Lynn:

I am glad to engage in this discussion. I will try to go one key point at a time.

You say: "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?"

The place to start is here. The question is a non-sequitur. The idea that someone being disobedient in another area disqualifies making moral judgments does not follow. It means people are not consistent, but does not mean making a judgment (an act of moral discernment, as you note) is wrong in another area. As you know, the area in question is one in which the Scripture is very strong in its negative assessment. More than that, the texts that raise it do not ever make a distinction between whether the relationship is sincere or not. The assumption of those rejecting these texts that judge as relevant is that the relationship described in somehow insincere, but how do we know that?  Nothing in these texts tells us that. This means another reading other than one that sees a moral issues possesses a burden to show why that sesne of these events should be reversed when they are consistently seen so negatively.The few previous sentneces explain that the reaction against the position is more than as you raise, "Is it possible that it is more along the lines of "agreed-upon tradition," and therefore a biblical basis is not necessary to establish?" This means my appeal is not merely as you say "on the simple basis that it is a written law." I am arguing that there is a pattern to how this area is presetned in Scripture that is more than a mere "thou shalt not" law. The remarks appea in genre other than law. They make moral judgments and involve the assessments of discernment you raise as acceptable categories. 

At this point your discussion moves is a variety of directions at once.  Key is your raising of what I might call the position of the "sincere" homosexual, the person who is honest and faithful in terms of their orientation. This is followed by an attempt to dismiss what Paul says in Romans with the following statement: "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?" Now I ask, in what sense is this utterance by Paul in Romans the Word of God, if principles are at work that can undercut the argument he makes that such behavior is not merely a sign of fallenness but of a severe state of fallenness, especially when Paul adds that the problem is not only to pursue such behavior but to do so and encourage others to do so as well? What I am raising here is the point that Paul does not seem to treat this area as one up for particular discussion (This is not his call for not pressing on issues realtedto food or caledar as in Romans 14-15). The remarks suggest an outright rejection of the category. Paul's appeal to divine created design is a transcendent kind of argument- and it is backed up in other texts moving on this topic in the same direction by other authors, showing Scripture does not present it as one writer's opinion alone.

Your next paragraph understates the point I am making about divine design. It reads, "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." Here you make two points together. One suggests we are only speaking physically of design when we appeal to divine design of the male and female. This is not the point of the view of an argument fordivine design. There is more to it. The argument is that there is more to this difference than the design of body parts. In general, males and females operate emotionally and spiritually differently, which is why they can complement each other emotionally. In addition, this is pictured by the fact that a child is produced by a male and female, each supplying part of the matter that makes up the new person.

Your second point here is a more complicated one. What of people with innate homosexual orientation? I take it the implication here is: what of the divine design of this individual? This is a fair question. I would not appeal to a "written law" as a response here. I would say that there are many people in the church who can testify to this orientation being dealt with and reversed through their experience of Christ, in part because the point was made that there is something morally amiss here that needs to be brought before God, as any category of moral activity does (in this sense, homosexuality is no different a sin or inclination than is one to drink excessively, engage in gossip and slander or glottony). God is not saying this inclination is against an abstract written law, but is against a design that comes from him. I know this sounds harsh. It is not. I know as a pastor that people struggle to deal with all kinds of personal issues where they come up short before God (in fact, we all do), but the way to start is not to deny the possibility of the need to deal with the area by saying I am made this way. This is little different from arguing, "Well I sin because I am a fallen human being" (well, yes, but that does not make it right, just because we are inclined this way.) 

This makes your next remark really telling: "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."

My response is: (1) no one is forced to marry, nor is one to do so for appearance sake." More importantly, I believe deeply in God's power from within us to help direct us in the paths he calls righteous. If I substituted fallen for homosexual in the above paragraph, would you still subscribe to the point you are making? Then where does our effort to become better people spiritually come in? Part of my point here is that I never see liberty applied in Scripture as a rule not just in this area of sexuality but in the entire realm of sexuality.

When it comes to hair length and other matters, I have already suggested why these kinds of "rules" do not apply in this case. First of all, most of these do not appeal to transcedent creation, but to cultural practice. The hair example you raise does appeal to nature, which still is not necessarily an appeal to the creation (Is it to "the nature of things" [in whose sense?] or to Nature [unlikely Paul would personify in this way here] or to the nature of our culture???). In addition, whatever Paul says here, the "violation" is not treated with or raised to the degree of significance that the subject of Romans 1 is treated. Paul expresses his reasons for why worship should be conducted in a certain manner in 1 Corinthians, but the material of Romans 1 shows him making emphatic moral judgments.

Also important is your next paragraph: "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." I know many church leaders, including myself, agnoize over having to challenge the alternative lifestyle. When I was growing up some of my best school teachers were gay folks who were very professional about how they taught me my subjects in school. These teachers were fine people in many respects and I am indebted to them for the competence with which they taught me. That does not mean I view their choice of lifestyle as neutral, nor do I underestimate the effort it takes to face up to changing direction. In other words, there is "no wishing to condemn" here, only a love that says, what I am saying in challenging this is that such a choice is destructive in the long term (as are many other choices people make in life in other areas). These same leaders will go to all kinds of lengths (monetary, counseling, emotional) to be sure a person who seeks to change direction can get the support and help they need to get there.

It is for these reasons I do not think, as you anticipated, that there is a distortion in the way the church handles this area. I, as you do, desire to be clear about the complexitiy and depth of Scripture, but I do not think we get there when we seek to explain an emphasis in ways that denies its presence. I have tried to be clear. I have also tried to let you know that dealing with this area is like dealing with any area where we seek to grow in righteousness before God, recognizing our need for Him and the change only He can bring.

With much appreciation for the tone and sincerity of the exchange,

dlb