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, then 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. But 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 Simon, in his song "Slip Slidin’ Away," has these words:

And I know a father
Who had a son
He longed to tell him all the reasons
For the things he'd done
He came a long way
Just to explain
He kissed his boy as he lay sleeping
Then he turned around and headed home again
Slip slidin' away
Slip slidin' away
You know the nearer your destination
The more you're slip slidin' away

That to me is a remarkable definition of the theological definition of sin. And sin, biblically in my understanding, refers to brokeness 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 that every step closer, we fall 1.1 steps backward. And so this is what Paul Simon is identifying in those marvelous words, "slip slidin’ 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 at 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 tokel." 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 those famous words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that 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 5^th and 14^th 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 she said, well, you have your creator and other people have their creators. 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 in 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 toward 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, your time’s up.

JOHN RANKIN:

Could I give one final sentence here?

MODERATOR:

Sure.

JOHN RANKIN:

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.