The decision by the Boy Scouts of America to cease across-the-board exclusion of gay scoutmasters, while allowing for local variance, yields a fascinating parallel for the United Methodist Church regarding LGBT inclusion.
The Boy Scout Solution…
The tents are a little bit more open. As recommended earlier this month by the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts of America, the BSA voted to change the qualifications for their paid and volunteer staff to allow for gay Boy Scout leaders.
In order to appease major religious sponsors like the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches, the BSA has offered up some provisos in lifting the ban when it comes to non-paying positions like troop leader. The new policy will still allow church-run troops to pick leaders who are in line with their world view.
A spokesman for the Boy Scouts said, “There are differences of opinion, and we need to be respectful of them. It doesn’t mean the Mormons have to pick a gay scoutmaster, but please don’t tell the Unitarians they can’t.” In other words, discrimination based on sexual orientation is still allowed in some Boy Scout troops.
It is not, as you see, an across-the-board requirement. It leaves individual troops to come up with their own qualifications, including orientation. So more progressive troops will allow gay leaders, and more conservative ones might not. It won’t solve the exclusion of volunteer positions across the organization, but it is a start (and all paid BSA staff are required to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation–across the board).
…to the Methodist Conundrum?
There’s another organization with thousands of units and a huge diversity regarding LGBT inclusion: The United Methodist Church. Could we learn from this solution for our current conflict over LGBT inclusion?
Turns out The UMC is already considering this solution. The BSA solution is remarkably similar to A Way Forward and the Connectional Table proposal, both written about previously on this blog. By allowing individual clergy or churches to decide whether they will facilitate all marriages, and allowing annual (regional) conferences to decide whether they will ordain open LGBT clergy, the proposals are remarkably similar to the BSA solution.
The BSA is a religious organization that exists for its mission of making healthy, happy, helpful citizens. The UMC is a religious organization that exists for its mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. Both of these organizations have much in common, but only one of these has decided the unifying mission can handle diversity in makeup of its leadership–and it’s not the United Methodist Church.
Test case: Mt. Bethel UMC, Marietta, Georgia
We should look at a test case to see how this scouting policy will impact local churches–and by extension, how a similar policy in the UMC might work.
To pick the worst-case scenario, we turn to Mt. Bethel UMC in Marietta, Georgia. This church is featured far too often on Hacking Christianity. First it was their withholding of apportionments due to opposition to LGBT inclusion. Then it was their job search for their senior pastor, in contrast to connectionalism. Now, we need to look at their scouting policy.
Back in 2013, Mt. Bethel responded to a possible across-the-board allowance of gay scouting volunteers in this way:
“In all honesty, if the
Scouts were to change their policy and become more gay-friendly with the idea of using scoutmasters, the church couldn’t support it,” said Randy Mickler, senior minister at Mt. Bethel United Methodist Church in Marietta…Mickler said he would be forced to kick them out if the National Boy Scouts of America moves forward with a policy that allows for gay scouts and leaders.
Today’s change in BSA policy activates their decision:
- Mt. Bethel can follow through on their threat and kick out their multiple troops, whom they even have a dedicated building to.
- Or Mt. Bethel can merely set the requirements for a troop to be hosted there to include exclusion of gay adult volunteers.
If Mt. Bethel chooses #2, they acknowledge that they can be part of a religious organization that allows gay scoutmasters–but in a NIMBY situation where they have the freedom to continue to exclude LGBT persons.
[At the same time, Mt. Bethel’s hosted troops (and future troops) have to decide whether they want to be housed by a church with an anti-gay policy.]
Now, in a theoretical sense, let’s say the CT or A Way Forward passes General Conference, and local United Methodist churches (or clergy) can decide to change their policy to allow all marriages to take place.
- Mt. Bethel can leave the UMC out of opposition to LGBT inclusion (losing their building in the process).
- Or Mt. Bethel can merely continue to only host straight weddings and set policies that affirm this.
By choosing #2 (and a large number of UM clergy/churches would likely choose this option), they acknowledge they can be part of a religious organization that allows gay weddings and clergy–but in a NIMBY situation where they have the freedom to continue to exclude LGBT persons.
The parallel is pretty much perfect. We’ll have to wait and see what they do (while keeping in mind they are far from representative of United Methodism) as an indicator of what the future of Methodism might look like come General Conference 2016.
A Way Forward?
The BSA will now handle diversity for the sake of kids everywhere. It’s not a just diversity as entire religious traditions and regions will continue to exclude LGBT leadership. But it’s a start.
Will the UMC in May 2016 at General Conference even start this small step down the road to a more just church? Only time will tell…well, only 286ish days until GC 2016 begins in Portland, Oregon.
In the meantime, how will your local church handle the change in BSA policy? And do you also see parallels with the proposals for the UMC?
Discuss. Thanks for reading.
I think it excellent you used Mt. Bethel as an example. I’m watching to see how this plays out for the BSA and The UMC.
As start? Not even the first step.
I hope you realize that you linked “NIMBY” to Wikipedia, which begins the definition thus: “Nimby is a pejorative characterization of opposition…” and, later, you find “…implying that they (opponents) have narrow, selfish, or myopic views.”
I know you like to use rhetoric when, in your mind, the shoe fits. But using a pejorative term is far from gracious language when talking about a way forward.
Sky, I realize Wikipedia may see it as pejorative, but in practical use, it’s a short way of saying “I’m okay with this in other areas but not for me.” Is there a more graceful way to express what I wrote?
Also: any comments about the substance of the article? I’m beginning to wonder why you only respond to my tone and language choice and not content–and that’s not like you in other contexts.
Jeremy, good thoughts again, thanks. Although with the case of churches chosing to leave and keeping / retaining their buildings, have you read up on Wesley UMC in Penn?
I have. It’s complicated. :-/
If churches decide to leave The UMC they may very well decide to take the real estate with them. If the UMC contests it will be a bonanza for the lawyers as the Episcopal Church has discovered.
But aren’t UMC real estate owned by the conference and not the individual church and/or congregation?
As I shared with you on Facebook, you’re the one who linked it to Wikipedia – I didn’t. I would think you would have linked it to a definition that more accurately intended what you wanted to convey. Given the first impression I had, and clicking the link you gave, made it pretty difficult to respond to the substance.
Yes, there would be a more graceful way to say it than “not in my backyard.” I would welcome anyone into my backyard, or for that matter my house. Tone and language choice in this case is pretty important, given the subject matter. You can’t invite someone to a way forward when you use a pejorative that speaks ill of the other.
There is much that is commendable about “A Way Forward.” But while there may be a few churches and conferences that are homogenous enough to vote one way or the other, the vast majority will find themselves split on the issue. The issue is not only irresolvable at General Conference, I believe it would be just as irresolvable in the vast majority of local churches and conferences.
I don’t think the parallel is the same – as a UMC pastor I would be OK with still allowing the scouts to meet in my building but including the exclusion of gay adult leaders because this is an outside organization that is merely using the building. If the UMC chooses to ordain LGBT folks that that affects the whole denomination and the question is do I or my church want to be part of it if that is allowed. Yes I could choose to only officiate straight weddings but I am still part of a larger denomination that I wouldn’t agree with. So unless I am really missing something I don’t think the parallel is there.
Does funding from one council go to subsidize another council in BSA? No.
Does national or council leadership appoint Scoutmasters or are they volunteers who come forward to be trained and certified? Does a Scoutmaster have any type of “guaranteed appointment”?
etc., etc.
No, the example of BSA allowing local option is not the same as The UMC allowing local option.
Not to mention the examples of Ed Johnson and Carole Huslander do not speak well of tolerance going in the other direction. Instead, it is a sign of toleration of those who already agree which isn’t toleration at all.
Do you honestly believe that across the connection that the number of gay non-celibate ordained clergy who wish to serve openly while retaining their benefits and privileges equals the number of churches that are willing to accept those clergy?
After you admit that the answer across the connection is “no” then what is your solution to that problem? BSA does not have that problem because it is a volunteer relationship. That is not the case for The UMC.
I think the office of scout leader/master parallels a Sunday School teacher (or superintendent) much more than it parallels an ordained minister. To equate them is a category mistake.
Already, LGBTQ+ individuals (“practicing’ or not) are not by that fact excluded by the UM Discipline from any number of positions of influence and leadership in the local or general church.
The question is about whether the church should be about the business of ordaining or blessing the sexual relationships of LGBTQ+ persons, not whether any LGBTQ+ should be allowed in leadership. These things are beyond the arena of the BSA and therefore the parallel is not helpful.
Far from leading the way, they are behind the UMC’s ability to affirm the gifts of LGBTQ+ on a congregation by congregation and person to person basis.
Sadly it seems that if the UMC takes any step toward inclusion (which is unlikely to happen anyway) major conservative congregations will leave. It happened in the ELCA, the PCUSA, and the Episcopal Church. The fact is that some people just don’t want to be in a church that supports LGBT people. That’s not going to go away. At the same time I wonder if progressives will exit the denomination. There has to be a tipping point eventually. If nothing happens in 2016 I suspect some congregations will seriously consider exiting. Look at somewhere like Belmont UMC in Nashville. Their minister was suspended for 90 days for officiating a marriage for a same sex couple. In no other Mainline denomination would that happen. In the West or in welcoming conferences like N Illinois it’s not that hard to pretend like the discipline doesn’t exit. The rest of the progressives are sick and tired of being treated like second class citizens.
Progressives are not citizens. They are members of The UMC, a covenant organization in which they pledged to uphold the doctrine and discipline of The UMC. If they do not like the way the discipline reads there are procedures to get it changed. If their fellow members do not agree with the change and vote to retain the current language that is not the same as treating them as second class citizens. They can choose to live by the rules or sever their voluntary membership. Instead many are choosing the unethical path of disobedience and defiance. Pretending the discipline does not exist promotes schism. It is difficult to muster any measure of respect for those oath breakers.
“Could we learn from this solution for our current conflict over LGBT inclusion?” Absolutely yes, but sadly, it might not happen, due to the “majority rules!” attitude prevalent among the conservatives and present in the comments here. As the father of an Eagle Scout, and a former scout myself, I’m pleased that the BSA has taken this step forward. I also served for a while as the Chartered Organization Representative for my son’s troop at a UMC (one that closed because it didn’t change with the times), and no, the troops usually are not usually an “outside organization that is merely using the building,” as they are usually chartered and thus technically operated by the church. The UMC is second only to the Mormons in number of chartered BSA units, with over 10,000. (click here for details about chartered organizations and the BSA
Oops…meant to close the parentheses, and I see that I used “usually” way too much. But I’m continuing this to elaborate on my mention of “majority rules.” That phrase (along with “it’s a free country!”) is one frequently used by children on school playgrounds to settle disputes. However, voting on the rights of an oppressed minority (our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ) is not an acceptable use of the democratic process, as demonstrated often in history. Sometimes other avenues are necessary to obtain those rights, including disobedience (e.g. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and many others). The best solution would be for the rethinking and reworking of a lot of our polity, so that we could leave these kinds of contentions issues aside as we work together in unity to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.
I don’t believe that there are only 2 options for this. There is a third. There are organizations that have taken up the tradition of BSA and continued it, including the “morally straight” direction that BSA had always held (including a trip to the Supreme Court). Trail Life USA is one. I believe these Boy Scout troops could, as many have already done, switch their programs to a Christian camping program. As a UMC pastor, this would be my recommendation if we had a troop. I also speak about this as an Eagle Scout myself.