Dr. Bock,

I'll just give you my answer to your comments here, and then you can give your address to this, when you have the time and as you wish to do that. There isn't any need for you and I to debate this down to the wire, as you would probably agree. I thank you again for your attention to this issue; it is much appreciated.

In answer to your first point: I'm making no claim that there is any indication in Scripture, in specific terms, that a same-sex, intimate relationship is approved by God. By the same token, I see no indication that many of the other areas of laws and instructions, which we do not find practiced in the church, have God's specific endorsement either.

What I do see is an explanation of new covenant principles, which is a theme in God's Word, that establish a basis for "discernment of good and evil," consideration of one's own "conscience," which would also necessitate a view to things like "fruits of deeds" and "self-control." It's all there in Scripture. The Bible is not a simple set of laws; these principles are found in many passages. We have a Scriptural basis to view laws in this perspective, and we can also see that "liberty" has a profound place here, and there are many laws that have no place in the function of the church today, from both the Old and New Testaments, which were not specifically addressed with liberty in the Bible. So I don't see a need for this to be specifically spoken of, and my application of this is related only to where an individual's conscience is pure, and the relationship is not from lust or promiscuity, or the other things spoken of in the Bible as related to this issue.

You say that, "in contrast, we know that prayer is good," and Paul was referring to a specific type of situation regarding prayer...but we also know that the type of relationship that I am speaking about is good, that being a committed love relationship, and it is a specific aspect that is being addressed, that being the genders of the two people. Again, I am seeing legalism here, and a selective use of the authority of laws. The realities of the issue call for a more in-depth consideration of these biblical truths.

I think you are presuming that Paul's address of these other things was not related to "morality," but what is considered to be proper or improper, I believe is related to morality. For a woman to wear these adornments, wear her hair short, speak in a church service, marry without deferring to her fathers permission...would have, at the very least, been the beginning of immorality in Paul's view, if not immorality in itself. Why else would he have spoken so strongly about these things? He did not leave these things up for debate (1 Cor. 11:16), but we've dismissed these instructions today. I believe my comparison does reasonably work: it has to do with cultural beliefs and perceptions about things. The purpose here is for acceptance of a segment of God's family; it is not to liberate anything that causes any harm. It is for the sake of love and understanding, which is why Paul established liberty for the church.

To address your next point, which you summed up in this statement:..."how could Paul's audience have originally understood such liberty applied to such an area without specifying it to counter the common ancient view of immorality?" My answer to this, is that I'm making no claim that this was to be understood in Paul's time. My belief, as I said, is that the biblical writers spoke with only a limited knowledge of what they were addressing. This belief is based on their descriptions of who and what they were speaking about. This was demonstrated in a few other areas as well, that Paul was capable of speaking a judgment with a limited understanding, based on his cultural understanding of his time. This was associated with the godlessness that was rampant; today we understand the issue from a biological perspective, and we understand this from the perspective that God is a just Judge, who judges the character of a person, and does not judge on a legalistic basis.

To address your last point: I agree that God is ultimately responsible for these declarations, and He inspired and governed the writings of the Scriptures. I believe He allowed a misunderstanding of His judgment on this issue, for His own reasons. The basis for my belief on this is not one or two passages, or a case that is without any substance. It is a prolific case to be made, based on many truths of the Bible and the issue. I am a gay, born-again believer myself, who has the Holy Spirit, and who has love.

I don't think your position has given consideration to the context of what was spoken of in these passages. If you believe that Paul spoke with full knowledge on this issue, then you believe that he was not speaking only about a certain kind of rebellious person, but he spoke correctly in condemning all homosexual people to hell, including those who believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some people do not see it this way, but Scripture is clear about this ("it is not only faith...demons believe and shutter"): what he spoke of in pronouncing judgment on those who will not be entering into heaven, was a statement that these kinds of people are not true believers...not that they will be saved if they ask for forgiveness, but do not repent.

Dr. Bock, I've given you some things to consider further about this issue; I'll be interested in your assessment of this, and I welcome your honesty. Thank you very much for your time and your patience. God's blessings to you.

Lynn