[Contents | About
| Opening by Buehrens | Opening by Rankin | Dialogue | Questions from Audience | Closing by Buehrens | Closing by Rankin ]
|
Homosexuality and the
Boy Scouts: |
Dialogue
|
|
JOHN BUEHRENS: I think we’ll do better if we stand up, John,. . . 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 that 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 a 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 is 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: Boatload of stuff you’ve just given me. I’m writing down notes here sideways in 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 very deeply 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 either of us have to respect someone with whom we 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, because it disparages... JOHN RANKIN: It’s peaceful. It’s gentle. It’s been in me for decades. 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: Yeah. 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. |