Boy Scouts: a Lament and Prognosis, Part III

Tags

Barton Gingerich, Boy Scouts, Boy Scouts of America, BSA, character, chivalry, ethics, gay, LGBT, masculinity, morality, relativism, truth, virtue

The Boy Scout Memorial in Washington, DC. “[The Scout] is flanked by two much larger allegorical figures of a man and a woman representing American Manhood and Womanhood and the ideals of the past which they will pass onto the youth.” O tempora! O mores! (Photo Credit: Wikipedia/Ken Thomas)

by Barton Gingerich (@bjgingerich)

So the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) will be facing several negative consequences for their decision to change membership standards, allowing for openly avowed gay youth. Last post, I wondered how the BSA leadership reached such a nadir in moral courage. There are no easy answers, but I think the current Scouting culture and society-at-large can offer at least the hint of an explanation.

First, as actual participants in the Scouting program know, the BSA is a very ecumenical organization. Nonsectarian membership standards (requiring only a belief in God) have been a longtime tradition for BSA because chivalry itself is nonsectarian. The first Boy Scout handbook referenced medieval knights as models of courage, helpfulness, purity, and ability. In short, knights, at least in their imaginative signification, embodied an excellence of life, i.e. virtue. Hearkening back to Middle Age ideals reminded young boys of such characters as the Christian King Richard I or the Muslim Sultan Saladin. To the atheist’s ire, the BSA still believes that true virtue flows from a Higher Power. Nevertheless, pagan and Christian alike have achieved moral, philosophical, artistic, and even heroic goodness. Scouting provided an opportunity for boys to participate in that venerable tradition and to watch the good life carried out by leaders.

Because of this heritage and a nonpartisan political affiliation, the Boy Scout leadership has always striven to assure everyone got along—or, rather, that no one’s sensibilities got offended. To avoid organizational fractiousness (not too hard for an organization based on outdoorsmanship, patriotism, and practical know-how), leaders had to assume a philosophical agnosticism. Scouting’s official principles had to be universally acceptable to everyone who was or might be involved with the program, though varying perspectives were always welcomed to the table. Politeness was not just expected from the boys; leaders (including those on the National Council) had to practice a mannerly irenic spirit. In other words, the habits formed the character of the organization.

This was a relatively easy enough task during the Edwardian period of the Boy Scouts’ founding, as well as for most of the twentieth century in Hometown, America. Any age that recognizes and admires true chivalry would make moral sensibilities easy to acquire and expect from others. But what happens when social mores change? Can civic institutions stand alone against shifts or, if you’re of an older school, decay? Virtuous masculinity does not find a welcome home in a world under the iron boot of moral relativism, feminism, self-realization, and individualism. As this fascinating contrast indicates, the Boy Scouts have tried to evolve with the times; nevertheless, there was always an assumption that the nebulous moral core would remain the same. A few Eagles I talked to ruefully admitted, “It was only a matter of time, I guess. I just didn’t think it would be today.”

The ecumenical setup of the Boy Scouts worked fine as long as the ethical environment in society-at-large remained healthy. Sooner or later, the moral formation of the day (or lack thereof) would bring change to those going into and later leading the program. In this particular case, absolute tolerance and sexual liberation have become the new golden rules. After all, being “nice” and tolerant is all we are taught to do as moral beings. As Bruce Frohnen points out, we live in a society that’s now fearful of permanent things. In fact, ours is a nation that seems to fear civilizations (past or present) that believed and loved the ordered and permanent, a vestige of which resides in the Scout Law, properly understood and applied.

When the Alphabet Mafia finds a handful of disconcerted activists among the ranks, why should the organization suddenly come down hard on a fractious issue? Outside forces (and now forces within the BSA) seek to offer a new, authoritative interpretation of the Scout Oath and Law. Nothing is wrong with identity politics, right? Those supporters of ours—who provide the actual facilities, funds, and manpower for our free organization—are on the wrong side of history. Add some corporate donation money, and you will see C. S. Lewis’s observation in The Abolition of Man played out on the world stage: “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

So should I have been surprised? Even though I’ve kept somewhat abreast of my civilization’s descent into barbarity, I still breathe as one who’s spent half of my life in the Boy Scouts program. Though the organization has not fully folded to the LGBT agenda yet, change is coming. I still clench to the mad hope that the BSA can be recovered in time, even in a hostile culture. But I also realize that this institution isn’t the one guaranteed the One True Hope.

Boy Scouts: a Lament and Prognosis, Part II

Tags

Barton Gingerich, Boy Scouts, Boy Scouts of America, BSA, Church, gay, LGBT, morality, sexuality

(Photo Credit: Front Page Magazine)

by Barton Gingerich (@bjgingerich)

Last week, I analyzed the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) National Council’s foolish decision to change membership standards, lifting bans on open avowed homosexual youth. I foresee four scenarios of fallout due to the national leadership’s betrayal of the majority of its supporters and participants.

1. Someway, somehow, the BSA pulls an about-face before January 1, 2014 rolls around (that is the date set for implementation of the new policy). I could see the cohort down at OnMyHonor.net pulling something together at the last minute. The Scouting community at large definitely would want to finesse the language in order to bring the program back into the protective walls of Dale, at the very least. Indeed, many level-headed church leaders currently advise congregations and parents to wait out the controversy to see if things can be turned around in time. This is the ideal situation.

2. The BSA—an organization already in decline—will suffer a hemorrhage of otherwise loyal members, hastening its extinction. Many boys will be cut off from Scouting altogether. Whether or not the new standards would somehow stave off homosexual practices within troops and crews, parents—especially of a religious persuasion—will vote with their feet and funds. Unlike their more petulant and childish opposition, they realize the BSA is voluntary and free. They think there would be little use to protest such a key policy within the organization itself. Since Scout leadership caved into cultural pressure due to moral cowardice on this one decision, what else will they compromise on in the coming years? This is a very individualistic response, and thus the most American—expect to see such membership shifts in the coming months.

3. Religious parents, the largest of the wronged parties, will retreat to their denominational ghettos. They will participate in inferior camping programs like Royal Rangers, Royal Ambassadors, and the Calvinist Cadet Corps. To put it bluntly, these institutions lack the facilities, resources, history, masculine ethos, requisite skillsets, and healthful diversity that have made the BSA such an approachable-yet-powerful force for good in the United States. The “healthful diversity” comment may sound off alarms for some people. Allow me to explain with a different organization: the Rotary Club is no church; on the other hand, the Church is no Rotary Club. In a world of religious plurality (part of what Tocqueville saw in American democracy), it is most helpful to interact with others in nondenominational civic societies outside the state.

4. A robust, nonsectarian alternative gets formed, and quickly enough to catch up disenfranchised Scouters from groups 2 and 3. This is an option of last resort. Most of the structure and practice could remain as the current BSA. Nevertheless, it seems as if there will need to be more philosophical structure to bolster boys’ moral framework. That is no easy task for the average Scouter. They may need help in drafting the handbook and other materials—natural law thinkers like Robert P. George come to mind.

Option 4 brings us to an important question: “How did we, the Boy Scouts of America, get here in the first place?” I do not refer to cultural shifts in the society at large—I mean how leaders in the organization thought it was a prudent idea to throw away years of court battle victories, tradition, and member beliefs for vacuous promises of ceased social slander. We’ll look at that in my next post.

Boy Scouts: a Lament and Prognosis, Part I

Tags

Barton Gingerich, Boy Scouts, Boy Scouts of America, BSA, gay, LGBT, sexuality

(Photo Credit: Flags Bay)

by Barton Gingerich (@bjgingerich)

A kick in the teeth.

That’s what last week’s vote felt like to many Americans. I refer to the Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA) decision to allow for openly gay youth membership, with 61% of the National Council in favor. The policy change will become effective January 1, 2014. I was away from the internet when the decision came down. Once I reached my email and social networks, I found myself in a large company of dismayed Scouters and supporters. Fellow Eagles wondered if they could lead troops or enroll their sons in good conscience. Pastors informed me that several parents have looked for counsel on whether to pull out their boys from the program.

It is important to distinguish two prongs of concern: present and future. At present, Scouts under the age of 18 can be open and avowed homosexuals. As far as I am aware, the BSA still forbids premarital sex (though it has never been a common topic around the campfire or merit badge class, as is the case for any matter of sexuality). Thus, sexual activity (whatever that means or constitutes) among boys would be forbidden. Some Christians are comfortable with this stance and see no problem with their congregations retaining BSA charters for packs, troops, and crews.

After all, while homosexual attraction is naturally disordered, homosexual acts are what actually count as sin. The language of the press statement and policy is that of “sexual orientation,” which—though it carries some serious philosophical baggage—would seem to mean attraction. Thus, many Scouters and alumni of the program should remain unperturbed about present conditions. Several of my friends agree with the assessment that it is fine to have any sexual  “orientation” and not act on it (at least within a troop or crew setting).

Perhaps. Even on face value, practical implications may yet disturb parents, leaders, and youth. Boy Scouts can still date when they are in the program—what will that mean for self-described gay boys? What behaviors, awkwardness, and scandals will result? When sexual identity is one’s identity, everything becomes sexualized. In addition, what if committed activists try recruit a transgender girl to sign up for BSA programs? Will the Boy Scouts have to draw another controversial line of sexual distinction?

It is ironic that all this is invading what is perceived (and remembered) as an organization free from the usual sexual tensions that adolescents face at school and other camping programs. The freedom, focus, and fraternity that BSA once offered to boys are at least threatened (pending local conditions). The Scouts are no longer a moral oasis in a pornographic desert.

The universal concern, however, with this decision is not the present policy but future changes and controversies that will erupt in the wake of the National Council vote. The famous Dale decision and its protections are thrown into legal jeopardy. The Supreme Court decided that the BSA could forbid openly gay leaders on the basis that its (former) sexual principles were a core tenet of organization’s identity. The California Senate has already voted to revoke the BSA’s tax-exempt status. No doubt other lawsuits and political attacks will come in the coming days.

Those culture warriors responsible for the recent membership change clamor for openly homosexual leaders. Carson Holloway sagely warns,

Whatever else one thinks about the new policy, this much is certain: It can’t last. No doubt many of the delegates thought they would be buying peace and quiet by enacting this compromise, but they are bound to be disappointed. The compromise policy’s short life is predictable, in the first place, in light of the kind of people it is meant to placate, people that the Scout delegates have seriously misjudged. Socially liberal political activists don’t believe in compromise. They believe in winning.

Every Eagle Scout and current Scouter I’ve talked to foresee the same.

In my next post, I’ll discuss what I think concerned parents, religious spokesmen, and leaders will do in light of the National Council’s decision as well as how the Scouts got into this pickle in the first place.

Boy Scouts Embrace Dull Conformity

Tags

Boy Scouts of America, Southern Baptist Convention

(Photo credit: LA Times)

By Mark Tooley (@MarkDTooley)

Despite the pleas of many religious leaders, the Boy Scouts of America National Council has approved a new membership policy of “non-discrimination” based on “sexual orientation or preference.”

During the session of 1,400 delegates, the BSA’s general counsel was reportedly unable to answer what this policy means for transsexuals. Cross-dressing Scouts? Only one of countless issues that inevitably now will arise under the rubric of protected “orientation or preference.” For a more likely scenario, how about teenage Scouts wanting openly to celebrate their pornographic interests? Could Scout leaders, many of them church based, object without inflicting “discrimination?”

About 70 percent of Scout units are church hosted, prompting about a dozen heads of or spokespersons for denominations—collectively including nearly 25 million members—to urge against the new policy. Among them were the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the Free Methodist Church, and the Church of God.

“Few, if any, are suggesting the Boy Scouts kick out boys based on their particular temptations,” commented Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore. “But this change is more than this. It doesn’t speak in terms of temptations but in terms of the claiming of a sexually politicized identity as morally neutral.”

Correct. The Boy Scouts, heroically retrograde for so long, have now surrendered to mind-numbing sexual political correctness. Its prohibition against openly homosexual Scoutmasters likely will not last long, since the forces of cultural conformity that BSA seeks to appease will demand that it be stricken.

Church-sponsored Scouting troops “will be pressured to mute a definition of ‘morally straight’ that includes a sexuality intended only for the lifelong one-flesh union of a man and a woman in marriage,” warned Moore, a theologian who’s becoming the head of his church’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “Depending on how radically the BSA applies this new policy to local troops, I suspect many will be seeking an alternative to the Boy Scouts to train up boys toward a life of virtue.”

Moore’s retiring predecessor, Richard Land, was even more emphatic. “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.”

A statement from the 3 million-member Assemblies of God concurred: “We agree with the BSA that we need to demonstrate compassion and welcome those who are struggling with sexuality issues, but not in a way that condones such behavior, which is what the new BSA policy does.” And it likewise predicted: “We believe that the BSA policy change will lead to a mass exodus from the Boy Scout program, as Assemblies of God and many other churches can no longer support groups that are part of an organization allowing members who are openly homosexual.” It cited as an alternative its own Royal Rangers group, which is similar to the Southern Baptist Convention’s Royal Ambassadors, as a “mentoring program” offering “Christlike character formation and servant leadership development for boys and young men.”

More cautiously, the chair of the National Catholic Committee on Scouting said after the BSA vote that the Church’s teaching “is clear that engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral,” and his committee will study the impact of the new policy on church Scouting before it activates in 2014. Catholic Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, Va., predicted his diocese likely would reconsider the 50 Scout troops its parishes sponsor.

An internal BSA report had admitted that abandoning its sexual standard for leaders and members could precipitate a membership decline in the hundreds of thousands. The report didn’t address the impact of changing only the membership policy. But almost certainly it will accelerate the BSA’s already steep drop from 3.4 million members in 2000 to less than 2.7 million in 2012, a fall of over 20 percent. The Canadian Scouts, after sexually liberalizing 15 years ago, lost 50 percent of their members.

Of course, officers of declining liberal denominations encouraged BSA to abandon its standard and embrace their own imploding example. The president of the United Church of Christ, which has lost about half its membership, urged BSA to adopt its own policy of “extravagant welcome,” without mentioning that UCC-style inclusion has lost the once influential church over a million members. Evidently such aggressive, politically correct hospitality can be costly. Or perhaps just enervatingly boring.

A male-only organization still steadfastly devoted to Victorian masculinity and Christian virtues could have become ruggedly countercultural and therefore appealing to many youth no doubt bored by their often emasculated schools and churches. Instead, the BSA corporate culture seems determined to echo the preening voice of the sort of nagging school guidance counselor whom every adolescent boy dreads and seeks to avoid.

So instead, the BSA is deciding the follow the disastrously predictable path of once mainstream but now dying institutions like the Episcopal Church, which gets occasional media plaudits for its sexual liberalism but is otherwise ignored. And like the Episcopal Church, the BSA of the future, after losing a million members or so, will probably rely on the endowments of the dead rather than the active interest of the living, much less the very young.

 

This blog post originally appeared as an article on the American Spectator website.

 

Boy Scouts Forced to Choose Sides in the Culture War

Tags

Albert Mohler, Baptist, Boy Scouts of America, evangelical, Luder Whitlock, Lutheran, Mark Tooley, Presbyterian, Richard Land, same-sex, Thomas Oden

(Photo credit: First Things)

By Mark Tooley (@MarkDTooley)

A group of mostly Protestant and evangelical church leaders, representing churches with over 20 million members, are asking the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) National Council meeting this week to retain the current BSA stance on sexuality. The May 22-24 meeting will consider a proposal to prohibit “discrimination” based on “sexual orientation or preference,” while leaving in place the current prohibition on openly homosexual Scout leaders.

Signers of the appeal to BSA include Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod President Matthew Harrison, Assemblies of God General Superintendent George Wood, Church of God General (Cleveland, TN) Overseer Mark Williams, and Archbishop Robert Duncan of the Anglican Church in North America, as well as theologians like Southern Baptist Albert Mohler, United Methodist Thomas Oden, and Presbyterian Luder Whitlock.

Here is their statement, which attracted about fifty prominent signers:

“We strongly support the Boy Scouts of America current prohibition on open homosexuality and retaining it without revision. Nearly 70 percent of BSA troops are hosted by churches and religious institutions. Upholding traditional morality is vital for sustaining this partnership, for protecting Scout members, and for ensuring BSA has a strong future. A proposal from the BSA board to prohibit “discrimination” based on “sexual orientation or preference” for BSA members potentially would open the Scouts to a wide range of open sexual expressions. In our current culture, it is more important than ever for our churches to protect and provide moral nurture for young people and for the Scouts. We implore members of the upcoming BSA Council to affirm the BSA’s present policy, which the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed, and which has served BSA well.”

In his own preamble to the statement, Rev. Harrison of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod warned the “proposed change will highlight sexuality, which has not been and should not be a matter of focus for Scouts.” And he suspects “it will make it more challenging to care for young people struggling with same-sex attraction and perhaps open our churches to legal action.” He also said the policy would supersede pastoral authority in churches with Scout units and could cause a “crisis of conscience for our church leaders, pastors, parents and congregations.” Harrison noted that “for more than a century, scouting has sought to uphold moral values at a level greater than that of general society,” and the “capitulation now to societal pressures would mar the long and honorable history of the Boy Scouts to honor the natural law of God, which at least for now, is still reflected in the current scouting membership policy.”

Richard Land, in his own separate May 15 letter to the Boy Scout leadership, warned that the proposed new policy would “cause many Southern Baptist churches, as well as many churches from other denominations, to withdraw their sponsorship rather than compromise their convictions.” He also said he was “perplexed” that the BSA “would abandon a century-old membership policy” less than a year after a 2 year study reaffirmed that policy “remains in the best interest of Scouting.”

In their own statement, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting cited Roman Catholicism’s teaching on chastity, and said the Church “reserves the right to seek to place those who live by its teachings in leadership positions that serve our youth, as well as the right to continue to call our young people to live by the teachings of our faith and by moral truth which can be known by all.”

Catholics are the third largest religious group involved in Scouting. Mormons are the most numerous, and their church effectively abstained from a public stance on the proposed new policy. United Methodists are the second most numerous, and their leaders in February asked BSA to defer any shift in policy until participating churches could review in a “thoughtful and prayerful manner.”

If the BSA National Council changes the membership policy, it will almost certainly create tensions between BSA and many of its participating religious congregations. Some may withdraw from BSA altogether and support religiously-based alternatives to Scouting. Meanwhile, many critics will not relent until BSA altogether abandons any restrictions on open sexual expression for members and leaders. The days of BSA as a culturally unifying icon are over, and BSA sadly will have to choose sides in the culture wars.

This blog post originally appeared on the First Things website as an article.