Boy Scouts of America vs. Church, unfortunately

I wrote the following a few weeks ago as a guest column for the Beaumont Enterprise, a Hearst Publication.

I didn’t know exactly what I felt.  The maelstrom swarming in my brain included anger, sadness, frustration, disappointment, confusion, and disgust.  The morning paper carried a title on the front page: Orangefield Church Drops Boy Scout Ties.

Reading further, I learned that the First Christian Church of Orangefield had withdrawn its sanction of BSA Pack 125 in response to the national organization's recent decision to allow openly gay boys to participate in scouting. 

Reading on, Section A later included a letter from a Mr. Radley of Sour Lake in which he condemned the national organization and made a baseless and illogical leap from the effort of some to push toward inclusion of openly gay adults to pedophilia.  It seems that the lack of foundation in his semantics should be enough to dismiss his allegation, but if you require more facts, look at the studies conducted by Groth and Birnbaum (1978), Freund et al. (1989), and Jenny et al. (1994).

None of these studies concluded any connection whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia.  Radley's fear is as baseless as his argument.  The anecdote upon which he claims his fear is based only supports the fact that pedophiles have, according to Radley, long been involved in scouting despite the fact that openly gay men have not.

I feel compelled, though, to return to the original reason for my dismay.  Daily, I struggle with the inconsistency of so many people in my midst who call themselves Christian.  I fail to understand the decision-making paradigm of an individual who wears a bracelet or displays a bumper sticker touting the slogan "W.W.J.D." while ignoring the very things that the Bible teaches us Jesus did actually do.  Jesus accepted.  Jesus included.  Jesus welcomed prostitutes, thieves, pagans - none were exceptions to His grace and hospitality.  He most decidedly did not turn away the children (Mark 9:37).

My tendency, as a Christian, is to place greater emphasis upon the edicts in the New Testament than upon those in the Old Testament.  In His wisdom, Jesus crushed much of the old law in favor of a new life built upon love.  I can find only one reference to homosexuality in all of the New Testament, one I have heard espoused in arguments forbidding the acceptance of homosexuals in the church.  In Paul's First Letter to Timothy, he writes that the "...law is made for the...ungodly and sinful...for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality..." (1 Timothy 1:9). 

But quoting scripture has, in my experience, often been the hallmark of persons desiring to make a point by taking a handful of words out of their proper context.  This is a case in point, for in that same letter, Paul says that the goal of his command is love (1 Timothy 1:5) and that he is grateful to God for His mercy (1 Timothy 1:13).  Shouldn’t we endeavor to follow the examples of love and mercy rather than holding strictly to a single tenet of a system of laws with which even Christ often took issue?  Read Paul’s letter to the Galatians and consider.

When I, in my life, ask the question "What would Jesus do?", I consistently come to a number of like-minded conclusions: He would welcome, He would love, He would not judge, He would not expel, He would include, He would embrace.  I find it morally inconsistent and socially reprehensible that the First Christian Church of Orangefield has the audacity to continue its existence with the word "Christian" in its name given its intolerant response to the BSA's decision to include.  It would be inconsistent for me to condemn the church for their response, but I cannot in any way support, condone, or appreciate it.

My wife and I have many openly gay friends - men and women.  Each of these is among those whom I hold in the greatest esteem and highest regard.  We have trusted an openly gay couple to supervise our children.  If they remain open to it, we will do so again without hesitation.   On the other hand, I know a number of heterosexual individuals to whom I would not entrust the security and well-being of our houseplants or of a pet goldfish.  Where does that leave the question of sexual identity and trust?  It's very simple.  One has nothing to do with the other.

Research has not been able to support the myth that gays or lesbians pose any threat to the safety and security of our nation's children.  Exclusion is the product of fear and ignorance, and it leads to malice and hatred (see Mein Kampf for one historical exploration of these ideas). 

Based on these tenets, I remain at a loss with regard to the actions of the First Christian Church of Orangefield except that I would apologize on behalf of all Christians to the boys of Pack 125 who endeavor to better themselves and their communities but are left with nowhere to do that because of the insecurity of a group of misguided adults.  My prayers are with them all.