“The Boy Scouts and First Parish: An Ethical Dilemma for Religious Liberals”

A sermon delivered by the Rev. John Gibbons

at The First Parish in Bedford, Massachusetts

Sunday, May 19, 2002

 

 

ne of my favorite cartoons shows two ministers – one young, thin and eager, the other older, rounder, wiser – sitting in the church study.  The elder says to the younger, “Drawing upon my not inconsiderable experience, Andrews, my advice to a young man ambitious of preferment in our calling is to steer clear of two subjects – politics and religion!”

 

Well, first of all, I want again to say to you how much I enjoy being back with you, and I am not kidding.  In anticipation of this morning’s sermon, I have had no fewer than 30 emails, numerous phone calls, offers of help with this service (I said that for today I’d rather get in trouble all by myself), there have been meetings with boys and their families, current Scouts, former Scouts; I’ve had meetings with the troop leaders of both Bedford Scout troops, as well as the leader of Bedford’s Cub Scout troop; I’ve talked with gay activists and former UUA President John Buehrens (who has offered to come to First Parish should we host a forum on this issue next fall, as I hope we will); one person came to my office with a prepared PowerPoint presentation; I’ve even talked to girls and women. I’ve consulted with the so-called 3 G’s who are the least welcome opinions at the Texas BSA headquarters: girls, gays and the godless.  Someone even came to the parsonage to talk,  loan me a Scout manual, and give me a gift of Girl Scout cookies. 

 

And, honestly, it’s been great: everyone - whatever their opinion - has been thoughtful, respectful, mostly open-minded, and devotedly concerned for the well-being of boys.  I have actually met neighbors I had not previously known and I have made new friends (whom I hope to keep).  Engaging these issues – and I think we at First Parish will continue to do so for some time into the future – demonstrates to me what a privileged opportunity we have in this liberal meetinghouse to initiate important public conversations and to perform vital public ministry. 

 

Here, if you do not already know it, is the presenting issue: Last year, First Parish was asked by a First Parish family to host a Court of Honor – the ceremony that recognizes a Scout’s attainment of the highest award, the Eagle Scout.  That was the Woskov Family, and when it became clear that other parishioners had mixed opinions about this possibility, Peter Woskov’s Court of Honor was held instead at Middlesex Community College. There, Rebecca Kelley-Morgan, our religious educator, represented First Parish and conveyed our admiration, respect and affection for Peter.  This spring, Stephen Woskov will also make Eagle and, as our First Parish process of discernment remains unresolved, Stephen’s Court of Honor will also take place elsewhere – at the library where this time I will represent First Parish and also convey our admiration, respect and affection for him.  The Woskov Family has been most understanding, gracious and forbearing while the mills of discernment have slowly ground. 

 

Therefore, though there are other First Parish boys on their way toward Eagle Scout – and as families can obviously if a little sadly go elsewhere for their Courts of Honor – the good news is that there’s not a hot-potato urgent issue on our front burner.  We can and will try to discern our values, listen to one another, understand all perspectives, keep an open mind, and do our morally-straight best.

 

That’s the issue: The Boy Scouts of America, Incorporated – a national organization with headquarters in Irving, Texas outside Dallas – has declared that gay people are neither clean nor morally-straight and that gay people may be neither Scouts nor Scout leaders.  Openly gay Scouts are not allowed; they’re unceremoniously thrown out.  Troops that violate this directive risk being stripped of their charters.  BSA volunteers have been expelled for merely telling young Scouts that it is OK to be gay.

 

Our Unitarian Universalist view, supported by our Purposes and Principles – most especially our affirmation of the worth and dignity of every human being, as well as our promotion of justice, equity and compassion in human relations is that homophobia is the sin, not homosexuality.  Many other churches and many other people share this view with us.

 

What seems so sadly unnecessarily self-destructive about the Scouts’ homophobia is that they are the only major national organization for youth that insists on this kind of discrimination.  The Girl Scouts are thoroughly affirming and welcoming; so too the Campfire Girls, the Boys and Girls Clubs, the 4-H.  Even the Boy Scouts in Canada, a separate organization, welcomes gay Scouts and leaders.

 

Why does the BSA do this?  It is because they are largely beholden to their most conservative constituents – specifically Mormons and Roman Catholics who hold homosexuality anathema, and United Methodists who are deeply divided.  Add in the Baptists and you’ve got about 40% of all Scouts coming from orthodox churches.  Mormons do not even have their own youth group for boys: participation in the Boy Scouts is their youth program.  It also seems clear that BSA has been targeted and taken over by people from the extreme right who have less concern for the noble purposes of Scouting but who are principally concerned with keeping the money stream flowing. 

 

Since its founding in 1910 by Robert Baden-Powell, a man who may have been gay, BSA, Incorporated has been rigidly resistant to cultural change and pretty proud of it.  With many others in our culture, sexuality was often been the thing most feared.  Misinformation abounded.  One mid-20^th century Boy Scout handbook called masturbation “the source of very considerable personality disturbance.”  And homosexuality, of course, was demonized to the extent that well into the 50’s Scout executives were required to compile a Red Flag list of all known gay people in every community.  Homosexuality equals pedophilia was a common erroneous equation, even when most predators were known to be heterosexual.   

 

Let me be quick as well to say that Scouting has been profoundly positive experience in the lives of millions of Scouts.  Many of the objectionable practices I describe were common among many organizations, not just the Scouts.  There were and perhaps are a number of logs in the eyes of Unitarian Universalists.  And many practices have changed: child safety courses are now required of all Scout leaders.  There’s very little misinformation in Scout manuals these days; there’s a lot of good truly character-building stuff.  Things have changed for the much better.

 

Scouting has been and remains very good for very many boys and men.  Scouting is beloved by many.  

 

Even objective research has shown that participation in Scouting contributes to leadership skills, the likeliness of putting others’ needs ahead of one’s own, and attitudes that cherish education and the environment.  Now I should confess to you that, while I had fun in Cub Scouts, I advanced no further than Webelos, and that the day my son won his Pinewood Derby trophy was close to his last as well, but over and over, I am hearing what a powerfully good experience Scouting has been for many boys and men – many of you.  I honor that experience; I know that such opportunities are sadly rare for young men; and I want to support you. 

 

“It was a place where I felt I belonged,” said one Scout.  “I did other things.  I was in soccer and basketball.  But nothing fit as well as the Boy Scouts.  I felt I didn’t have to be the best football player or run the fastest.  In the Boy Scouts, I could be who I was.  They valued me for who I was.”  That Eagle Scout was James Dale who, when his picture appeared in a newspaper when he attended a gay youth workshop, was expelled.  “I felt betrayed,” he said, “This was the organization that taught me how to be me.”

 

BSA didn’t even give Dale a reason for throwing him out, so he sued to find out and the BSA finally admitted that it was because he was gay.  When Dale’s case came before the New Jersey Supreme Court, the court ruled unanimously that the Scouts were in violation of that portion of the state constitution that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The Scouts appealed to the Supreme Court where they argued that such discrimination is an essential aspect of Scouting and that they should be permitted an exemption to the requirements of the constitution.  The classic version of their argument, sad to say, is that given by the Ku Klux Klan.  The Klan is allowed to exist and to discriminate against everybody because, well, they just wouldn’t be the Klan were they not to discriminate.  Most people think the BSA argued that they are a private organization and that private organizations can set their own rules, but in fact that argument – though spun out quite successfully by the Scout’s PR agency  - was secondary.  I can refer you to the cases if you want to see it for yourself.  In any case, the Scouts won in the Supreme Court by a 5-4 margin and, just to seal the deal, the Court further ruled that this case would be exempt from further case law litigation or other precedents and what’s-done-is-done-we don’t-want-to-hear-about-this-again-case-closed.  The only other time the Court put that particular nail in a coffin was in another recent case about which it wanted to hear no further guff, a case called Bush v. Gore.

 

In other words, any change in Scout policy will come not in the courts but only in response to pressure from its members or funders.

 

Unitarian Universalists have had a particularly contentious relationship with the Boy Scouts.  The trouble started in the early 80’s with the word “God” which some Scouts in our creedless faith found troublesome.  In 1985, a 15-year old West Virginia Scout named Paul Trout was denied advancement to Life rank because he announced that he didn’t believe in a Supreme Being, the official definition of God.  Realizing that Buddhists, among others, don’t have a Supreme Being and because they didn’t want to be seen as discriminating against Buddhists, and because they realized that they were in deeper theological water than they ever intended, the Scouts eventually advanced the boy and dropped the subject.  I have heard that 20 or 30 years ago one First Parish Scout leader was forced to step down over this issue -  but that’s not a burning issue now.  It’s pretty much “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

 

Things heated up again, however, when the Scouts took exception to the UUA’s Religion in Life award because in it we noted our objection to the homophobia of the national organization.  After some negotiation, we took the objectionable parts out of the handbook, said we’d separately pass along a pamphlet about our diverse ideas regarding God and another regarding homophobia; and it was thought an agreement was reached. But a week later, the Scouts sent the UUA a letter denying us permission to give boys the Religion in Life Award and denying Scouts permission to wear it.  (Technically, the Scouts “de-authorized” this award; the award is given not by the Scouts but by religious organizations.  Thus the Scouts decided not to recognize the UUA award.)   

 

Thinking this just totally absurd, we said we will continue to work with boys who want to earn this award and if BSA officials want to come and tear it off their uniforms we will be happy to provide a newspaper photographer to document that noble moment.  Here in this sanctuary last fall Rebecca and I pinned that award on the uniforms of three rather courageous Scouts, Michael Norton, Owen and Grant Harris.  I will continue to work with those Cub Scouts who want to earn their Love and Help Award, as I will work with those Scouts who seek the Religion in Life Award.  Local Scout troops have indicated their complete support for this bit of civil disobedience.

 

There is an organization called Scouting for All – created by a 12-year old heterosexual Scout – which is working to change Scout policies and just last week announced the creation of a new “inclusive Scouting” rainbow braided discreet badge – a sign of a “safe” and inclusive Scout.  And the way to earn this badge is…to wear it!  I think it would be cool to have some Scouts wearing it, but you can probably give me advice about how best to get in trouble too.  I support our Scouts whether they earn these awards or not; and I encourage them to stand up for whoever they are and whatever they believe; and take the heat and the praise.

 

As in all of these issues, they are to a large extent the Scout’s issues.  Those of you who are involved in Scouting will have to make up your minds for yourselves whether you can work within the organization to change these policies or whether you cannot.  I will support you either way.

 

What makes this a real ethical dilemma is that many local troops and most local Scouts and their leaders disagree with BSA policy and are deeply embarrassed by it.  They also value Scouting and don’t want to abandon an organization they love.  “We belong to many organizations,” they say “and we don’t go along with every aspect of national policy.”  One local troop has written a letter vigorously protesting BSA policy – though to the best of my knowledge, they have not publicly said that they will affirmatively ignore it.  Trying to put some distance between our local troops and the national policy, the Minuteman Council – of which Bedford is a member – has pledged to “respect all people and to defend the rights of others.  Bias, discrimination and unlawful discrimination are unacceptable within the ranks of the Boston Minuteman Council.”  Some UU churches – like First Parish in Concord – hold troop charters and some troops have – at whatever risk to themselves because Texas does indeed go about stripping some dissenting troops of their charters - actively affirmed their welcoming of diversity in sexual orientation.  In Concord, I am told, there are openly gay Scouts, totally supported by their troop and their church.  Most UU churches, as far as I can tell, support dissenters in their midst by recognizing the genuine accomplishments of individual Scouts.

 

The ethical dilemma here is that the Boy Scouts of America is, by definition, a hierarchical organization.  Explicitly, they do not permit local variance with national policy.  Being an inclusive and non-discriminatory Boy Scout, therefore, is something like being a Catholic who believes that policy decisions should be made democratically and locally. It’s like being a feminist Mormon.  I’d like to see it; and indeed there are (in the case of the Catholic Church, especially) increasing numbers who are trying to make it happen - and I wish them well.  But can it happen?  I’m not sure.  So far, at least, there’s not much proof that it can be done.  Can it happen if there is not some pressure – especially financial pressure – from the grassroots?  No.  Can it happen if everyone says, “What’s the problem?  There’s no problem.  The national organization doesn’t speak for me; I go to St. Michael’s.  I’m a member of Troop 114.  Troop 194.”  No.  It will not happen so long as local units say there’s no problem.  This is the ethical dilemma that our local Scouts and their leaders really are wrestling with.  They, like we, are asking themselves, “What is our responsibility?  Are we doing all we can or should be doing?”

 

Last week I saw in St. Michael’s newsletter a response to parishioners’ questions about where the money goes.  Forthrightly, Father Sheehan answered the question: This fund stays at St. Michael’s.  This other goes to the Archdiocese.  People want to know.

 

We at First Parish cannot say that there’s no problem with racism or sexism or homophobia.  And that’s why we’re doing some things, surely not enough, with denominational programs about Women and Religion, the Journey to Wholeness, and the Welcoming Congregation.  We’ve still got plenty to do and I’d like a few of my correspondents to devote as much energy to these issues close to home as to the imperfections of some others.

 

Nonetheless…

 

The Boy Scouts of America is another world from that of the good volunteers and good Scouts here in Bedford.  The BSA is a highly undemocratic, elite, rigidly-controlled, unresponsive-to-the-grassroots, quite unaccountable and – many would say – corrupt organization.  It’s revenues exceed its expenses astoundingly:  The BSA had an operating surplus of $4.4 million in 1989 that rose to 17.1 million in 1998 with total revenues of $155 million.  In 1998, its chief Scout executive Jere Ratcliffe received a compensation and benefits package of $537,314.  Because of his apparent fund-raising genius, the board took no action when he was arrested in 1997 for carrying a loaded handgun and 28 bullets onto a commercial airliner in Florida and he did not have a license to carry a concealed weapon in his home state of Texas.

 

Do I digress?  I don’t think so.  I believe that we need to put it all on the table and figure out where we stand.  We as a church; we as Scouts and families; we as citizens. We need to know all we can about this organization.  We need to feel the prodding I’d-sometimes prefer-it-went-away-too pressure of our own Purposes and Principles.  We need to hear the stories from those whose lives have been changed by Scouting so much for the better.  (John Buehrens, the former UUA president is one and when he was minister in New York city, he helped his church charter the first Scout troop for homeless boys and those living in welfare hotels.  He is very proud of his years in Scouting and those accomplishments.  More recently Buehrens has also called for the United States Congress to revoke the Charter which gives BSA monopoly privileges to the words Boy Scout, and access to surplus and obsolete military equipment and to other exclusive privileges.  John believes that all of this is not merely a question of discrimination based on sexual orientation but has advanced to become a question of discrimination based on religion.  The BSA isn’t just devoted to keeping out the 3G’s; it is becoming a campaign against all of us.)  We need to follow the money.  And we need to include the Scouts in this conversation. 

 

Some say that all of this controversy is really just an adult problem.  “My first choice would have been to say nothing about all of this,” one of my correspondents said.  “Let the policy makers in the church and the BSA slug it out.  Why?  Because keeping the controversy going only serves to fan the flames to the detriment of the boys who are trying to have some fun and extract some value out of their Scouting experience.”

 

I can imagine my correspondent’s pain.  But say nothing?  This is not just an issue among adults.  This is not just a political issue.  This is, foremost, a religious issue.  If we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, if we are to affirm the worth and dignity of every human being, if we are to promote justice, equity and compassion in human relations, saying nothing is not an option. 

 

If the national organization were to so blatantly discriminate against people of color, would we say, “Well, those crazy Texans.  They don’t speak for us!”  Somehow I don’t think so.  Nor do I think that the fanning of these flames is a detriment to boys.  I doubt that the boys want to give up camping, knot-tying, and all manner of good-deed-doing in favor of full time political re-education, but our boys do need to know that treating people fairly regardless of whom one loves is a religious value that we adults care about.  If we do.

 

Do you remember the pageant where our kids re-enacted the Montana story about the rock that was thrown through the window of a Jewish resident? At Hanukkah time in a spirit of unity and solidarity, and keeping faith with the fallen, every house then put a menorah in their window.  We WASPS are sort of getting used to the idea that Jews aren’t going to convert or go back to the old country.  We have yet to fully acclimate to the presence of our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered brothers and sisters – to which those in and out of the closet in this church, in the Scouts, and in our families can only too well, or maybe not at all, testify.  You may be interested in knowing that this weekend our friends at Follen Church in E. Lexington are voting on whether to call a transgendered assistant minister and it’s not easy for anybody, least of all probably Laurie Auffant, the candidate.  (Note: Later this same Sunday the Follen congregation called Auffant to this ministry.)  

 

Let others decide what course they should take about the Boy Scouts (everybody’s got to sort this out according to their own values, and knowing that my values or our values are not necessarily shared by others, I and we can’t be telling others what to do), but somehow shouldn’t we as Unitarian Universalists, or we as UU Scouts or we as UU families involved in Scouting, shouldn’t we be putting something in our windows, or in our sanctuaries, or on our chests or somewhere to say that we are gay and straight together?

 

Today I’m not too concerned about where the Court of Honor happens.  Look.  It’s almost a question of hospitality and etiquette.  If you wanted to go to a friend’s house for some reason, and you discovered that your presence was going to make your friend uncomfortable, you’d probably go elsewhere. And maybe someday, sooner than later, things may be different or your friend will work through whatever caused them to be uncomfortable. And through it all you’d still be friends. That’s good manners, good friendship, good sense. And that’s pretty much what has happened here and, for now, I think that’s OK. 

 

Frankly, I think we could still keep our integrity and host the Court of Honor.  Others disagree.  Welcome to First Parish.  I’m not going to be silent or in any way discourage the conversation about whether we should host a Court of Honor, but I do not want us to make a huge big deal out of this particular aspect.  We really do not need to squabble among ourselves about this.  The need is to focus our energies where they make the most difference.  We should adopt a strategy that concentrates our energies. 

 

I, however, do want to make a big deal out of our gay neighbors, friends, parishioners and family members who, in the context of Scouting, are denied their right to be true to themselves.  I do want to make a huge big deal out of our friends, gay and straight, who are pained by this and who are trying – good luck to ‘em! – to get this zebra to change its stripes.  I do want to make a huge big deal out of our boys who need organizations – if not the Scouts, then like the Scouts.  I want to make a big deal out of boys who love Scouting, and who dearly want their organization to do the brave, clean, reverent, and morally-straight thing that they should do.  And I do want to make a huge big deal out of all the people in and out of this church, boys and adults, in all the troops, and all my passionate correspondents, all who are trying to raise the level of understanding, who wish to shed more light than heat and who are trying to preserve valued relationships, and who aspire to treat one’s neighbor just a bit more nearly as we would wish to be treated ourselves.