[Contents | About
| Opening by Buehrens | Opening by Rankin | Dialogue | Questions from Audience | Closing by Buehrens | Closing by Rankin ]
|
Homosexuality and the
Boy Scouts: |
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 really hazy. In order to do that, he was trying to deal with the person, but he tried to look at something that is easier to get a handle on, which is a big state. For the last ten or fifteen minutes, you guys didn’t mention the word "Boy Scouts." [audience laughter] I understand the presidential candidates, you ask about education and you somehow 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 that we read don’t deal with sex. And in 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 I said in the flyer was 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 the 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: Actually I have two homosexual friends that were married, each for about thirty years. So, can a homosexual be married? [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 are more than the objective? But my answer to your question is, no, that’s not a good role model to break the 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 that 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, the 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 or another, 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: Hi. 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 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. There 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 was 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 seminar 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 a human being has suffered a violation. And to me that’s the entire issue, a human being. To try and go into 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, 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 should not 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 their formulation I disagree with. If there isn’t the satisfaction among certain people that the Boy Scouts are 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, the 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: But 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 thing that 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 a 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 the 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 that are given are 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 wanted to say, that I had the Boy Scouts in Connecticut send me their whole statement on this thing. And 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 assistant 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 more congregational in our polity. And you’re describing one reason why I’m not a Roman Catholic when it comes down to denomination. But Roman Catholics are free to be Roman Catholic. So I think when you are 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 even who signed it. 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 their God blindly. They think they’re doing something right, and actually they end up hurting people. That brought about the Inquisition. And what of other atrocities? That’s basically what I have to say. JOHN RANKIN: Could I just respond quickly. You’re right. But the question is, are they following the God of the Bible, the unalienable rights. The Inquisition in every fiber of its being 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 -- the 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 was a Scoutmaster. Now it seems to me that 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 love to do these forums is what I learn from people like John Buehrens who comes with expertise from a different perspective, is, if I knew all the details, what would my decision be about the polity of the Boy Scouts? I’m not completely sure. But the fact that 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. But at least you know where I’m coming from in my particular conviction about the civil rights that I honor for all people. Those rights are based on no one being deprived of life, liberty and 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 could 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 that I can defend all their policy decisions. But I can defend their freedom to make the decisions if they’re fully 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 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’s 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 agree with your changes, then maybe here you stand and there you go. QUESTIONER: Gentlemen, 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 there’s somebody 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 when you’re 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 found 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: Does the YWCA [Young Womens Christian Association] 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: [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 that some of us end up with our arm around a man named Sheldon strolling 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 campouts 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 in the same room alone with because they were weirdoes. (And none of them were homosexual.) They were the ones who were the fine upstanding ones, well respected, married men, 2.5 kids, house on the hill, dog, cat and the 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 was 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 and 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 with whom I disagree. I believe I’m giving a level-playing field for freedom of association. But 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 Slidin’ 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: We 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 Camporees, 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 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 about 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. |