Boy Scouts, the Church, Inclusion and Love

Tags

Atlanta, Boy Scouts of America, Boy Scouts Troops in church, North Druid Hills Baptist Church

Druid Hill’s Baptist Church, Atlanta Georgia

Yesterday afternoon I posted this photo on my Facebook page and to my surprise only two people liked it. Two people out of the hundreds of friends and family I have on Facebook which includes a large number of those who would identify themselves as Christians. One of those two isn’t even a self-identifying Christian, she is a Unitarian Universalist who, if my memory serves me correct, also has a Jewish background. I also posted this photo on Instagram and three people liked it, three people whom were my classmates in the theology school I graduated from in May–the second person to like it on Facebook is also a graduate. A grand total of five people liked this photo of a church essentially doing what a church should be doing in the first place, opening the doors and extending hospitality to everyone. Now, in case you have already forgotten why a church would even feel the need to welcome the Boy Scouts in particular, let me jog your memory back a few months…

In January the Boy Scouts of America were considering lifting its ban on gay members and leaders. In April, a proposal was drafted to lift the ban on denying membership based on sexual orientation, and in May that proposal went forth and the ban was lifted. But since then many churches have either been getting on board with the new ruling by allowing Boy Scout Troops who use the facilities to continue their meetings, or by banning the Boy Scouts from the church. North Druid Hills Baptist is one of the first churches here in Atlanta that I have seen explicitly announce their support of the Boy Scouts but it also isn’t surprising since the church is located in a fairly liberal community and it leases out its space for yoga classes, plays that don’t have anything to do with the Gospel–at least not explicitly–and other activities that most churches would frown upon. But aside from the church doing what is par for the course for them in welcoming the Boy Scouts, I was sad. I was sad not for the church but for the fact that this is even something I would be excited about.

I thought about this as the picture made its way through cyberspace and situated itself on my Facebook page, my Twitter feed, and my Instagram account. Is it stupid to be excited about a church welcoming Boy Scouts, including those members who are openly gay? Yes I think it is stupid to be excited about this because I believe the church should be in the business of being the community that embraces everyone. I’m not going to make the “Jesus hung out with sinners and tax collectors” argument because I think it is trite and I’m not certain that openly gay boy scouts are the sinners in this situation. And let me just pause here for a moment…

One of the things most interesting to me about how the church treats LGBT concerns is that they, sometimes, are obsessed with the sex lives of persons in the LGBT community while being totally uninterested in their love lives. As if all gay men do is sit around looking for and having sex rather than or without love. As if sex is a bigger part of the experience than establishing a lifelong relationship in love. And sure, there are some people who are just looking for some sex but they are not the general profile of the community. I’m not a gay man or lesbian but I know enough to know that sex is but a fraction of the LGBT experience that may amount to the same percentage that it is among heterosexual people, so get out of people’s bedrooms and get into their hearts. But this is also an issue with the church as it regards heterosexual people, lots of interest in what does or doesn’t go on in the bedroom to ensure folks aren’t booking quick trips to hell. And I digress…

I’m more concerned in the fact that churches are closing their doors, doors that are supposed to be open to perform the most radical hospitality that can be performed in this sick world that is often too ready to shut people out because it is more interested in clinging to itself. The church, in my understanding, is not a space for exclusion but inclusion driven by love. This is something that should be a given but it isn’t. I remember sitting in a Watchnight service and hearing a pastor speak of family only as that unit which represents the biblical definition of family, man and woman. The pastor repeated this a few times and I remember tuning out of the service because all I saw was the church closing its doors.

Now I understand that this is what some would consider the “biblical” perspective on this matter, but that biblical perspective often seems to leave out love. Love, which is a part of the revelation of God as shown in Jesus Christ. In shutting out those whose lifestyles don’t match up with the so-called biblical definition of family or those openly-gay boy scouts, the church compromises itself and misses the opportunity to love. This is not about tolerance which, as I have stated before, suggests a mere “putting up” with different perspectives rather than a real shift. In the church’s case it would need to be a shift toward love, outwardly expressed. Love that isn’t just spoken about but love that is actually performed. Love that isn’t just prayed about in the way that a prayer can be prayed about something like this such as, “We pray that ‘they’ discover God’s love.” But love that expresses God’s love, the love we all have access to, the love that was bestowed upon us long ago, and the love that we have responsibility to share out. Love that can be expressed through something like say, opening or keeping your doors open to the Boy Scouts. It’s a “Don’t (just) speak about it, be about it” kind of love. Otherwise, the church is no different from the world if it closes its doors on the Boy Scouts, or members of the LGBT community or other communities that would be considered marginalized. Actually, nowadays, the world is exercising a little more openness to inclusion when it comes to persons in the LGBT community so it may be the church who has to keep up. And understand me well when I say this, I know that “keeping up” may sound like you have to be on board with it all, but what I’m suggesting in “keeping up” is being sure that the world doesn’t outdo you, because the world may be able to open some doors but the church and the people within in it, those supposed people of God are (supposed to be) part of the few and the proud that show forth God’s love, and only that kind of love is credible.

Sex vs. Love

Recently I started reading a book entitled, “The Paradox of Love” written by French philosopher-type Pascal Bruckner. The book focuses on the misconceptions of love that our society thrives on and the fact that love is one big paradox. It is beautiful and messy, to be desired and not…A few days ago I reached a chapter entitled “Seduction as Market” and Bruckner said something that resonated with me.

“…sexuality is an irresistible drive that has to be satisfied so that one doesn’t have to think about it anymore. Whereas the Frenchman says, ‘Faisons l’amour,’ the American in television series and film says: ‘Let’s have sex.’ The difference is not merely semantic, it reflects two worldviews: in the latter case it is a matter of a pressing, animal need, like hunger or thirst, and in the former of a complex act that gives rise to a whole erotics, love that makes us as much as we make it, a subtle construction rather than a physical evacuation. Ceremony on the one hand, bestiality on the other.”

Faisons l’amour translated is, “Let’s make love.” So Bruckner suggests that what we are dealing with is the tension between having sex and making love. It occurred to me that what many of us are fighting for, particularly Christians who want to argue that sex before marriage is permissible, is really just that, “SEX before marriage.” Sex, the culmination of our lust, as opposed to making love, the consummation of love.

Now I know that making such a distinction is difficult and, in a way, it trivializes some people’s understanding of sex. But, what I am getting at here is the fact that I think there is something to be said for Bruckner’s distinction and how we view our sexual activity and its purpose. To what end do we use sex? For what purpose? What do we really want when we want to have sex as opposed to making love? Because the reality of the situation is, it is easy to have sex but it is hard to make love. It is hard to do the latter because there are very few people that we can do such as act with and because there are very few people, a wait is imposed a upon us. A wait and a weight. The weight of having sexual needs and desires unfulfilled until that great day and a wait for the great day. There are very few people that we can make a ‘subtle construction’ with and plenty of people we can have ‘physical evacuations’ with. Even the language is indicative of something more, we “have” sex, we “make” love. To “make” is to participate in a new creation, to “have” is to possess something and possession is not always safe or healthy.

Yes, we can have sex and have it all day, every day. It demands nothing more of us than an ability to rip one another’s clothes off–or not–thrust and grunt and get it over with. But can we wait for love? Can we wait to make a new creation with someone? And lest you think I am campaigning for “True Love Waits”, I am not–but I won’t touch that in this post. But I’ll say this, as much as I dislike the “True Love Waits” campaign, I think I can see where it aims. True love does wait. Sex doesn’t wait, we don’t want to wait for sex. I can admit that as someone who wants to base her life’s work on possibly arguing that the wait is in vain. But, because of Bruckner I realize, the wait for making love will never be in vain. The rush to have sex with someone you probably only have lukewarm feelings for, probably in vain.

I want to hear from others though. Is there a problem with this distinction between sex and love? Can there be love in sex? Can there be sex in love? Is this semantic argument too granular? Let’s talk about sex.