In reply to Karen.

There is a difference between a homosexual and a pedophile. Jerry Sandusky was convicted as a pedophile and Penn State allowed him to be alone with boys. As noted in another response, adult leaders - male or female - in the BSA are never allowed to be left alone with their scouts. The BSA does not allow pedophiles to participate in its activities. Period. Furthermore, one does not have to look far to see increasing instances of heterosexual pedophilia in the school system (involving both male and female adults).

The BSA did not accept homosexual leaders because it wanted to: it was facing ruinous legal exposure and had suffered a significant loss of corporate donors because of its previous policies. I did not see the LCMS courageously come to the rescue with its checkbook while the BSA was trying to maintain its previous prohibition on homosexual leaders, but maybe I missed something. Or maybe this is a moral issue that is still convenient to "take a stand on" with the laity - much like divorce was in the '50's and '60's. Last time I looked, the LCMS now has divorced ministers, teachers and principals on its roster.

The BSA is one of the few secular organizations that actually promotes religion in its activities and mission statements. I am not sure how the LCMS can conclude that it can't support Scouting (which, again, does not require sponsoring congregations to allow homosexuals as leaders) because it folded to developing laws and sensibilities in the western world and does not enjoy the legal protections enjoyed by Church bodies like the LCMS. The BSA folded by doing the least it felt it possibly could and by deferring to the sponsoring organizations (i.e. congregations) as to whether they would allow homosexual leaders in the troops they sponsor.

As a life-long member of the LCMS, I don't support the developing sensibilities around homosexuality any more than Pastor Harrison does. I also don't believe that pulling away from the secular organization that presents the "best deal" as a positive influence on boys, given the current social and legal environment in which it operates and we live (i.e. "we will leave it up to your discretion to allow or forbid homosexual leaders in the troops your sponsor") is constructive to our boys. This action seems to be a further form of disengagement from the communities that we are supposed to be ministering to. It is hard to be heard when you can only be found - sought out - talking to each other behind closed doors on Sunday morning.