Memorandum of Understanding: United Church of Christ, BSA

[RememberSchiff]

Oct 5, 2015

http://www.ucc.org/news_historic_document_paves_way_for_renewed_relationship_between_boy_scouts_united_church_of_christ_10052015

 

"The United Church of Christ and the Boy Scouts of America re-established a formal relationship today (Oct. 5) with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding regarding local UCC congregations chartering Scout troops.

Signed by Michael B. Surbaugh, BSA chief scout executive, and the Rev. John C. Dorhauer, UCC general minister and president, the document affirms the recently-adopted BSA resolution that removed the restriction on gay adult leaders and employees, and formally states that UCC congregations chartering BSA units can conduct scouting programs according to their own values of inclusion and extravagant welcome for all."

 

This link has full text of the Memorandum of Understanding signed today, Oct. 5, during the Boy Scouts of America’s board meeting in Irving, Texas.

 

http://www.ucc.org/memorandum_of_understanding_between_the_boy_scouts_of_america_and_the_united_church_of_christ

 

"Resolved, That the Boy Scouts of America will respect the spiritual and moral responsibility of the United Church of Christ’s chartering congregations with the understanding that there is no Boy Scout authority which supersedes the authority of the local pastor and the congregation in any phase of the program affecting the spiritual welfare of those who participate; and be it further

 

Resolved, That it is agreed all member congregations of the United Church of Christ may rely on the stipulations in this Memorandum of Understanding in operating under any charter they sign with the Boy Scouts of America."

 

I have not seen "local option" so firmly stated.

 

[Krampus]

We had a pack in the district that had to move because of the 2013 membership policy change and the CoC deciding to drop all units. In fact a troop had to leave too. From what I hear from those units, the CO was not really involved in the scout program all those years; treated the units like renters rather than as any part of the CO. I doubt this deal will affect these churches in my area. They generally do not charter units and I doubt those who left would go back now.

[NJCubScouter]

Krampus, I am not an expert in the subject, but I think you are talking about a different church organization than the one that is the subject of this thread. A church that was in the United Church of Christ would not be likely to drop BSA units due to the 2013 policy change. Just the opposite, though apparently they decided to wait until the policy was changed for adults as well.

[Krampus]

Krampus, I am not an expert in the subject, but I think you are talking about a different church organization than the one that is the subject of this thread. A church that was in the United Church of Christ would not be likely to drop BSA units due to the 2013 policy change. Just the opposite, though apparently they decided to wait until the policy was changed for adults as well.

 

Hard to tell. This is like that Monty Python movie. Too many religious organizations with similar names.

[mashmaster]

Krampus, I am not an expert in the subject, but I think you are talking about a different church organization than the one that is the subject of this thread. A church that was in the United Church of Christ would not be likely to drop BSA units due to the 2013 policy change. Just the opposite, though apparently they decided to wait until the policy was changed for adults as well.

My family belongs to a UCC church and they were definitely on the side of the change was not enough.  In fact, our current leaders still don't think the change is enough.  They want no loophole for discrimination.  Also, they are a big fan of co-ed scouts.  

 

I will send the notice to them to see what they think since they currently charter a Baden Powell scout unit (I'm not sure how that group works)

[fred johnson]

In fact, our current leaders still don't think the change is enough.  They want no loophole for discrimination. 

 

It's only discrimination in the same way that you need to be Jewish to be a rabbi or Catholic to be priest or usually a Christian to be a pastor.  IMHO, a church that wants to remove local option either choose which religions are acceptable or remove faith from core part of BSA.  

 

You just can't force "unit" level membership and also keep it as a faith based program.  

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

It's only discrimination in the same way that you need to be Jewish to be a rabbi or Catholic to be priest or usually a Christian to be a pastor.

 

Or not Jewish in order to join a Restricted club.  As in, it's exactly discrimination.

[cyclops]

That's what Fred wrote, that it is discrimination. He isn't denying that fact.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

And I agreed it was discrimination, just like Restricted clubs excluding Jews.  So what are you trying to point out?

[Eagledad]

Everybody discriminates or the world would be in chaos. It's just a matter to what moral values (or lack there of) guides our discrimination choices. 

 

Barry

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

And if everybody equivocated on the meaning of words like "discrimination", discussing morals would be impossible.

[Eagledad]

And if everybody equivocated on the meaning of words like "discrimination", discussing morals would be impossible.

Just the opposite, morals drives the true motivation of discrimination to serve or self-serve. 

 

Barry

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Your reply makes no sense -- "equivocation" makes words near-meaningless, so equivocating doesn't help discussions about morals or anything else.

[Eagledad]

Equivocation is your word. Motivation for intent is everything, Discrimination to serve or to self-serve has different desired affects. Morality disciplines the desire.

[NJCubScouter]

I think a great deal of time and a large number of words have been wasted over the years in this forum (and elsewhere) discussing the meaning and applicability of that one word, "discrimination" (and its variants). I think it is beside the point, unnecessary to the discussion, and only gets things muddled up. It (and its variants) can be used as a positive word, neutral or negative. Some people use it only in the negative sense; others do not. There are better words to use when discussing the BSA membership policies.

 

Like this:

 

In the past the BSA excluded openly gay people and required local units to exclude them. Some people thought that was the right thing to do. Others thought it was the wrong thing to do. Now it's been changed, and the BSA no longer excludes people based on avowed sexual orientation, but the BSA recognizes the right of religious chartering organizations to follow their own religious principles in deciding whether to exclude adult leaders on that basis.

 

See, I just wrapped up 30+ years of this issue in three sentences, and didn't use the word in question once.

Edited October 7, 2015 by NJCubScouter