclude them from our churches out of hand. We welcome any boy who will listen to the truth and consider its claims on life. There but for the grace of God go we.
The Scout Oath says:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
