The Mars Hill Forum #56 Debate Transcript

Homosexuality and the Boy Scouts: What is the Proper Role Model?

The Rev. John Buehrens debates the Rev. John Rankin First Parish in Portland, ME - October 23, 2000

Moderated by Bill Leggett, Minister Mars Hill Forum #56. This dialogue may be heard on the Internet at www.uua.org/realaudio/scouts.ram

• Transcript Part 1 of 3: Opening Statements
• Transcript Part 2 of 3: Dialogue
• Transcript Part 3 of 3: Audience Questions, Closing Statements

Transcript Part 1 of 3: (Opening Statements)

About the Participants

Dr. John Buehrens has been president of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) since 1993, and will complete two elected terms ending in 2001. He holds undergraduate and theology degrees from Harvard University, and an honorary doctorate from Starr King School for the Ministry. He spent twenty years as a parish minister in UUA churches, and is co-author of "Our Chosen Faith: An Introduction to Unitarian Universalism." Married since 1972, he and his wife, a priest in the Episcopal Church, have two children. Address: UUA, 25 Beacon St., Boston, MA 02108. Phone: (617) 742-2100. Website: www.uua.org

John Rankin is president of the Theological Education Institute (TEI). Raised an agnostic Unitarian, he converted to evangelical Christianity in 1967, and holds graduate degrees in theology from Gordon-Conwell and Harvard. He is host of the Mars Hill Forum, held at college campuses and other sites around the country, where he invites a guest to challenge his biblical worldview and its application to public policy. He is author of the three-volume set, "First the Gospel, Then Politics". Married since 1977, he and his wife have four children. Address: TEI, 750 Main Street, Suite 1300, Hartford, CT 06103. Phone: (860) 246-0099. Website: www.therankinfile.com

Opening Statement by John Buehrens

I want to begin by quoting from a 15-year old Boy Scout, who was quoted in the New York Times.

"I earned the rank of Eagle, the highest rank in Boy Scouts, when I was 13. I love scouting, but I've become ashamed of the Boy Scouts of America because it discriminates against gay people. My parents always taught me that everybody should be treated equally. I have a lot of gay friends, and one of them is the minister who leads the church camp I go to every year. He's taught me a lot about moral values, and when I found out that Scouts discriminate against people like him it just blew my mind away. It was like, wait a minute, this isn't fair. The Boy Scouts of America doesn't even seem to follow it's own Scout law when it discriminates against people that way. The Scout law says that a Scout treats others as he wants to be treated. I don't know anyone who wants to be discriminated against the way the Boy Scouts of America discriminates against gay people. There is nothing in the Scout oath or law about sexual orientation. The oath says you have to be morally straight, but that doesn't mean heterosexual, it means just moral. They've got that so mixed up. I know some people think that gay people are child molesters, but the BSA I found out actually knows that kids are molested by pedophiles, not by gay people. I couldn't live with myself if I stayed in scouting, and so I quit."

I had a powerful experience myself growing up in Scouts. I began at the age of eleven as so many boys do. I didn't quite get to earn my Eagle Badge. I moved at the crucial moment and finished my secondary education in Italy, not America. But my first introduction to what it meant to be a citizen was in Boy Scouts. And I mean a citizen in a global sense because that realization came to me at a World Jamboree held in 1959 in Colorado Springs. I remember Dwight Eisenhower, then President, coming to visit us. We were camped on the grounds of what became the Air Force Academy. I met kids from all around the world. All kinds of different people. And for me Scouts was an opening up to wanting to be a part of a world that embraced all different kinds of people.

Several times during my ministry I found occasion to work with Scouts again. Most particularly during the parish ministry that I held just before I was elected president of our association, when I served at one of our congregations in New York City. We were working through a children's task force with the kids then living in the city's infamous welfare hotels. Two of the young adults in my congregation, a young African- American man and a young Latino man, who had both benefited from scouting enormously in their growing up, met the kids in the Prince George Welfare Hotel in lower Manhattan, and said these kids need a good structured program. Let it be scouting. We formed the first Scout Troop for homeless boys. We were proud to do that as a congregation. We decided to ignore the fact that one of the co-founders of the troop was gay.

All across the country, many conscientious Scout leaders have I suspect over the years been gay. It never was an issue until about 1990, when suddenly the Boy Scouts of America, as a national organization decided to take away from local parents and sponsoring organizations the right of those parents and those sponsoring organizations to judge the fitness of the volunteers working with youth. And setting a blanket policy of discrimination on this point it's important to point out that they departed from the practice of virtually every other national youth organization existent. The YWCA does not discriminate. The YMCA does not discriminate. Camp Fire Boys and Girls and any other national youth organization you can name has long since decided that the proper thing to do is of course do good screening of volunteers. Set an atmosphere where there is good training about the potential for abuse. Good reporting systems and training of other volunteers to be alert to any potential. But in the course of doing that they've also learned what my 15-year old Scout has learned. That the dangers for young boys, men, in scouting don't come from open and well-adjusted gay people. The Girl Scouts know that. They don't discriminate.

The Boy Scouts on the other hand, I guess may have decided to play religious politics -- religious politics - and not to be a civic education organization teaching young people to grow up in a world of real diversity. You see they could have placed the responsibility for choosing who is an appropriate role model, in the sponsoring organizations behind local troops, the Cub Packs, quite easily. But the religious politics in which conservative organizations like the Mormon Church play an inordinate role, led them to adopt a policy of blanket discrimination which now has frankly cost them some of the worst press I can imagine descending upon an American organization. Think for a moment, who has gotten worse press in the last six months than the Boy Scouts. Maybe Firestone Tire Company. [audience laughter] And they have literally blown it with many of us. They have spent tens of millions of dollars going all the way to the United States Supreme Court defending their right to discriminate. The concern is not for the children. The concern is the religious politics they're playing. In many communities across this country, Scout troops are virtually the only youth organizations available for boys. But congregations in my association, at least, are now deciding that it's difficult to continue to house or sponsor Scout troops, if indeed the BSA is not going to be controlled by local people, but going to be ordered by Dallas, their headquarters, to be a discriminatory organization that offends the conscience even of 15-year old Eagle Scouts.

Moreover, I have found them flatly guilty of religious politics in the way they have treated people of my own small denomination, because we included in our manual about religious awards for our young people some expressions of dismay at teaching discrimination. They withdrew recognition of our Religion and Life Award, quite arbitrarily. And almost literally threatened that if our young people wore a religious award they had earned from their church on their uniforms, they should be removed by Scout authorities. I won't speak about the way in which they have treated me personally, refusing to take my telephone calls, insisting in essence that we do not exist as a religious people.

And yet I want you to know there are other religious communities besides my own, the one represented by this church as well, which feel as I do: Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, United Methodist Board on Church and Society, the national Episcopal Church at its General Convention this summer. All have similarly expressed concern about how an organization that once had such enormous potential to teach boys and young men not only about tying knots, but also about what it means to grow up as a responsible citizen in a pluralistic world. That organization, because of its playing religious politics, has chosen to abandon its central civic education mission, and has lost the support and the trust of many of us. I tell you that saddens me enormously.

My own children are daughters, but I have nephews who had hoped to go into scouting, and who won't now. They'll be deprived of a perfectly good organization because their own religious convictions, like mine, will not be complicit with an organization that attempts to reduce the human worth of an entire category of God's people. This is not the way to model good behavior for young people. I ask, whatever happened to Scout's Honor. I ask the people in Dallas, Texas who now run the Boy Scouts, what is honorable about this way of teaching young people. I'm ashamed of the organization. And I virtually weep over what has become of it.

Opening Statement by John Rankin

Good evening. Every time I come into a Unitarian Church, I think of one of two theological jokes that I've got memorized, neither of which is original with me, and perhaps some of you have heard this:

Question: What happens when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with a Unitarian? Answer: Someone who goes door to door for no particular reason.

I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. I'm no longer a Unitarian. But I do have some particular purposes for being here this evening.

As we look at the debate over homosexuality and the Boy Scouts and what is a proper role model, there are many issues that I think we need to look at and we need to define carefully.

Let me start with my assumption about human nature. I assume that everyone here tonight is made in God's image. Whether or not you accept that assumption is not going to affect the way I treat you. And one way that I like to sum up the nature of God's image, is that every person here in life is seeking the qualities of peace, order, stability and hope. We're all seeking to live, to love, to laugh and to learn.

The first time I came up with that language was in a debate over abortion at Brown University, some thirteen or fourteen years ago. A young woman asked me a very compelling and tough question. Surely, because I represented a pro-life perspective in that context, surely she said, if a woman's victimized by rape or incest, you wouldn't force her to have a child. Well, I'm not in a position to force or want to force, but the issue is, if someone's been through that degradation, should the law require that the unborn child be protected? Or is that not being unduly burdensome upon the woman involved? It's a compelling and a tough question. And before I answered it, I said, is it fair for me to assume that you like me in your life are seeking these qualities. And then I named them for the first time, what I call the POSH L's of the image of God:

Peace, Order, Stability and Hope to Live, to Love, to Laugh, and to Learn

And she nodded yes, and the audience nodded yes. And my response was, well, there's far more that unites us than divides us. Now I have a question for you. In the face of the hell of rape and incest, does an abortion unrape the woman, and does it restore the lost qualities of peace, order, stability and hope?

Now that's a different subject we're not addressing tonight. But the reason I'm willing to bring it up is because it's a tough subject, just as the issue of homosexuality, religious liberty, the Boy Scouts, and issues like these are tough issues. And the question for us is whether or not we address those questions head on, or if we flee from them.

On the assumption I hold, that we're all made in God's image and we are all pursuing those qualities, I seek to be at all times in service to those qualities. And I am no man's judge and no woman's judge, but God is our Judge. His mercy triumphs over judgment for those who seek it. And I seek to reflect those qualities. By the same token, when we are looking at issues of what is a proper role model, we're looking at issues of human rights and social order, and therefore issues of truth, definitions of what is right, what is true, what is just, what is proper.

One of my favorite poets, Paul Summon, in his song "Slip Sliding Away," has these words:

I know a father who had a son
who longed to tell him all the reasons
for the things he had done
he came a long way just to explain
he kissed his boy as he lay sleeping
then he turned away and headed home again
slip sliding away
slip sliding away
you know, the nearer your destination
the more you're slip sliding away

That to me is a remarkable definition of the theological definition of sin. And sin biblically in my understanding refers to Brooke's of relationship with God and one another, tracing back to how we were first made in God's image. So often we pursue the qualities of peace, order, stability and hope, and it seems for every step forward, we fall 1.1 steps backward. And so this is what Paul Simon is identifying in those marvelous words, "slip sliding away." And I think it touches a core of human experience.

So that's my motivation. That's why I'm involved in an issue like this. It's because I believe in the goodness of the God of the Bible. I believe in the goodness of the image of God we all pursue. But the determining question is, how do we pursue it? And what are we pursuing? Is there a definition of truth? Is truth subjective or is truth objective?

In fact, when we look the issue of human sexuality, that's where the debate comes down. Is human sexuality a man is a man, a woman is a woman? Or is it a malleable definition, a subjective definition. And so the debate circles around issues like that.

Let me make a few observations from my biblical presuppositions. The first observation is that there are four subjects that the Bible addresses, and in a particular order, in the order of creation (that is, Genesis 1 and 2) before sin came into the universe, the way God made us to experience God's image. Four subjects that are addressed: God, life, choice, and sex. In that order.

"In the beginning God . . ." The whole trajectory, the reason that the universe is made is for man and woman, as image bearers of God, to receive His blessings and enjoy His goodness. So Genesis 1 and 2 is saying, the reason the universe exists, is for you and me to enjoy God's goodness. And thirdly is choice. So the first words of the Scriptures are the words of God's sovereignty. The first words in human history, from the biblical perspective, are words of freedom. Yahweh-God commands the man, "akol tokal." Two tenses of the verb "to eat" in the Hebrew. The idea is, God gives us an unlimited menu of good choices, specifically referring to the trees in the Garden, and only one prohibited tree, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is an Hebraicism for the knowledge of everything, that only an eternal perspective can grasp. And we're finite. Therefore, what is being said there, is you can't digest what is bigger than you. Therefore, if you seek to disobey God, you're saying God is not good, and you're trying to understand evil, which only God can understand and not be polluted by it. So the language of the text is an unlimited menu of good choices. In other words, the definition of human freedom is a definition of a banquet. That language goes all the way to the end of the Book of Revelation. And so: God, life, choice.

And the assumption is, that God is free and we're made to be free as well. It's remarkable, when we look at every religious origin text in history back to its cultural source, apart from Genesis, the gods and goddesses, the spirits, the powers that be, are finite, they're petty, they're jealous, they beat up on each other and they beat up on us. They impose slavery on us. That's the theme of the Babylonian Genesis, for example. Yet the very nature of the God of the Bible is freedom, and he gives us freedom. Part of that freedom is whether or not to accept the freedom we're given. In other words, I define God's goodness as the power to give, a gift with no strings attached. If you offer someone a gift, and you try to impose it upon them, is it a gift? No, it's not. A gift given is a gift that can be received or rejected. So the very definition of the freedom of feasting, and enjoying the goodness of what God has given to us, in the order of creation, also involves the freedom to say no.

And the fourth and final subject of the order of creation, is the gift of human sexuality. And very briefly, the understanding in Genesis is that human sexuality is the act of giving 100% of yourself, receiving 100% and getting back 100%. God initiates that process. He teaches Adam to receive and to give. He declares that Adam is not the full image bearer of God by himself. He needs his equal, his partner who is not the same, but his complement to give to and receive from, and the cycle of giving is catalyzed from that point on forward. And so, the conclusion of Genesis chapter 2 is actually a social definition of order: "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." The whole idea of one household joining another household, and creating a new household, in terms of the paradigm for marriage. So the very understanding in Genesis for the social order is man and woman in marriage. Once sin comes into the universe it gets all mucked up. And that's the history from Genesis 3 to Revelation 20, up until the last two chapters of Revelation which is the celebration of redemption.

Now within that context, and I don't have the time I want to go into detail to give evidence for this, but let me make a very simple observation. That is that the God of the Bible gives unalienable rights. Rights that are not to be taken away by any other person or by any government. So Thomas Jefferson, our heterodox friend who was no evangelical, and that's an understatement, when he was looking for an authority to appeal to that was higher than King George III and his broken promises, to whom did he appeal? He wrote these famous words: "We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed." You could do dozens of Ph.D. theses on those two sentences. But what's being said is that life, liberty, and as the 5th and 14th Amendments put it, property rights, that's what secures the power to pursue happiness. Life, liberty and property are unalienable. They cannot be taken away by the force of government. They are given by God and not given by any human being.

When I was hosting a forum with Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), she quoted this language. And so I said in our interaction period, Nadine, tell me, who is the "Creator" that Thomas Jefferson was referring to? Nadine looked at me and said, well, you have your creator and other people have their creator. And I said, no, that's polytheism. If you look at every historical context where polytheism has been in political power in human history, there is no concept of unalienable rights given by a God who is bigger than space, time and number, who is good and from whom man cannot define or take away. All the pagan polytheistic cultures have alienable rights. Rights that those in elitist power give and take away at their pleasure. The same is true in Greece and Rome. That's not where a democratic republic came from. Those who voted were a small plutocracy who voted among themselves how to rule over everybody else unfairly. So the only concept for unalienable rights is the God of the Bible. So I returned to Nadine at this point and I said, tell me Nadine, not that you have to believe in the Creator that Jefferson referred to, but in historical terms, to whom was he referring? And her answer was, well, why does it matter so long as we protect unalienable rights.

My response is, it does matter. This goes to the whole core of the issue we're looking at. Namely, when we look at definitions of human sexuality, and when we look at the issue of proper role models, we're actually aiming toward the whole issue of human rights in society today. What is it that secures human rights that are equal for all people? My simple observation is, only the biblical ethics rooted in Genesis 1 and 2 actually give the freedom for dissent in a free society. When I was having lunch with Ira Glasser, who is the executive director for the ACLU, and by profession an agnostic Jew, I said, I don't want one inch greater freedom to say what I believe, than I first give to you to say what you believe. That's a biblical ethic. It's the basis for dissent. So if it's the basis for dissent, and if I honor the image of God for all people, how therefore do I treat those who disagree with me on a controversial issue such as homosexuality?

In the context of what we're looking at, let me make a couple of observations, and bring my thoughts to a conclusion. First of all, the Boy Scouts are a voluntary association. I was a Boy Scout in the Unitarian Church. I also didn't get to my Eagle Scout. I don't know if I would have because I had 17 merit badges. You needed 21, but you needed about 12 required, and I only had 4 required. I was doing all the fun merit badges. I went off to prep school so I never did pursue it that far. But I learned a whole lot out of the Boy Scouts. I don't know that I would agree with everything they state and how they go about it. But what I do agree with is, they have their religious liberty and freedom of association to define the terms as they see fit. And so I don't view them as a civic organization that the public owns. They're a free organization. They can use public property on the same terms as any other organization can use public property as I understand the ideal. And therefore, if they want to say no to homosexual scoutmasters, that is their freedom. And if people don't like that, they can go elsewhere. I have the same equanimity in my view of other people. If they want to have an organization that says no to evangelical Christians, well that's their freedom. And yet here we have campuses like Tufts or Bennington or Williams or Grinnell, that are trying to force Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship to accept homosexual leaders, trying to force them to change their religion. So the real question is, who is intolerant of whom?

Let me mention my prescriptive view toward this whole issue. Years ago I wrote it, and it's in volume 2 of this trilogy that I'm getting published right now. It's called "Human Sexuality and Civil Rights." And this is my understanding of how the issue should be addressed from someone who has a particular conviction, but who lives in the midst of others who have different convictions. It's full of "whereas"'s because I was told I had to use "whereas"'s.

"HUMAN SEXUALITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS"

"Whereas: All persons hold the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and therefore they hold equal dignity and protection under due process of law;"

"And whereas: The historic family unit, rooted in heterosexual faithful monogamous marriage and the raising of children is the basic institution in society;"

"And whereas: There are those who by choice, circumstance, or the brokeness of adversity who are unable to participate fully or partly as members of the historic family unit;"

"We affirm: 1. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in mutual fidelity;"

(That is my partisanship, and that's what I argue for on a level playing-field with those who agree or disagree with me.)

"2. No punitive laws shall exist to restrict private association, whether heterosexual or homosexual;"

(I don't want laws against sodomy or private relationships.)

"3. All persons shall accept accountability for the public consequences of their private associations and actions, and they shall in no way deprive others of life, liberty, or property."

(Which in my estimation gives the basis for laws against rape, incest, prostitution, pornography, pederasty, against things that violate the life, liberty or property of others. But for those who want to live outside of marriage privately, and they violate no one's life, liberty or property, that is their freedom to dissent.)

MODERATOR: Thank you, John, time's up.

JOHN RANKIN: Can I give one final sentence here? So the final question I want to leave for you is this. If we're going to look at the issue of what a proper role model is, we have to ask ourselves, where do unalienable rights come from by which we can judge those rights? And if it's other than the God of the Bible, can somewhere other than the God of the Bible give us the same equality? Thank you.

Back To Top

Transcript Part 2 of 3: Dialogue

JOHN BUEHRENS: I think we'll do better if we stand up. . .

JOHN RANKIN: Stand up, OK.

JOHN BUEHRENS: . . .to dialogue about this. For one thing, it's easier for people to see us, and the mikes are on from here.

JOHN RANKIN: Also easier targets for the available tomatoes.

JOHN BUEHRENS: Right. I guess I want to take you on on your doctrine of creation. When I discussed with the chief elder of the Mormon Church in northern Utah, the Catholic Bishop in Utah, and the Episcopal Bishop of Utah, our respective theologies of homosexuality, couple of years ago when we had our General Assembly in Salt Lake, one of the things that became apparent to me is how deeply I disagree with attempts to say that God has created an order of nature that is immutable. It seems to me that to create God in that static image is to create an idol. Unless God is free to allow God's creation to evolve and change, then God is not God.

Margaret Mead, the great anthropologist, said that she believed we had reached a place in human evolution where it was becoming abundantly clear that the old command to increase and multiply was increasingly dysfunctional, when we should become more compassionate toward our sisters and brothers who weren't called to parenthood, and give them more roles as responsible human beings in nurturing young people. And our society is doing that. We let gay, lesbian people serve on the police force and teach in the schools, be nurses and doctors. I think that's a healthy evolution of human society. And sure, the Boy Scouts may want to opt out of that. They're free to do so. They can ghettoize themselves and make themselves a narrow, sectarian, religious organization and give up trying to do civic education for all kids. But I can't see that as terribly responsive to a creative way of moving rights forward in democracy. So I guess my question to you is, when you speak about God as the guarantor of inalienable rights, are you talking about an immutable, static God? Or one who is free?

JOHN RANKIN: Are you free to jump off a mountain without a parachute and have your freedom continue? In other words, what we're looking at here. . .

JOHN BUEHRENS: That I recall is a question that the Devil addressed to Jesus.

JOHN RANKIN: I wasn't thinking of that context, but you have quoted them correctly from Luke 4 and Matthew 4. And Jesus decided that was not his freedom, because the question is, is it freedom to do good or freedom to do evil? Which brings us to the question of defining those terms. So the way that your question is phrased to me, is phrased on certain assumptions. For example, your language says the Boy Scouts are narrow and sectarian by having this doctrine. Narrow and sectarian with reference to your view of God. So, you said God has to be free to evolve and let people evolve. Well that's a definition of your view of God. Now does that by contrast mean that if I don't accept that definition, which you can guess I probably don't, does that mean my belief in God is an immutable (which means non-changing) or static God? Absolutely not so for the static element there.

My understanding in Genesis 1 and 2 for God's name Yahweh-Elohim, is He who is bigger than space, time and number. Being bigger than space, time and number, we being finite we can not grasp that which is bigger than ourselves. I think that many people do try to put God into a box where they bring Him down into a limited universe. The hyper-Calvinists (who believe God forces us into heaven and hell) do that on the one angle, and the Pelagians (who believe God has nothing to do with that idea) can do it on another angle. They go both directions.

What do I believe. I believe that the God of the Bible, being bigger than space, time and number is good. He defines goodness. Part of that goodness is the power to give, and it's best modeled in the emotional, physical, social nature of man and woman in marriage. And so in here, as a Unitarian you and I might disagree. So the Three who are One, who are equal and who give to and receive from each other, is the basis for the social order.

We have three concepts of God at the root of any concept of social order. The monad idea, where there's one God who relates to no one. That can lead to totalitarianism. The polytheistic idea, where there is competition of competing ideas. That can lead to chaos and no social order. And the Trinitarian idea, the Three who are One, unity and diversity together. And marriage reflects that.

So my basic answer is, you and I do have a different view of creation, a different view of God. However, I don't view Him as static. For example, if we want to be creative musically, there are laws of math and music we have to learn first. I believe that God's nature is a nature of truth that gives the balance, the boundaries for the greatest freedom.

Let me circle back and ask you a question. You used the word often, John, "discriminate." If you'd used the word "prejudicial" I would have responded differently than when you used the word "discriminate." "Discriminate" is a benign word, and it can be used in a positive sense - to have a discriminating palate. If you do agree that there are different types of discrimination, you would agree there are some things to discriminate against. We should discriminate against rape. We should discriminate against murder. However we do it, we should discriminate against it.

So here's my question for you. As we look at the issue of homosexuality, the order of creation, and what to discriminate against, do you know of any other source other than the God of Genesis 1 and 2, from whom unalienable rights come from? And perhaps I'll ask you secondly: If not, what's your definition of God? Because when you say He's free to evolve and change, is your definition of God something that can ever be consistent? Or is it something that's defined by the individual and not the social order at large?

JOHN BUEHRENS: John, one of the things that you and I actually hold in common is a good deal of reliance on biblical theology. We just don't read it the same way. The basic authority in my theological reflection, like yours, is biblical. I'm not necessarily speaking for all Unitarian- Universalists in this. But that's where I do my theological reflection.

JOHN RANKIN: I understand that.

JOHN BUEHRENS: What I find in arguments like yours, though, is an attempt to derive from the Scriptures a static social order. And it has been used with such injustice over the centuries to justify slavery, to justify limitations of women, that I find it an abuse of Scripture, and actually react rather viscerally to that attempt to take the God that I find so amazing, and so big, and so moving, and so creative, that's pointed to in our religious heritage, as somehow justifying an order of society which reduces some people to the margins, which gives them second-class theological citizenship, which is what you have explicitly done here this evening. And which thereby encourages people in the name of the Gospel to hold attitudes that are unloving and that exclude people from full participation in society.

JOHN RANKIN: Could I give response to that?

JOHN BUEHRENS: Yeah.

JOHN RANKIN: Lot of stuff you've just given me. I'm writing down notes here sideways in a dark light, and I want to make sure that I give you a cogent and succinct response.

I respect what you're saying profoundly. I was raised a Unitarian. And having been raised Unitarian, I was raised without a theological grid that a lot of people have when they come into an evangelical worldview. And so I do respect that you respond viscerally to a lot of theological people who are narrow-minded and impositional in what they believe. I'm arguing precisely the opposite. I'm arguing that from an evangelical worldview I have the freedom to give respect to the image of God in people who disagree with me. I'm also arguing there's no other source for it in human history. I'm making an historical argument that we can track in history. Because you see, if we have different opinions on an issue, what source do I always have to respect someone with whom I disagree? I don't treat a homosexual as a secondary citizen. I treat myself as a secondary citizen in God until my sins are forgiven in Christ Jesus. And I'm no more or less a sinner than anyone else. Homosexuality is one of many issues the Bible addresses in that context. But do I become a secondary citizen in your view, if I don't accept a certain definition of homosexuality?

One other element right here. And interestingly, I talked with Bill Leggett about this beforehand in passing. Yes, there have been those who have used the Bible to justify slavery and dehumanizing of women. But they're wrong biblically. And I argue with them. And I've written a three-volume set, the first volume of which goes into detail about the issue of women. In fact, in the late 1980s when I was heading up a pro-life group in Massachusetts, I deliberately did my Th.M. in Ethics and Public Policy, in feminist studies at Harvard, where I can assure you I was a minority of opinion as an evangelical, to make myself accountable to the toughest questions. And I made a simple observation. Only Genesis treats women and men equally. The pagan texts treat women as second-class.

And secondly and briefly, there's no biblical basis for slavery or justifying taking away the rights of others. The only slavery in the Old Testament is a misunderstood concept of when people who are in debt, sell themselves to an employer, work so many years, he pays off their debt, and they gain their freedom. But the whole time they are in that economic arrangement, their unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property and Sabbath, may not be violated.

So, your visceral reaction to much of what's out there, I honor. But my foundation, my assumptions start in the order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, acknowledges that many people including those in the Bible blow it, but I am accountable to that which is in Genesis 1 and 2.

JOHN BUEHRENS: We've actually debated once before, in Hartford, Connecticut. My favorite moment in that debate, John, was the moment when we were touching on issues of the equality of the sexes, and I believe you agreed with me, that if real equality of the sexes were practiced, all of the problem pregnancies that lie behind the abortion controversy would not be the problems that they are.

JOHN RANKIN: And do you remember my response to that? I pointed out the data that 95 out of every 100 abortions in this country are upon women who are pregnant by other than a husband, and the man has taken off. Four of the remaining five percent, the man's on the way out the door. So I argued as I did with Patricia Ireland at Smith College, that abortion is the ultimate male chauvinism. And therefore, I was saying from my perspective as a man, it's mainly a male issue of disregarding women's dignity.

JOHN BUEHRENS: OK. That gave me the hope that you are capable of seeing that social prejudice can cause grave injustice, and can cause further problems throughout society.

JOHN RANKIN: Agreed.

JOHN BUEHRENS: Now, do you not extend to the issues of the marginalization of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered people in our society, the same thought pattern that concerns you, about the abuses and prejudices that women have suffered?

JOHN RANKIN: Oh absolutely. But there's a difference. I believe that the homosexual identity is demonstrably subjective in many contexts, where being a woman is not. In other words, there are those who will say, well, take for example, I've spoken at Smith College a few times. Take for example, those who as lesbians at Smith College recruit others to be lesbians, who are knowingly lesbian while they are students, and become heterosexual thereafter by their own choice. This is very clearly understood at a place like Smith. So that becomes a subjective definition. In other words, it is who I am at this point in my life. And so I have a great problem with defining civil rights classes on anything that is subjective. In fact, I don't want anyone to have a civil right because they are a homosexual, or a Christian, or a Jew, or a 47- year old. I figured it out driving up here tonight. At age 47 I'm in a distinct minority in the population of this country. A maximum of 1.5% of us are 47. And so, should my rights be determined because I'm 47? Or because I'm a Christian? Absolutely not. And the same for someone who understands himself or herself to be a homosexual. We all have the same rights, that life, liberty and property can not be deprived unless we deprive someone else -- because we are human beings. And with that affirmation I said once to a lesbian attorney in California, I said look, if you were in a position where your life were in danger, and I was in a position to risk my life to protect your life, I would do it right like that, and not because I'm Christian, not because you're lesbian, but because you are a human being made in God's image.

So, that's the way I treat people. But then I also have to acknowledge that we have different views of truth at this point. And therefore the really interesting point to me, in terms of maintaining a social order, is I'm articulating my best conviction in being honest with my particular beliefs in how I treat those who disagree with me. Where outside of the biblical canon, or within a homosexual rights definition, is there the freedom to give me the same tolerance to disagree with rights being determined by sexuality, for example?

JOHN BUEHRENS: John, when you get this way, what I hear is a desperate attempt to find an objective notion to hang onto.

JOHN RANKIN: Oh, it's not desperate.

JOHN BUEHRENS: Well, it disparages...

JOHN RANKIN: It's peaceful. It's gentle. It's been with me for years.

JOHN BUEHRENS: The basic debate about us here has been about both what I find to be a limiting of God's subjective freedom . . .

JOHN RANKIN: Which is your definition of God.

JOHN BUEHRENS: . . . and a disparaging of the human evolving subjective reality that goes with human sexuality.

JOHN RANKIN: But see, that's your definition. And you and I agree we disagree on that one, OK?

JOHN BUEHRENS: Right.

JOHN RANKIN: So what I'm trying to do, is I'm trying to be honest about what I believe. I believe there are objective truths. I believe gravity is objectively verifiable, and I'm glad I'm not going to test it, getting back to our original metaphor there. I believe there are objective truths. But there's no desperation there. There's a sense of anchor. So for example, I think everyone here tonight is grateful for unalienable rights. That our life, liberty and property may not be deprived by other people arbitrarily. And I root that historically in no other place but the context and content of Genesis 1 and 2. So it's not desperate. It's an anchor for freedom, subjective freedom, experiential freedom, creative freedom.

JOHN BUEHRENS: Well my sense of reality is quite relational. It includes both the subjective and objective poles of every relationship, including my relationship with God, including my relationship with my fellow human beings, each of whom enters into a relationship with me in which I try to honor their subjectivity. In which I try to honor not only their objective rights, but also their experience, their spiritual experience, their experience of their identity, their experience of their human sexuality. And I don't try in the name of God, or out of my imposing a grid on them, to reduce any of them to second-class citizenship. They're my sisters and brothers.

JOHN RANKIN: You're right, we are all sisters and brothers as human beings. I want to ask you two questions, John. Have I honored your subjectivity tonight? Have I respected it?

JOHN BUEHRENS: You're always a respectful debater, John.

JOHN RANKIN: Forget the debate. Do I honor your subjectivity? Do I respect it?

JOHN BUEHRENS: You seem to, yeah.

JOHN RANKIN: I do. Do you know why? I'm not your judge. When I wrote this trilogy called "First the Gospel, Then Politics," fifteen years ago the title was going to be "There Is No Coercion in the Gospel." That's my passion. Then when we have to come to the issue: where we do disagree, how do we treat one another?

JOHN BUEHRENS: Right.

JOHN RANKIN: That's my biggest concern.

JOHN BUEHRENS: I think we ought to turn this open to the people who are here with us.

Back To Top

Transcript Part 3 of 3: Audience Questions, Closing Statements

Questions from the Audience

QUESTIONER: Hello, my name is Jim. First, could I get the exact wording of the resolution that we're debating tonight?

JOHN RANKIN: Well, we're not debating the resolution tonight. I know Maine has its question which I know something about. The Resolution that I read is an example of how I would contribute to the issue. Oh, the question. "Homosexuality and the Boy Scouts: What is a Proper Role Model?"

QUESTIONER: OK. First, there's a work called "The Republic," by a guy called Plato that is fairly influential. One thing that Plato did in that, he was trying to determine the ideal state, and this is real hazy. In order to do that, he was trying to do something which is easier to get a handle on, which is a big state. For the last ten or fifteen minutes, you guys didn't even mention the word "Boy Scouts." [Audience laughter] I understand the presidential candidates, you ask about education and they get onto Medicaid. What you're arguing about is, are homosexuals good people, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But what the resolution is, are homosexuals effective Boy Scout leaders? Are they good role models? As a Boy Scout, but also as a bisexual, I have a very big interest in this. Only the merit badge Family Life, I believe, makes any reference to sexuality at all. And in this particular merit badge that's only about safe sex practices, etc. Very little mention of sexuality. And then there are poets like Walt Whitman that we teach in our schools. Walt Whitman was a homosexual, but the poems we read don't deal with sex. And the Boy Scouts, we don't deal with sex. We deal with being good citizens. [Audience applause] When we go on trips, the Scout leader wouldn't bring his wife along and say, now we're going to watch them screw. Sexuality isn't a prevalent part of Boy Scouts, it's only barely mentioned in one merit badge. You're talking about homosexuality, but the question isn't is homosexuality good, but can homosexuals be good role models? I'm not quite sure where I want you to go with this, but think about that, we're not dealing with homosexuality. But can homosexuals be good role models in a situation where sexuality isn't going to be prevalent. [Audience applause]

JOHN RANKIN: The language John and I chose was "a proper role model." Actually we had different language, and this was language that I think you were interested in doing. And that's fine with me. How did I address the subject? I address the subject by going to the deeper level of what it is for a proper role model in society. I'm trying to argue that the very basis of unalienable rights, is rooted in the assumptions of the God of the Bible. The assumption is man and woman in the social order, OK? And the giving and receiving and the complementary balance between male and female is necessary for a proper role model. So on that basis, what we said in the flyer, that I believe a heterosexual man is a proper role model, OK? You mentioned the issue about men bringing wives.

QUESTIONER: It's not about men being a proper role model. This is specifically in the context of the Boy Scouts, where sexuality isn't going to be mentioned. [unintelligible]

JOHN RANKIN: What I'm saying is this. I'm making a positive argument from the God of the Bible, for those who care to give allegiance or concern about that. But also the question about unalienable rights. If we care about unalienable rights, the very assumption is the goodness of male and female. Yes, I do believe that children need a mom and dad who love each other and love them, psychologically, emotionally, and at so many other levels in terms of social order. I believe the greatest evil, as alluded to earlier when John asked me the question about abortion, I think the greatest evil in our society, is the absence of fathers. And so I believe in the presence of a husband and wife who are committed in marriage, and won't break that commitment, number one. Number two, showing that model to their children is the best role model. Therefore, in the Boy Scouts or any other context, I believe that that's the best role model.

And then the final issue here, is the question of freedom, which John agreed with me that if they want to marginalize themselves (I don't think they are), that they're free to discriminate, as any group is in terms of association. And discrimination can be a positive or negative, depending upon how you define it. But yes, I do believe that fatherhood is necessary, and that of a healthy marriage is the finest basis for well-being in society. Having said that, those who disagree with me have the same respect, the same dignity, the same civil rights that I have. And I would not take one inch greater freedom to say what I say than those who disagree with me.

MODERATOR: John, do you want to respond to that?

JOHN RANKIN: If you want to follow through after me?

JOHN BUEHRENS: Go ahead, Jim.

QUESTIONER: [unintelligible]

JOHN RANKIN: Well let me ask you this. Do you think it's good to break a covenant promise? Because that's what they've done. Now let me ask you the following. You said a moment ago you were bisexual. You volunteered that. You talked about people who realized after thirty years, so they've got to be at least fifty or fifty- five years old. Is homosexuality a given, or is it subjective? Why did it take them half a century to discover that? Or are there deeper issues about sexual identity that a role can be objective? But my answer to your question is, no, that's not a good role model to break a covenant.

JOHN BUEHRENS: I would answer your question about human sexuality by saying it is clearly both. No one comes to terms with their human sexuality, or how they're going to use this tremendous potential God's given us, except by understanding themselves as a relational being. That does in some people evolve and change over time. I've experienced that in pastoral counseling. I suspect that you have, too, John. People are not static.

Now, the question of the Scouts. You're delighted to have the Boy Scouts adopt a notion of proper role models that fits your religious view. They have spent tens of millions of dollars seeking the legal right to do that. Fine. One of the issues that arises, though, is then, OK, if they want to be a quasi- religious organization rather than a broad civic education organization, why should they have a congressional charter? Why should public institutions sponsor Scout troops? Why should we be engaged in the civil order in sponsoring an organization that wants to exclude a whole category of citizens, fight to get out from under a whole [unintelligible], and why should they take an entire church, like my own, and tell us, no, no, if you teach your kids a different attitude toward human sexuality (and justice, which is what we believe we're doing), you and your church and your kids have no place in scouting. Then they've fallen into religious discrimination, don't you think?

JOHN RANKIN: Well, I think the very nature of religious freedom is the freedom of association. I don't know a lot of the details you're speaking about in terms of public accommodations, in terms of the law and so forth. It's not something I've studied. The only thing that I would say, is it should be equal in all directions. So for example, if you have a group that says no evangelical, born-again Christians allowed, people are free to have a group like that, based on religious liberty. For example, churches can have their statements of faith you have to sign. Of course, Unitarians are free to have no such statement. I would say religious liberty gives you that freedom to choose association and set the bar in one direction, whether I agree or disagree with it.

JOHN BUEHRENS: But the Boy Scouts, rather than letting the various churches and civic organizations that sponsor and house their Scout units make the decisions about who's a proper role model, they decided that there's a dogma on this subject, and an exclusionary principle.

JOHN RANKIN: So you're arguing for state rights and a limited federal government?

JOHN BUEHRENS: In this particular instance, when it comes to parents delegating the question of nurturing and guiding their young people, absolutely. I believe it ought to be done on a face-to-face, community basis where parents hold the volunteers accountable and are involved in their selection, not some faceless bureaucrats in Dallas.

JOHN RANKIN: You know, I can live with that very easily. But I'm also saying as a matter of law, the faceless bureaucrats in Dallas as a free association can make that decision. Let me ask you one quick question that I thought was interesting. You said in pastoral counseling you've seen people evolve and change, ergo, from a heterosexual identity to a homosexual identity. Can it evolve and change in both directions?

JOHN BUEHRENS: I think there is a phenomenon in some evolving young people of what I would describe as pseudo-homosexual identity. I can remember doing a wedding of a man and a woman, where the woman in the partnership had thought for a time when she was in college that she was lesbian. We talked that out thoroughly. But I don't believe in conversion approaches because I think too often, people are asked to distort their identity that is more deeply God-given than can be corrected by will power or religious suasion. I think often tremendous damage is done that way. But we are cutting off our interlocutors. Let's let somebody else speak.

QUESTIONER: My name is Dan. I come here tonight from the Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship of the Eastern Slopes in Chocorua, New Hampshire, with several members, where I serve as minister. You may or you may not be aware as ministers that this week is national Pastoral Care Week. The theme of national Pastoral Care Week this year is "valuing each person wholly." One of the things that had always impressed me (and I'm sorry, I do have to use that past tense), about the Boy Scouts, was that it seemed to be an organization which valued the whole person. It was respect for character, integrity, and wholeness. Now I've worked also with youth professionally, including many young people about 13 to 17 years old, some of whom have been in Boy Scouts. One of the things that I learned is that these young people are doing a lot of examination. They need the freedom to ask questions. And seeing a national organization, seeing what is also for them a local and very intimate organization that they're associated with, the Boy Scouts, tell them that some kinds of people are not OK, sends the message that if these young men think they might be gay or bisexual, that they are not OK. Now they may be and they may not be. They need the freedom to examine it. They need the freedom to ask questions. But the message that is sent by this policy is that if they are Boy Scouts, it is not OK to examine this part of themselves. It is OK to be a bigot. It is OK to say that homosexual people are not good role models. But it is not OK for these young men to ask questions in healthy ways to sort out their sexual identities.

JOHN BUEHRENS: One of the things I worry about most is the way in which the bigotry, unchecked, actually turns violent. We live in a time when we see someone like Matthew Shepherd put to death against a fence rail in Wyoming by a pair of young men, one of whom was an Eagle Scout. I'm very aware of the way in which insecurity about male identity breeds that kind of homophobia, fear and hatred. Now I don't think the Boy Scouts will ever be a good vehicle for sex education, nor should it be. As Jim said, sexual subjects don't come up in Boy Scouts, and actually the Scouts are quite clear that they shouldn't. While there should be some receptivity to questions and concerns by a scoutmaster, they should always be referred to a pastor, to a parent, to a trusted counselor, and that the Scouts need to stay out of trying to answer religious questions for kids, or questions of sexual identity. But when the kind of fear that turns to hatred isn't checked, there's another disservice done to building the kind of society that I actually think both you and I would like to see develop.

JOHN RANKIN: Well in response to Dan, wherever Dan went, there he is, a couple of observations. First of all, I teach in churches all around the country. Very often when I come into a city I haven't been to before, I'll preach on Sunday morning and have a Sunday evening called "The Love of Hard Questions." You will find in me a passionate embrace of the love of hard questions. I was a youth minister for years. I have teenagers over to people's, friend's houses, mine is big enough, to do exactly that. In fact the last time we did it they brought a bunch of people from the Unitarian denomination. I thought that was delightful, evangelicals bringing Unitarians. So absolutely yes to a hospitality to hard questions.

The difficulty I'm having with some of the thinking here, and John in part of your response, is the violence against Matthew Shepherd is despicable. Because as a human being he suffered a violation. And to me that's the entire issue, he's a human being. To try to learn the motivation of people's hearts and minds, only God can do that. We're judged according to our deeds. I think if we judge according to deeds we have something far more consistent when it comes to a measure of law. That's why as I said earlier, I don't want an inch greater freedom than someone who disagrees with me, including a lesbian attorney in California once, when she was cross-examining me with some questions. So we come back to this whole question. I hear from various people who are here tonight, and John from yourself, that Scouts should stay out of sexuality, the Scouts shouldn't be religious, the Scouts shouldn't be this or that. That strikes me as being intolerant. You're telling the Scouts how to be who they want to be. My response is, if we're truly tolerant they are free to be who they are, OK? And if they have the freedom of association that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with, they have that freedom no matter how much we agree or disagree with it. I may find elements in your formulation I disagree with. If there isn't the satisfaction among certain people here of the Boy Scouts being just, why not form another organization. Your forebears left Trinitarianism and formed a new church. And isn't that the freedom we have in this country?

JOHN BUEHRENS: Just pastorally, John, I'm not sure you hear the sense of loss that I feel, a sense of disappointment. I'm not trying to impinge on the organization's right as a voluntary association. But I'm saying they have taken what was a big, civic, inclusive organization, and by adopting this policy and playing what I feel are clearly religious politics, they've narrowed what they can be. That shuts me out. It shuts many other people out. And it narrows their utility in society. And that I believe is tragic.

JOHN RANKIN: I think what you're talking about there is respecting the image of God as I've defined it. Pastorally I respect that very much. I was coming from a different angle. But let me balance it a little bit. When Tufts University withdrew its funding and official status for the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship because they would not accept a lesbian as a leader (and the same happened at three other colleges), what is the sense of loss that that Fellowship has? They are people who believe it is male and female. They are a voluntary association. All of a sudden, they're being discriminated against. Every other group under the sun who disagrees with them gets their funding, but they don't get their funding. Is there not a sense of loss, is there not a sense of intolerance there? So I understand pastorally the human level. A lot of us can feel loss when a group that we thought accepted things that are important to us, change their mind or act differently.

JOHN BUEHRENS: That's an issue of funding from the common coffer. It is the same issue that the Boy Scouts are going to confront. Why should they get United Way money if they don't want to serve the whole community? Why should they get the sponsorship of police departments or United States government military units, if they don't want to serve the whole community? The same issue comes up on college campuses. Yes, we can have voluntary religious societies on college campuses, provided they don't want to come to the common trough for their funding if they are going to practice discrimination against whole classes of people who are part of that community.

JOHN RANKIN: Isn't the common trough taken from every student who puts in their fee equally? And therefore, if you've got fifty students who put in their fee, and they are evangelical Christians, holding a position theologically about marriage that is two-thousand years old, and all of a sudden they're saying you can't have your. . .

JOHN BUEHRENS: John, you send one of your kids to Hillsdale College, which is very proud of never accepting a dime from the government. All I ask is that the campus InterVarsity group never accept a dime from the student government.

JOHN RANKIN: But it's their own money to begin with. So I think, OK.

MODERATOR: Next question.

QUESTIONER: My name is Aaron Shelton. This is primarily addressed to John Buehrens. Two things, first the general, the second a little more specific. You said that you had relatives who would not go into the scouting program out of religious conviction. Do you not feel that it goes both ways? That you have two opposing positions on this issue, and both are seeking to have legislation go their way? In the end, one side's theological perspective will be upheld by this legislation, and the other's will not. There is the possibility that one side is going to have to compromise out of religious conviction and stay out. I think that that is fine. I am an evangelical Christian. There are many organizations that I out of religious conviction will not join. I have many friends who are part of those organizations and we converse regularly. And that's one of the things I like about forums like this, is that there can be open dialogue. As John Rankin suggested, there's the freedom to dissent. What I'd like you to possibly address is what I see going on, is that there's this theological disagreement. Those who are opposing the Boy Scouts, and as you mentioned, all of the bad press, it's been incredibly bad, and you know every political cartoon bashes the Boy Scouts. What I see here is this angry disagreement with the Boy Scouts without the use of reason to demonstrate that they are wrong. There is the assumption that homosexuality is a morally acceptable alternative lifestyle. That's the assumption. And all who disagree are marginalized, are bashed.

JOHN BUEHRENS: Aaron, look, I don't think you followed me when I said, I would actually be comfortable if under the large Boy Scouts of America umbrella, your evangelical congregation had the right to determine who is a proper role model, and who is a scoutmaster. And the Catholic Parish had the right to determine who's a proper role model and a scoutmaster. And my Unitarian-Universalist congregation also had that right. But they've taken away my right. They've said that I can't do that. That only the standard that comes from your church can prevail. That's hurtful. I'm trying to argue this on very reasonable grounds. The mistake that has been made for them is to make it a theological issue in the narrow sense of the term, rather than one in which we all have respect for different religious convictions and a real pluralism under our common democracy.

QUESTIONER: Well that brings me to my second question, which is this issue of truth. You mentioned that you disagreed with John Rankin's doctrine of creation. You suggested that there was this sort of evolution in society that was part of the created order. My question is, can we ever speak of right, wrong, good and evil, true and false? Or is everything relative? I mean, we could point to something as abhorrent as rape or even murder, and say at some point in the future, will our society evolve and then that will be something that is now accepted. So if somebody was a habitual murderer and wanted to be a Boy Scout leader, that we need to respect that. I know it sounds absurd, but that's my question.

JOHN BUEHRENS: Remember that it wasn't so awfully long ago, that it was considered right for the only people in the country who could cast a vote to be white, male, Christian property owners. We got past that. We evolved beyond it. We developed a deeper sense of right out of a whole lot of rational discussion, theological application within different communities that came to the common conviction that we had to extend rights more broadly. I think that what's right and wrong does evolve and change, and thank God for it. [Audience applause]

JOHN RANKIN: A couple of points of response here. John, everything you said in the first part of your answer to Aaron a moment ago, I agree with, until the last thing you said. You said the Boy Scouts have taken away your rights. They haven't taken away your rights. They have their right of the freedom of association. Now maybe you have a visceral identity of having been a Boy Scout once, and that means a lot to you. I respect that. I didn't get quite as far as you did. But in terms of their freedoms, when we use the language of rights, rights are given and protected. They haven't taken away your right. They've exercised their right to set the standards they want to.

JOHN BUEHRENS: Would you like me to explicate what I feel are the rights they've taken away?

JOHN RANKIN: In one second, OK, because I'm responding to the legal definition of rights. I also want to say, that I had the Boy Scouts in Connecticut send me their whole statement on this thing. There was no theology in it.

JOHN BUEHRENS: These days the Boy Scouts want to play it both ways all the time. They want to say, no, we have nothing to do with religion. And yet, they won't let my kids get the Religion and Life award from their own church. They want to say, well, we include everybody. But the Buddhist kids have to stand up and say they believe in God. Which is not a Buddhist doctrine as you well know. They want to say that they are a voluntary organization, but under government charter and with special rights to recruit in the public schools and to be sponsored by United Way agencies and the like. There is a profound inconsistency and the loss of rights that I feel.

If they would just let me, in good conscience, be able to have in my religious community, the sponsorship of a Scout troop where we could determine who the volunteers are. But they have made it abundantly clear that if I try to do that, if in that group there is any one who steps forward and says, well, you know, I am gay -- they're out. They did it the other day to a young assistance scoutmaster in New Hampshire. They did it last week to a Boy Scout executive in California. They have told an entire Boy Scout Council on the West Coast, you're no longer a Boy Scout Council because that council said, we'd like to operate on the basis of local judgment. They don't allow that. That's the denial of rights. They have not only bought into religious politics, they have really bought into a top-down, authoritarian approach to what could be a very democratizing youth program.

JOHN RANKIN: And you know, John, you and I are much agreed on congregational polity. And you're describing one reason why I'm not a Roman Catholic when it comes down to determination. But Roman Catholics are free to be Roman Catholic. So I think when you're saying that they must allow that merit badge in your church, I think you're trying to make them change. Because the point is you do disagree with them. And so if you do disagree with them, let them go in their disagreeable way, and find some other way around it.

You gave an answer to the first question. I want to give my answer to what you said. You talked about, thank God that we were able to overcome the fact that it was white, male property owners who had rights when women didn't have the right to vote. The reason we got the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage, was because of the unalienable rights which were bigger than the bigotries of the people who signed it.

Mars Hill Forum #56 transcript Section 2 of Part 3 (Questions from Audience, Closing Statements)

QUESTIONER: I wanted to say, John, you mentioned that you believe the greatest good comes from God. But I would like to say that the greatest evil can come from God when people follow God blindly. They think they're doing something right, and actually they end up hurting people. That brought about the Inquisition. And what about other atrocities?

JOHN RANKIN: OK, can I just respond quickly. You're right. But the question is, are they following the God of the Bible, the unalienable rights. The Inquisition was against the God of Genesis 1 and 2.

QUESTIONER: I'm still having some difficulty understanding how the Boy Scouts of America can deny a particular troop -- I'm from a community some sixty-five miles north of here -- their right to choose their own scoutmaster, and excluding anyone who is homosexual. We are also dealing recently in this community with a heterosexual male who was a pederast, who over a period of some ten years was abusing, and he's a scoutmaster. Now it seems to me there ought to be a way to choose the right scoutmaster. The Boy Scouts of America by, what's the word?, denying the Scouts their popcorn money or whatever it is, are placing additional burden on them, saying you can choose anybody you want, but not these people. That I'm finding very, very difficult. In addition to that, I'm thinking about all the people who do not accept the basis of everything being the Bible. Because there certainly are a great many people who are Scouts, have been Scouts, who don't accept either Christianity, or Buddhism, or the Bible, or Genesis as the beginning.

JOHN RANKIN: Well, if I could just give a quick response. I think an interesting point, and one reason I like to do these forums is what I learn from people like John Buehrens who comes with expertise from a different perspective, is, if I know all the details, what will my decision be about the polity of the Boy Scouts? I'm not completely sure. But the fact I'm a convinced reformational Protestant and not a Roman Catholic means I still affirm the freedoms of the hierarchical Roman Catholic Church to have its freedom in the culture. The issue that is interesting that John Buehrens raised is, is that equitable and fair? I would say everyone should have a free level-playing field. Whether or not that exists I don't know quite fully. The second element of your question, and I was trying to be clear, I believe in unalienable rights. I have yet to find anyone who doesn't want them. I am saying historically there is no other source than the God of the Bible. When I speak that you don't have to believe that. You don't have to accept it is true. At least you know where I'm coming from in my particular conviction about civil rights that I honor for all people. Those rights are based on no one being deprived of life, liberty or property, because we are human. The differences that go on after that, we need to have a level playing field where we can exist in freedom while we don't beat up on each other. That's what I'm arguing for from my particular perspective.

JOHN BUEHRENS: I'm dying to hear from a proper role model here.

QUESTIONER: My name is Chris Pear. I'm a trustee of the Unitarian-Universalist Society of Gardner, Massachusetts, as well as an assistant Scout leader and an associate advisor of the Order of the Arrow in the Boy Scouts of America. I do see a problem with the way the national office looks down on the communities and does not give us the right of who we choose as leaders. One of the reasons why I'm up here is because of a number of friends that I have made who are either lesbian or gay, and if they were not around, I don't know what I would do. One of the questions that I have is, that if we are looking for the proper role model for the Scouts and youth, how can you deny (excuse me if I'm not quoting you correctly Mr. Rankin) that the proper role model is judged by deeds? There are many of my friends who are gay, who I would think would be excellent role models to the boys of my troop, because they exemplify some of those items in the Scout law. By denying those type of people such as my friends, these boys will not have that opportunity in the younger years. And as we have seen in society, a lot of times those younger years are the crucial years in any youth's life. How can you think that the morality is not there, when you are saying man is created in God's image? My other question is, is that spiritual or is that physical that you're looking at? And I realize the area of homosexuality is more a physical aspect. I think if you looked beyond the physical and think of the spiritual, then the union between man and man, and woman and woman is there, and it's fulfilling in that moral aspect of what life is.

JOHN RANKIN: Well, it may fulfill an aspect that I would never take away from a person in terms of the ability to be a charitable and conscientious member of society. But what I am saying in terms of the assumptions of God's image in the God of the Bible, is the nature of male and female. I hope you understand that my whole argument tonight has been proactive. You have not heard my make any disparaging comment about any person. You've heard me say that those with whom I disagree, I respect equally. I am not your judge, their judge or anyone else's judge. But by the same token I recognize that many people disagree with me very strongly. And I wonder if in saying the Boy Scouts need to have this openness policy, is it not being impositional and intolerant of the Boy Scouts freedom to be that way? If they're not allowing that freedom you believe they should, why not go somewhere else? It's the very nature of religious liberty in this country today. I don't know if I can defend all their policy decisions. But I can defend their freedom to make their decisions if they're truly a voluntary organization at that point. That's the basic advocacy I have.

Now the deeper issue is why I believe in the proactive case for man and woman in mutually committed marriage. I think that any sociological profile will show you, that once you don't have a husband and wife treating each other as equals in a faithfully committed marriage, the children suffer. And children need male and female role models. A woman out there was just shaking her head to disagree with me. And so that brings us back to the point that we disagree. So then, in the face of our disagreement, how do we conduct ourselves? It is my conviction that the Boy Scouts, whether we agree or disagree with how they come to their decision, that is their liberty. If that liberty doesn't include you, you don't feel included by it, then you are free to go elsewhere. Just like I'm free to go elsewhere if some organization doesn't include the liberty for me to be what? Someone who believes that the Bible is inspired.

QUESTIONER: [unintelligible]

JOHN RANKIN: And I'm not a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon either.

QUESTIONER: [unintelligible]

JOHN RANKIN: I have no doubt that there are many elements of good role models among homosexual people. I'm going for the depth of what I think the best health is. But let me make one observation. Martin Luther changed history because he was not accepted in the church for the change he wanted to make in its midst. And I'm grateful for that. And so if you're facing such an oppressive oligarchy that will not go with your changes, then maybe here you stand and there you go.

QUESTIONER: John, I only have a comment, not really a question. My name is Sy Skillen and I belong to First Parish. I have been in scouting for many years. I only got as far as Heart Scouts. You fellas got ahead of me. I then went on to become a troop leader. My troop took many first places in competition with Boy Scout troops, cross-country, compass, hiking, first aid, camping, et cetera. My fear here is that something is being left out of this Ping-Pong match at the top of the house. And it's the kids. I don't know if eleven, twelve, or thirteen year olds understand a philosophy behind Genesis and Revelation and a few other things. They are taught prejudice. Now we are on the point of role models here. I kind of chuckle because I'm going to land square on both feet in the middle. I'm a heterosexual male, and I founded and ran a Girl Scout troop in Massachusetts. [Audience laughter, applause]

JOHN BUEHRENS: That's wonderful! It reminds me that the Boy Scouts actually in the mid-eighties realized that women could serve as Scout volunteers.

MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Maybe they couldn't get enough men.

JOHN BUEHRENS: Well, whatever their motivations.

JOHN RANKIN: The GSA, do they allow men?

JOHN BUEHRENS: Yes. Yes, indeed they do. And Campfire for example, really is a wonderfully inclusive youth organization.

JOHN RANKIN: Do you think there's a place for women modeling women alone, and men modeling men alone?

JOHN BUEHRENS: Yes, I do. I do. But I don't think that it has to be as hermetically sealed as perhaps it was in the past. Because I think that more interaction between men and women, and frankly between gay and straight people, working together, modeling good team work, modeling shared leadership, modeling acceptance of one another, I think can be absolutely marvelous for youth. So I'm delighted to hear about this Scout leader. I actually remember when my daughter was in Bluebirds. My wife was working full time. We ministers at least get to set our own hours. But when I went to the Bluebird meetings it just drove the moms crazy. I was terribly tempted to just hang in there and do it as an educational ministry. But ultimately I could see the discomfiture was not quite worth it. So I'm just saddened about how many opportunities are lost when a kind of unmerited anxiety or discomfiture is allowed to dominate organizations and prevent the real creativity and mutual respect that I think could model good behavior.

[To next questioner] One more Scout leader.

MODERATOR: Let's have the two questions and then we'll have a follow-up by the two speakers.

QUESTIONER: I've been muddling over what can I ask for a question. I have to comment, Philip Roth wrote in "Portnoy's Complaint," it's not so amazing some of us end up with our own [unintelligible] down the beach, that more of us don't. That being said, I'm a Cubmaster, I'm on a troop committee for Boy Scouts, I'm unit commissioner for two different Cub packs. It's interesting that women are accepted as den mothers until the boys reach puberty age, around then, and then it's supposedly all men. I have to say my wife is one of the most welcome people to go on camp outs with the boys. I've also known many homosexual men who are excellent leaders, excellent role models. When I was in Boy Scouts, I'm sure it's still true, we knew which men were the ones we didn't go into a room alone with because they were weirdoes. (And none of them were homosexual.) They were the fine outstanding ones, well respected, married men, 2.5 kids, house on the hill, dog, cat and yard. And they aren't homosexuals, they are the ones who the Boy Scouts now say should be our role models. I guess I don't really have a question other than, I feel very uncomfortable now as a Boy Scout leader. I have many friends who are gay. They hate the fact that I deal with Boy Scouts. Boy Scouts as a program I think is important. I think it does a lot of good. When I took Family Life merit badge, boys didn't have sex, so we didn't have to know about safe sex. [Audience laughter] I don't know if that's really a question, if you can get one out of there.

JOHN RANKIN: Well you've posed something I want to respond to. I think it's a very good observation. Years ago I was hosting a forum with Bishop John Spong, who is the first Episcopal Bishop in the country to ordain practicing homosexuals. The subject matter that night was not human sexuality, it was "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism," the title of a book that he had written. And yet he brought up the subject and a number of people there also brought up the subject. I want to make two observations that happened that evening at Yale.

First of all, John Spong pointed out exactly what you pointed out. That heterosexual/bisexual abusers, that's not a role model. In fact I'm going to argue that the majority of sexual sin is heterosexual. I told him that evening, I said the majority is heterosexual. I didn't bring up the issue of homosexuality. But I am consistent, I believe so in that I am saying, sex belongs between a man and woman in marriage, and outside of that it breaks covenant and it is not healthy ultimately, whether heterosexual or homosexual. So I was not aiming at homosexuality. He brought up the issue.

The second thing that was interesting that evening, a man identified himself as homosexual and was challenging me at a couple of points. He shared about an abusive background that he had, this was his testimony. As he shared that I said, listen, if you had your life to do all over again, if you had that ability within your power, because he talked about a father who was never there, a stepfather who was there and abusive and so forth. And I said, if you had your life to do all over again, and you were able to choose what kind of life you come into, what would be your best choice? Would it be a man and a wife who love each other as equals, and who love their children? He started to cry. He said yes, that's what he wanted. I believe that that's the way to find the POSH Ls: peace, order, stability and hope, to live, to love, to laugh, and to learn. I believe that passionately. I in pastoral counseling have dealt with very, very many people, and I think the overwhelming reality of social evil in our society today, is the absence of a father who treats the mother as an equal and models it for the children. And so when I talk about a proper role model: a man who is faithful to his wife. Once you move outside of that, it begins to break down. Having said that, again we now come to the point where we disagree on that. Therefore, how do I conduct myself toward those who might disagree. I believe I'm giving a level-playing field for freedom of association. I'm sensing that the Boy Scouts are not being given that same freedom in terms of their structure.

JOHN BUEHRENS: We're going to wind up in just a minute. But I want to say something that I think needs to be said before we leave. I want to acknowledge the pain that many of you who are here present -- who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered -- have had to endure, in listening to a discussion which while respectful at one level, clearly indicates that at least one of us does not believe that you're of equal worth in your way of being a sexual being. I'm sorry for that. I think that that way of preaching the Gospel hurts the Gospel, John. And I for one feel very sorry every time I have to go out in public and be aware that there's that pain out there. And I just have to say that.

JOHN RANKIN: And in response, John, I have laid out a whole basis tonight on what equal worth is based on. And I said it very clearly. It's based on humanity, not sexual identity. And you saying that I'm not treating homosexuals as equal worth, is you not treating me as equal worth to have a dissenting opinion to your opinion. The bottom line is that we are people who differ on issues of profound elements of identity, and I respect that. That's why I started with the POSH L's and "Slip Sliding Away." Do you know why? I know that all of us are pursuing that. And I am no man or woman's judge. God is our Judge and he is merciful to those who seek it. That's my confidence. Having said that, as I seek to articulate a conviction rooted in Genesis about the goodness of male and female, pro- active, having attacked no one, having used no disparaging language against a person, a group or an idea, you tell me that I'm not treating people with equal worth.

JOHN BUEHRENS: I'm simply acknowledging that there are people who . . .

JOHN RANKIN: You said, John, you said that my different opinion doesn't treat them with equal worth. And you are not treating me with equal worth, by not giving me the freedom to dissent from you.

MODERATOR: We have one last question.

JOHN BUEHRENS: Last question.

QUESTIONER: You seem to have danced around the main thing that goes on here. John alluded to it when he spoke of the politics that are involved. The Boy Scouts are between the rock and a hard place. Their two major supporters in terms of money, facilities, personnel have made it implicit or explicitly clear to them, that they will withdraw their support from the Boy Scouts if the Boy Scouts permit homosexual leaders, or homosexuals in any area of leadership within the Scouts. Their purpose behind it is to ensure that their young men, their Scouts do not come in contact with homosexuals in Jamborees, Jubilees, all the various interactions within the Scouts. The people in Dallas have little or no choice. They can either watch the Scouts go down the hole, if they insist on giving the individual units their sovereignty, their freedom, which was one of these words that was bandied around. The freedom is dictated to by the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic Church. They are the primary supporters of the Boy Scouts, and they dictate who and what the Scouts will do in this country. And until such time as those two religious organizations find it in their hearts to accept homosexuals as equal human beings, then the Scouts will continue with their policy, now that it has been upheld. And we can talk forever as to the validity of who will make a proper role model for a Scout as a leader or in any form of authority, and it means nothing until that changes.

JOHN BUEHRENS: Whole Boy Scout councils have sent in petitions to the national organization, asking that the membership policy be reexamined. They are systematically quashed. I agree with your analysis of the religious politics within the BSA. I think we should wind up, John.

MODERATOR: We have about three-four minutes apiece for a wind-up statement.

JOHN BUEHRENS: In the election this year in Maine, voters are going to be facing a question of affirming equal rights for all people. I've been heartened tonight by some of the distinctions we've been able to make. We both have a respect for different theological views. We believe in the worth and dignity of all people. I hope the voters here in Maine will not think that what they vote on in Question 6 has a thing to do with the Boy Scouts, because it doesn't. It does have to do with whether people will be guaranteed rights and very basic things about housing, public accommodation, safety. If the Boy Scouts want to become a narrower and more religious organization, if indeed the religious politics that they play are as relentless as that, then I'm just sad. I could have wished for more respect for my point of view within a civic organization, but I guess it's not to be had. And I wish my nephews could take part in Scouts, but they won't.

I just hope you will go forth from here tonight, continuing to be proud of the heritage that New Englanders have always had, in protecting human rights. Make sure that Maine doesn't discriminate. Make sure that whatever goes on in organizations that are given the right to be voluntary, that the commonweal is one where we really do care for one another, and give one another basic human rights.

My last word is just vote "Yes" on Six. [Audience applause]

JOHN RANKIN: Well, I'm not going to tell you how to vote on anything. I will simply do my best to present to you my perspective, because my own trust and identity is far deeper than temporal politics. I will speak to influence politics through human relationships, but my ultimate confidence is in the justice and mercy of God.

Several points to sum up my conclusion. I understand that the unalienable rights from the God of the Bible in Genesis 1 and 2, are found nowhere else in all of human history. Our life, liberty and property may not be deprived by anyone else, unless first we deprive that person as well. And this is equal for everyone. And quite the opposite of being narrow, it's inclusive. And here perhaps is a paradox for many people. The very source, the only source, that gives unalienable rights also defines the social order as based on one man, one woman, one lifetime as the ideal in the natural order of things. So for example, one gentleman earlier this evening mentioned Plato's "Republic," and I didn't get a chance to respond. I don't know if anyone would want to live according to the rules of Plato's "Republic," and give up your children and put them as a ward of the state until they become adults, and a lot of the other elements. Plato's "Republic" is totalitarian. There are no understandings of unalienable rights. And in fact if you look at all the religious origin texts, apart from Genesis, they are narrow. In fact, the Jews were the only people in 1400 B.C. who said "no" to homosexuality. Every other nation said "yes" to it in some fashion. And yet they were the only ones who treated the aliens, the foreigners, the strangers, the widows and the orphans with equality in the sight of the law. They were given the same law for the alien as for the native born.

And so, it's very interesting that we talk about being inclusive, when what are we being inclusive of? Well, my understanding is that by the grace of God given to me, I'm inclusive of all of our humanity. My humanity is no more and no less. Secondly, I understand that we have differences. And therefore, the really vital question comes upon the floor. Namely, how do we live despite our deepest differences? I have sought to articulate a basis by which I do that, and I have submitted that to you for your understanding. And perhaps one final issue that we can look at, is what is the definition of tolerance? To be tolerant do you have to agree with the person with whom you disagree? Or is it tolerating, allowing for, respecting your dignity and equal humanity while having different convictions that you have on a political or interpersonal demand. That's precisely what we're facing here. What is the source by which we can have a civil order when people disagree with each other? And my observation is, it's only the God of the Bible as the basis of unalienable rights.

I do assume and I do celebrate that we're all made in God's image. We are seeking peace, order, stability and hope; to live, to love, to laugh and to learn. And you will find in my relationships with people I always affirm that. And I am no man's judge. But there is a Judge. And as Thomas Jefferson himself said, that quasi-deist, that rationalist, who tried to stay away from that issue his whole life until he realized, because of his slave-owning hypocrisy, he was going to have to face the Judge of all life. Because I believe that's true, I believe that I need to represent that faithfully. But the way I represent that is by giving my opinion on a level-playing field where everyone else has an equal say. Thank you so much. [Audience applause]

MODERATOR: John Rankin, John Buehrens, thank you both for being here tonight. And thank you for being with us here at First Parish tonight. Drive safely as you go home.

Back To Top

Scouts Home  

Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon St. | Boston, MA 02108 | 617-742-2100