Homosexuality and the Boy Scouts:
What Is a Proper Role Model?

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 seek 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. That our life, liberty and property may not be deprived by anyone else, unless first we’ve deprived 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 that 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, but 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 their dignity and equal humanity while having different convictions that you have on a political or interpersonal arena? 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 that 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]

Back to Contents