Dr. Bock,

A commenter on one one of your recent posts, from June 25th, asked where the documentation can be found regarding the effects of things like pornography and homosexuality, and "who is publishing data that supports the idea that these behaviors are bad for human and societal health?"

I have to confess, Dr. Bock, that I hadn't read any of your other posts before I wrote to you, so it is interesting that you were already involved with this issue to some degree in recent times, as have been some of your commenters. I chose you for this discussion, based on the introduction of you on the website.

I'll be looking at this data on my blog, which is to be published in upcoming articles sometime in the near future. I'm sure there is also data that your commenter can look into on his or her own. I'll leave it there for now, because I don't have this gentleman's explicit permission to introduce his upcoming work on this yet.

I'll just give you one comment on this question, and then I'll address your points one at a time in your letter to me, Dr. Bock. The question was in regards to being "besides the sacred texts," but I just want to say that Jesus specifically addressed pornography, when He said that "you are not to look upon a woman with lust," which is enough for me. It is corrupting to the soul, even if one is not married, which would add "adultery" of the heart to the act in that case.

I'm not aware of any bad fruits associated with the type of relationship between two members of the same-sex that I am speaking about, nor did Jesus address it, so I will be looking forward to this data and commentary on this issue, which he has told me a little about. I'll be critiquing it on my blog when it is published. You may want to follow that information and commentary, as well as this one, and assess the merits of both sides of the issue for yourselves.

I appreciate that you have agreed to discuss this issue. It is important that both sides are allowed a voice in the discussion, for the cause of seeking the truth and a better understanding. I'll try to keep this as brief as possible, but I do have a few points to make in response to your letter.

To address your first point: "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."

I just want to note, that I'm not speaking of "disobedience"...I was raising the question about the doctrine of "liberty," in which case, we are speaking about what the church "approves" of and permits liberty on for themselves, not what they are disobedient to, and therefore possibly disqualifying themselves from judgment on other people. My comments are regarding the biblical basis for liberty, which is used for some things, but not for understanding of the issue concerning the gay, believer in Christ, in particular. Just some thoughts for consideration and clarification. I don't believe this doctrine has been elaborated upon in the church, as I said before.

My premise is that it is not disobedient for a woman to wear her hair short, for example, or to pray without her head covered, based on the principles in Romans 14, for example, and all passages that address liberty. These teachings of Paul are not a teaching in the Christian church, by any stretch of the imagination. It would be incompatible with our culture, and I believe is considered to be not relevant to righteousness in the sight of God. To say that this is "disobedience," is to employ "forgiveness" on something that has no place in your walk with God to begin with, or any attempt to correct, and in my belief, would constitute an unhealthy and farcical relationship with God. It also frees one to disregard doctrines of the New Testament, while still maintaining a belief in one's moral qualification to judge other people (innocent people in my belief), which I believe is fundamentally incorrect, based on the words of Jesus. I believe principles have been employed here, that have not been established to be a "principle," but are based on popular agreement.

Next, you speak of the biblical area addressing same-sex relations as being "very strong in its negative assessment," but Paul states that it is a "disgrace" for a woman to pray with her head uncovered, or for a man to pray with his head covered. That is also a very strong assessment, but it has been dismissed today. You are saying, concerning these aspects of Scripture, that "most of these do not appeal to transcedent creation, but to cultural practice." I have to disagree. His words appear to speak to both of those things. Paul used the same Greek word for "nature" in both references...regarding Romans 1, saying these acts were "against nature," and 1 Cor. 11, concerning hair lengths and covering your head, saying that "nature teaches" these principles that he is speaking about. I think this is very significant. It is part of how God established His Word, while also establishing the principles of liberty.

Same-sex attraction is evidenced to be the natural sexual orientation for many people. True, there is more to the differentiation between male and and female than just body parts, but this is not moving to the gay person, who is not attracted to the opposite sex, in an intimate sense. There is still a complementary relationship, despite the fact that it is the same gender. So it comes back to the question of the authority and applicability of laws and liberty, and consideration to the natures of things.

Following your statement concerning the "strong negative assessment" in the Bible on this issue, you make the statement 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."

I have to wholly disagree with you on this also. Paul's description of the people about whom he was speaking in Romans 1, is a description of people that goes well beyond just a statement about same-sex intimacy. This speaks to the kind of person Paul was speaking about. It is highly relevant to me, considering the fact that it describes neither myself, nor does it describe the nature of "homosexuality" itself, as I elaborated upon on my blog. The "degrading passion" that Paul spoke of, I do not see in the type of relationship that I am speaking about, and I believe it goes back to the context and nature of what was taking place there, i.e., lust, rebellion, and idolatry. What he was speaking about does not exist here, and was rooted in something else entirely.

The sense in which Paul's words reflect the Word of God, would be in consideration for the "context" of his words, in understanding who he was speaking about, and precisely what God would consider to be "wickedness." As I understand God in Scripture, wickedness violates the law of love, and "heterosexuality" does not represent the nature of love. To understand this judgment to be concerning "body parts," rather than the character of the individuals and the relations that were spoken of, in their rebellion against God, in my view is "legalism," and is in the same category as foods, hair lengths, days of the week, tattoos, sewing a garment with two different materials, etc., and gives no consideration to the heart of the person, or the fruits of deeds (new covenant principles).

I want to note that I am not advocating any particular sexual activity, but harm associated with an activity, or the absence of harm, does need to be taken into consideration. The issue is regarding same-sex intimacy and relationships, and it transcends any particular activity, which is a separate issue in itself, to be addressed by the medical community, and seems to be mostly considered private in regards to heterosexual relationships.

You are entitled to disagree with my belief on this, but I believe this goes back to this truth of God, that it is now a circumcision of the heart, not the flesh. (Rom. 2:29) It is the "heart" that He is looking upon, not the "outward appearance." To place absolute deference to Paul's authority and position, regarding this particular issue, without consideration to the possibility that they may have spoken with limited knowledge of the issue...I believe you must place this same deference on other areas of his teachings--in a blanket sense, regardless of your understanding--which were stated with terms of severity, though not as much so as on this issue. This is still a selective use of Paul's authority.

For what it is worth, I understand that your belief is not without foundation, but it does not appear to have considered the whole picture concerning God's judgment of people. I believe you are presuming that Paul spoke with complete accuracy on this issue, while it is evidenced that he gave instructions in other areas, speaking about a certain kind of person, but not with a view to the complete picture of what he was explicitly addressing (e.g., a woman wearing gold, pearls, or expensive dresses. 1Tim. 2:9,10). He spoke based on his understanding in his culture, concerning the people he was personally aware of, and wrote extensively about. I don't see a basis to understand Paul's perception on certain things as absolutely authoritative across the board, given by God in His Word. It is very possible, and in fact, I know this to be true for myself, that the biblical writers did not have full knowledge on this issue, and I believe it was by God's intention and purpose. The greater principles of God's Word show a cause for discernment, which is rightly distinguishing one thing from another, humility in judgment, and respect for an individual's conscience and personal relationship with God.

There is a place for judgment, or speaking against something you believe is wrong, in my beliefs, and it would be only for the sake of love. There would have to be harm done, for it to be a "right judgment," and not one that is based on "appearance," as was taught by Jesus. (John 7:24) We'll see what the data shows in regards to same-sex relationships. Based on what you have said, concerning the fact that you do not view placing a judgment on people lightly, and that it is not an easy thing for you to do to challenge their lifestyle, I think evidence of harm would be necessary. You compare this to excessive drinking, gluttony, slander, gossip...all of these things are harmful to people, and that is why liberty would obviously not apply to these kinds of things. Also, there is a big difference between encouraging wickedness in people, and bringing out principles of the new covenant for consideration of a particular issue. My belief is that we are free in Christ to live a good life, not to do whatever we wish to do, or to cause harm to anyone.

You say that people have changed their sexual orientation, as a result of a relationship with Christ: "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"...and then you make the comparison to activities which are evidenced to cause harm. (The deeds of the flesh are evident. Gal. 5:18-23). I'll be addressing this on my blog. This is a complex area, and I'll just say that I respect the lives of these individuals, and their understanding and their experience, but it does not reflect the whole picture for all homosexual people.

There are other points that you have made, which I will possibly address later on my blog, but I think I have addressed your letter sufficiently for now. I'm not intolerant of the belief that homosexuality is wrong, but again, it is important to see both sides of the issue. Just one more note: Your beliefs do place pressure on the gay Christian to be heterosexual, which follows, to be heterosexually married. Unless what you are encouraging is life-long celibacy for the individual whose homosexuality is rooted in their natural makeup, whether or not you have the "gift" of celibacy spoken of in the Bible. I'll be addressing more about your belief on my blog, respectfully of course.

Dr. Bock, thanks for your time and attention to this issue. Please let me know if I have misunderstood anything you have said, or what you believe I am missing. God has the power to help people to overcome sin, but I don't believe the kind of relationship that we are speaking about here reflects sin, any more than it is sin for a woman to pray without her head covered...unless she believes it is sin, and does it anyway; then it is sin. In my view, the only things that are not up for debate, is whatever causes harm, or whatever is in defiance of the teachings of Jesus. Sin, in my view, is whatever goes against the law of love. God bless.

Lynn