LCMS Dissolves BSA MOU: Parallel policy thread

[John-in-KC]

You can read the full article here.

 

Key passage quotes, verbatim:

 

As of Dec. 1, 2015, the LCMS no longer has an official relationship with the BSA.

 

While legal speculation is just that, we are concerned that the legal boundaries are still being drawn with each court case, and we are concerned that LCMS congregations could be pulled into such a legal battle. Congregations who continue their BSA charters after the Dec. 1, 2015, dissolution of the LCMS MOU should seek local legal counsel and guidance on how best to safeguard themselves legally.

 

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

 

This is discussion of policy.  There is a parallel thread in Open Discussion:  Program for implementation matters.

Click here to go to the implementation thread

Edited December 10, 2015 by John-in-KC

[T2Eagle]

I find it interesting that legal considerations, I guess the desire to simply not have to be a part of any suit, seemed to drive the decision more than a theological determination that an MOU would have been contrary to the Church's teachings.

[qwazse]

... That's nearly 4,000 units now at risk.

 

At least, that's my reading.

Maybe "in play" is a more appropriate term.

[CalicoPenn]

So reading between the exercises in rhetorical obfuscation, it sounds as if the Synod is telling their member churches that it is ok to keep sponsoring units at their own risk but that the Synod will not have a formal relationship with the BSA anymore which really makes me wonder if there really was any point at all for there to be an MOU between the BSA and the Missouri Synod in the first place.

[Krampus]

Maybe "in play" is a more appropriate term.

 

When you have a greater exposure to law suits and higher likelihood of losing your CO, I personally call that risk. No need to sugar-coat or make it politically correct.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Krampus

[John-in-KC]

CP,

 

Here's how I expect it'll play out.

 

That statement went to the various liability insurers.  Even if it didn't , they have people whose job is to keep eye on things which make for risk.

 

That line "seek legal advice" will jump out like a sore thumb.  The insurers will refer that to their own legal departments.  They'll cut letters to congregations saying "You've been notified of a risk you can manage.  We advise you to manage your risk accordingly."

At most parishes, a local attorney, a member of the congregation, gives advice to the parish President pro bono. He's going to tell the parish President and pastor:  "Drop the agreement.  This is an iron fist/velvet glove letter:  They won't cover us if something happens."

 

So, parishes will drop charters.

[John-in-KC]

T2E:  The theological issue is practicing homosexuals are in active sin, are not welcome at the Lord's Supper sans change and repentance, and should not be involved in activities of the congregation or its collateral ministries.

[Stosh]

Once BSA stuck it's foot in the politio-religious door, what did they expect would happen?

[Stosh]

As a CO, a congregation is taking on a BSA unit as part of it's minisry.  If the dynamics of that unit make it impossible to continue to identify with that minmistry, it will be "cut loose".  If the congregation wishes to "retain" it's BSA unit they can easily do it by dropping it's CO agreement and declaring it as an outside organization that merely rents space on congregational property just like any other outside organization.  With that being done, all risk associated with that unit remains with the unit and whatever new CO it can find, not the congregational landlord.

[Stosh]

Of course it is just as easy if the congregation wishes to retain it's "youth ministry" all it need do is drop the Charter, dump the uniforms and go camping just like they have always done.  Then down the road, hook up with TrailLifeUSA and there's no hiccup in the process.  All risk goes away.

 

BSA's new policy is no hardship for those wishing to leave other than traditional sentimentality which can easily be trumped by legal litigation.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Stosh

[John-in-KC]

As a CO, a congregation is taking on a BSA unit as part of it's minisry.  If the dynamics of that unit make it impossible to continue to identify with that minmistry, it will be "cut loose".  If the congregation wishes to "retain" it's BSA unit they can easily do it by dropping it's CO agreement and declaring it as an outside organization that merely rents space on congregational property just like any other outside organization.  With that being done, all risk associated with that unit remains with the unit and whatever new CO it can find, not the congregational landlord.

In the case of the LCMS, it's a very specific dynamic of the BSA-Local Council-Chartered Partner relationship, from the Spring meeting.

[NJCubScouter]

Once BSA stuck it's foot in the politio-religious door, what did they expect would happen?

 

Good question.  I suspect we have different viewpoints on when the BSA "stuck it's foot in the politio-religious door."  I think that's what happened in the late 70's. 

[T2Eagle]

T2E:  The theological issue is practicing homosexuals are in active sin, are not welcome at the Lord's Supper sans change and repentance, and should not be involved in activities of the congregation or its collateral ministries.

I understand that, but that's not the reason they cited for ending the MOU.  Their concern seemed to be legal liability rather than being forced to have (more) sinners in their midst.

[Krampus]

I understand that, but that's not the reason they cited for ending the MOU.  Their concern seemed to be legal liability rather than being forced to have (more) sinners in their midst.

I think you didn't read far enough: "At our summer 2013 meeting with the BSA, we were assured that changes concerning adult leadership would not be on the table, but that was not the case. We are now being told that the LGBT agenda, even with the most recent change, won’t affect the content of Scouting or the BSA experience, but we do not believe that will be the case. Having the MOU no longer seems tenable."

[TAHAWK]

As a CO, a congregation is taking on a BSA unit as part of it's minisry. .

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I helped recharter a troop whose CO, a one-of-a-kind congregation, regards its total involvement with the troop as providing a meeting space and signing some papers.  They would not even provide a COR.  

 

I had a troop in a Methodist Church who were pretty much the same.  We were like Al-Anon - just one of many good works.  When I had four Scouts who wanted to do their religious award, I was told the church had no one to work with them and I should try the Episcopal church down the street.  And they were Methodist - members of the congregation.