John, I'll give you my response to your comments, and this will wrap up my side of our dialog here on Bock's blog.

1. I suppose it is easy to misunderstand people's beliefs that you do not agree with...but personally, I do think you could try a little harder to accurately represent the beliefs of the person you are disagreeing with. Saying things like "you appear to be cutting out all things that sound like law"...I don't believe is trying very hard to be accurate or fair in the dialog. This teaching is not about "anarchy." The law of God is all that defines "love," which encompasses quite a few laws. Read again Romans 13:8, and there are several other passages that also speak of this truth. This is not a "subjective sensation of speaking before God in the light," this is a principle of Scripture, and is the foundation of this teaching.

Saying that I claim that "the Bible does not condemn homosexuality" is also something that is an unjustified statement, if you are making an effort to understand my beliefs with some depth and honesty. This is something that I have addressed in my ebook in regards to people who make this statement, which I do not agree with, and it is a misconstrual of what I have spoken about here. (1) The Bible condemns many things that are not laws in the New Testament or in the church today. (2) Paul showed himself to be capable of associating certain activities with a godless character, in ways that would not prove to be true when viewing the bigger picture. Also, his words do not have the type of witness that the words of Jesus have from God, and we do need to be discerning about some of his statements, in my belief.

2. In regards to your argument about incest...you started out speaking about my belief as reflecting a criteria of "loving and committed," and when I tell you that there is more to the criteria than that, you seem to be saying that you would have the same problem with this teaching, basically no matter what I present the criteria to be.

Let me just bring out this element: One of the important aspects of the foundation for this liberty, is the principle of "reason." Much to the disagreement of many people, this is a principle of Scripture. We see it in Mathew 12 for example. We also see the necessity for reason in some of the statements of Paul, in my view. "Reason and discernment" would not permit what you are speaking about. John, in answer to your statements about the unreliability of "instinct" and "differences in beliefs"...this is not an area of disagreement in the church! If you are still concerned that this teaching could be used that way, my answer to that is that I am no more responsible for a misuse of this teaching, than God would be for a misuse of His words in the Bible (e.g. killing for sin), which could be misused very easily. He expects something more from people. His law is written on the heart, and it would be between God and the individual. If an individual sears their conscience (the law written on the heart), this does not constitute escaping judgment.

3. My reference to "condemning statements" was merely a statement of fact. You started out speaking about your abundantly open mind to all things related to sexuality, and then it later became clear that you condemn homosexuality. Clarifying that is all that I was intending. The definition of "condemning" is "to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure." I don't know why people have trouble embracing this as a simple statement of truth. You condemn homosexuality, plain and simple. So, no, I was not trying to "victimize" myself. Dr. Bock condemns homosexuality also. This is not a statement that he is a harsh judge of people; it is simply a factual statement of his heart-felt conviction. I wouldn't have written to his blog if I felt victimized by this belief.

4. As to your statements regarding changing your sexual orientation: I believe, frankly speaking, you have made arrogant statements, claiming that you know more about people than they know about themselves. Gender is a strong part of desire, and this is not something that many people would want to change. I am speaking about how I know it is for myself, and I know it is this way for very many people. You claim that all people can change, and the very few who believe they couldn't, lack introspection, so they really could in your view.

Also, you misstate my beliefs here again. I haven't said or even suggested that "no one can change their sexual orientation." If you want to read back on the dialog, you will see that I said the opposite for people for whom it is not rooted in their makeup. I also believe many people could discover themselves to be bisexual, depending on how they view societal or religious expectations, which I wrote about in my book. I'm not one of those people.

You have either discovered yourself to be potentially able to be with a man, and enjoy it as much as being with a woman, or you are speaking untruthfully in trying to make a point based on your religious beliefs. Only you know the answer to that. The fact that you say you could change in "all ways" sexually, I'm not going to address in detail. I don't think, whether you are a born-again Christian or not, that is a healthy way of thinking. You are alluding to all kinds of wickedness as a possibility in your being. I think you are merely trying to assert your belief that the gay person can change. Regardless, descending into debauchery and wickedness is not and could not be in me, because of love for God and people.

5. As far as reiterating Dr. Bock's statement about grace and condemnation...I don't disagree that people who repent of sin are acceptable to God. It's a little off any point that I am making. Also, I disagree that it is a very small minority of Christians who accept homosexuality, and who feel that it has been misunderstood. I can't recall the figures right now, but it is not a "very small minority." I find it strange that you would accept it, if the rest of Christianity accepts it.

As far as speaking about how "facing the way God has spoken about the practice": Basic logic tells me that, if God has addressed several things with severity, and changed the very nature of how these things are understood and applied in the church, this places laws subject to consideration of the intention and applicability of laws. This involves a meaningful set of criteria, as to His intentions for His people, and I believe it is not the open-and-shut issue that people claim that it is. With the law being restricted to all that defines love, as expressed by Paul, and many other compelling facts of the Bible and the issue, I do believe many people have not considered the potential for liberty on this issue, in relationship to the realities of how God has established His Word and the principles of the new covenant. He is a God of the heart.

6. "Following the 'spirit' of the Mosaic Laws"...is very far removed from the letter of those laws. This is not how we follow Christ, with any kind of practicality in the least. If it were, I would be following all of them. Also, the church does not follow all that is presented as the law, on the basis that it is in both the Old and New Testaments, or it would be forbidden for women to speak in a church service. (1 Cor. 14:34,35) The principles that I have brought out still establish liberty for the gay person in my view.

7. Your last point addresses the fact that, people who believe homosexuality is wrong, do so out of love for God and a desire to obey Him. For very many people, I have no doubt that this is true. And His commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. That is the law that Christ gave. It is not based on the entirety of the Law. His law is written on our hearts. My beliefs are not born out of something less than a desire to obey Him.

I am speaking the truth before God and people, of my love for God and desire to not fall short in any way: All of these truths make it difficult for me to simply accept that the issue is as it may appear at face-value in the Bible. In the way that God has established His Word, it does not work to take passages standing by themselves. It is not about simply dismissing things; it is about looking at and considering the whole picture, and considering all principles of Scripture. I have every reason to believe that Paul did not fully understand the issue. If someone says there is no element of "interpretation" in how we understand God's Word, I believe they are either not honest, or they haven't actually read the Bible. That is why I have explored why it seems so abundantly clear to many other people, and what exactly is their answer to what I see as these compelling truths of both the Bible and the issue itself. People will speak against my beliefs, and some will judge me in a manner that is accusatory against my heart and intentions, but it is God that I live for, and it is for Him that we seek to understand what His will is for our lives.

I've taken up more than my share of space here, which I didn't intend, but I felt that some things needed to be answered. I'll be writing only a few more things and be finished here. Thank you for the dialog, John, and take care.

Lynn