Dr. Bock, I appreciate your response. I'm sincerely seeking what is the Bible-based answer to the questions that I have raised on my blog, and have been working with this issue for several years now, though my blog is fairly new. I hope you will be willing to address these concerns and observations, for the sake of bringing out a more complete discussion on this issue. What I have to say is somewhat lengthy, but it does come back to fundamental questions concerning these New Testament principles of liberty, reason, discernment, and conscience.

First, you are saying that "my blog claims too much," in terms of the theme of liberty. I don't want to speak for you, but I just want to note that my blog speaks many verifiable truths of Scripture, so I believe you must be saying that my use of these truths and principles, in applying liberty to the issue of same-sex relationships, is claiming too much. The "foundation" of my belief is what I understand to be the "new covenant" teachings concerning a believer's liberty in Christ, spoken of in Galatians, and in several other passages, and in several other ways throughout the New Testament.

I want to make myself clear, that when I am speaking of the "heart and conscience" elements of the biblical doctrine of liberty, this is not simply a statement that, if someone's conscience approves of something, it is acceptable. There are several things at work involving the conscience and these biblical doctrines, if I can just briefly show you what I am speaking about.

One of the important verses that establish "liberty" in Scripture, is Paul's statement that, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything." (1 Cor. 6:12) This shows a "discernment" in Paul's thinking, it shows consideration to the "fruits of deeds," and it shows a regard for "self-control." So it is not merely one's conscience freeing them to do whatever they wish to do.

The Bible says that we are to be very careful about placing judgments on people--it is nothing short of a theme in God's Word. I am addressing the doctrinal issues, regarding what our conscience is to be accountable to, and how the Bible is understood and used by the majority in today's church. In light of the many references to liberty--some specifically using the term and some not--what is the biblical basis for believers placing a judgment on this particular issue, while not living by many biblical laws themselves?

My main question for you, is a clarification of what you said in your response to me, concerning the fact that liberty would apply to some laws and not to others, which is a premise that I agree with. The passage above sums up pretty well my understanding of this, and there are others that also address it well. I see liberty applied in the church, but I see it as being used "selectively," and not particularly elaborated upon as a doctrine, at least not that I have heard. Is it possible that it is more along the lines of "agreed-upon tradition," and therefore a biblical basis is not necessary to establish?

You are making a reference to the "divine design" spoken of in Romans 1, and this is why your understanding of these passages is "not a face-value" interpretation...in other words, on the simple basis that it is a written law. You are saying that I have "removed key features" from the biblical discussion. Is the..."fundamental differentiation and complementarian role in the divinely rooted and intended male-female design that is in view here."...of greater importance than the "fulfillment of the person" in a love relationship that would be genuine for them, and not based on what is, essentially, a farce for the homosexual person, not to mention also deceptive and unfair to the heterosexual person they are marrying, who believes they are marrying someone who desires them? (realities of the issue.)

Is the homosexual individual who does not defer to this principle, but lives their life in love and commitment, truly the type of person who was condemned to hell in Scripture?

You seem to hold the position that Paul, in speaking about this design of God's creation, and the severe judgment that he placed upon same-sex relations, could only have been speaking with "full knowledge" on the issue, being an apostle of Jesus Christ. Is this true and accepted regarding all that Paul spoke, with no view to the principles of reason, discernment, or liberty necessary, or is this assertion used only for judgment on this issue?

The belief of the majority in the church, is that this (body parts fitting together heterosexually, as Paul spoke of) is of greater importance to God, than the realities that are present for the individual who was born with an innate, homosexual orientation in their makeup--which I can testify to, as it is true for myself, as can many other people, who were either born gay themselves, or they raised a child for whom this is evidenced to be true. I have heard it said by a well-known Christian leader, that "if this is true, it doesn't matter," as we have a "written law" addressing this, essentially.

This is where the face-value understanding of laws comes in, while this is not how the church applies other laws for themselves, as they apply liberty to many laws. In light of the realities of both the Bible and the issue, I think it is a lot to expect that the "conscience" of the individual, who was created and born with a homosexual orientation, should defer to the "divine design" principle, while "liberty" has been prolifically established in Scripture, and employed in the sight of all by the church. I don't believe they have concerned themselves with the ramifications of the idea, that he or she is being required to marry for "appearance" sake, and to please the tradition-based Christian church.

There are at least five or six explicit instructions of Paul, and stated with significance, that have no place in the church today.

I won't detail them here, because you already know what they are, and you can read my blog to see what I am referring to. Hair lengths; covering your head or not covering your head; wearing gold, pearls or braids, which is unacceptable for woman making a claim to godliness; teachings regarding how a man may keep his daughter unmarried if he so chooses; women being forbidden from speaking in church...none of these things are teachings of the Christian church today, neither is the Law of Moses, and for good reason. Haven't key features of Scripture been removed here as well, and isn't that how liberty would function, by removing the explicit principles taught by Paul, and through "discernment of good and evil," in determining that these things do not represent the essence of righteousness?

Regarding one example of this liberty in the church: What is the reason why it is no longer a "disgrace" for a woman to pray or prophesy with her head not covered, or to wear her hair short, or for a man to pray with his head covered? Paul addressed this very explicitly. He states that "nature teaches" that it is not proper for a woman to pray without her head covered, that her long hair is a glory to her, and long hair on a man is a dishonor to him. This would be saying that a woman who wears her hair short, and the vast majority of women in our culture do, is lacking glory and has compromised her God-given covering. This is not a teaching in the Christian church today.

Dr. Bock, I feel that this all speaks for itself...that the leaders and outspoken people in what one might consider the "mainstream" Christian church, have cited the authority of biblical laws, only to condemn those whom they wish to condemn, without giving much consideration to the realities of the issue itself, or to their own use of liberty on other laws.

Realistically speaking, I don't expect you to admit that a "distortion of the church" has been exposed here, on their use of the Bible regarding this particular issue, and that what they have established is "tradition" (based on popular opinion), rather than a sound and consistent, doctrinal basis for their belief, as they have presented it to be (while viewing things highly selectively). I hope you will be willing to share your thoughts on this, and your honest commentary will be appreciated. It seems to me that admitting to the complexities of the Bible, for the sake of truth and justice, does not serve popular belief in Christianity.

This is for the sake of the glory of God and truth, and for the sake of the complete discussion on this important issue in our society and in the family of God. Thank you for your consideration Dr. Bock.

In grace and truth,

Lynn