Note to revised entry: The original blog in this space dealt with my trip to Taiwan. One of the comments asked for space to discuss Homosexuality and the Bible. The comments on this entry cover that topic. The original blog is below, but the discussion in the comments discusses homosexuality.
__________________________________________________________________
As I noted, I am in Taiwan. One of the fun things about traveling as I do is that you meet people who are appreciative of things you have done in ways you never anticipated. So today I had lunch with Fisher Yu.
Fisher teaches English to Chinese students at a high school in the third largest city in Taiwan, Taichung. After taking me on a ride on the back of a scooter, something I had not done since I was a child (and a cultural experience I had not asked to have!), we sat at a Chinese restaurant (I am getting adept at chopsticks on this trip). He shared with me all the work he had done years ago on the DaVinci Code (yes, even in Taiwan). He knew me from the Chinese version of my book on the Code. I never would have dreamed when I wrote that book in Texas that someone in Taiwan would read it and then study and write about the issue in Chinese (including in the local paper).He showed me the clippings and discussed some of his research. It was an example of not knowing what the impact might be of something you write. What is even more fascinating is to get the chance to meet people and converse with them years down the road. All in all, pretty satisfying.
On the ride he took me by some Buddhist temples and schools, as well as discussing some customs with me (especially the troubling for Christians ancestor rites). I am here bcasue a misionary from my church, Bill Franklin, invited me to speak to the Taiwan Missionary Fellowship at their annual meeting. Bill has been here over twenty years. Today he gave me a crash course in issues tied to ministry on the island, as well as discussing leadership development issues here. It has been interesting to see people who have been here for 60 years and less, having given their lives to serve the Lord in a foreign context. It is easy to lose sight of the great job and impact many missionaries have had around the world. This trip has been a great reminder to me. Hopefully you know a missionary who you can pray for and express appreciation to.
July 11 add on: The story continues as today I was at a teen camp in Taiwan. They introduced me at lunch (no speaking, just a visit). The teens there knew who I was and many had read the Chinese version of the Da Vinci Code book. Even less expected than what I ran into yesterday. Simply amazing.
__________________________________________________________________
To Dr. Bock,
I have raised what I feel are some important questions on my blog, concerning the biblical foundation for the casual dismissal, in the church, of many laws of the Bible. In my belief, there is a biblical basis for the principle of "liberty" regarding many laws and precepts of the Bible, which is based on a use of "discernment and reason," and principles of the "conscience."
While, as I said, we do see the application of liberty, regarding the many laws of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, it is curious to me that the law regarding same-sex, intimate relationships must be taken at "face-value," to the condemnation of gay and lesbian people, with no view to a discernment on the facts of the issue, the quality of the relationship, and the conscience of the individuals involved, many of whom are believers in Jesus Christ.
Dr. Bock, I would like to request your attention to this issue on my blog, as I am seeking the doctrinal basis for the mainstream church's interpretation regarding the authority and applicability of biblical laws, from the perspective of a theologian. I believe you will find my blog interesting, and I hope to hear from you soon. Thank you and God bless you.
Sincerely, Lynn
New Covenant Truths.blogspot.com
Lynn:
Thank you for the note. Your blog claims too much in terms of the theme of liberty. Romans 1 is rooted in issues of divine design, not just "heart" positions. This means that Paul's condemnation on issues of sexuality are not annulled or trumped by themes of liberty alone. In other words, heart is but one element of the theological and creational discussion. Your position reflects a reductionism in removing other key features of the biblical argument from consideration. There is a fundamental differentiation and complementarian role in the divinely rooted and intended male-female design that is in view here. This is as compelling a consideration as any claim to liberty as a moral category. Not all discussions of law apply this kind of a principle to the discussion of other areas, so that a mere equation of law and liberty may apply to certain areas (eg, food laws, worship on certain days) but not to others.
I do understand the query you have raised, but cannot dismiss the application of certain central elements of the discussion by an appeal to liberty and conscience alone. God bless, and I trust that this explanation helps to supply the rationale for why this is more than a "face value" argument.
dlb
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
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
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
Lynn: Many things to treat here and, alas, I am away teaching so I do not have a great deal of time for this now. Just a couple of short points. (1) Where is their any indication in Scripture that same sex love is acceptable in any form? We know it existed and was wide spread in the Roman world, so where is there any indication that "liberty" works to include this area (and distinguishes between the things mentioned in Romans 1 wouthout qualification)? In contrast, we know prayer is good, while Paul is addressing a type of prayer (in form and approach to God) that he sees as ignoring the distinctions in the creation when a woman does not cover her head in the context of participating in a service. So your immediate equation that same sex love or inclination is a matter of the heart and "liberty" alone and not inherently a moral issue in itself distinguished from the prayer example does not work. Another way to ask this is where is there any indication inb Scripture this act and inclination is an area to which "liberty" applies, for that category is related to things that in and of themselves are morally neutral. Is it not natrual to think that when the Bible uses the term "immorality" and this act was commonly widely associated with immorality that that is included unless otherwise specified? Or to say it another way still, without such a clarifying explanation, 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? A second point, your insistence/argument that Paul cannot understand fully the basic dynamics of what he is discussing here understates in my view what it means for him to be making a moral pronoucement as a matter of faith and practice in terms of what inspiration of the Bible means. For inspiration argues that God ultimately is responsible for these declarations. God inspires through the writer.dlb
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
Lynn:
Again, a short reply. I see what you are doing in your first point as an attempt to create a category the Scripture does not give room for. You speak of love as positive, but we have nowhere in the Scripture where sexual same sex love is spoken of positively. In other words, one has to be able to establish that this category is a neutral category, not ruled out for such a consideration, before we get to the application of the kind of liberty principles to which you are appealing. I see nothing about the way Scripture handles this specific practice that takes us to such a place. (I also think that the way you try to connect discussions on hair and jewelry as equally condemned is a stretch). But let us assume you are right on those connections. A proper response is not to permit acticity in the area condemned or criticized (or treat it as permitting another area to be so handled), but to urge the church to be faithful in responding in those areas as well.
The difficulty you have dealing with the accepted cultural backdrop for Paul's negative remarks (Ie, alternative lifestyles are not accepted as moral) and the nature of inspiration is also a major problem for your approach (as is the appeal to biological factors). Did God not know about these biological realities in His creation as he speaks ot these topcis through Paul and others? God is NOT merely allowing a misunderstanding in such cases in his Scripture; he would be misdirecting our basic ethical instruction in the area. But Scripture is said to be able to guide us into truth in these very areas of how we live (what they church has called faith and practice). I do not have to believe that Paul spoke with full knowledge of the area (as you say), but with sufficient knowledge and with a proper sense of God's mind on how to view the area. In sum, Paul's tone gets his basic exhortation in these areas right.
Now as for condemnation. The beauty of the gospel is that grace triumphs over sin. There are thousands, I am sure, saved homosexuals. Just as there are thousands of saved liers, slanderers, greedy, etc. Many of these people struggle to overcome that for which Christ died. What is disturbing about the position you are holding to is that it fails to truly face the way God spoke about this practice. You even make a point of it in stating your personal identity ("I am a gay, born again believer myself"). I can be greedy and angry as a person, but that does not make me proud to have those qualitied in my life and I pray that God continues to work on these areas. Grace is capable of reversing and is at work on these. Your position is such that you are arguing this is not necessary in an area Scripture consistently portrays negatively. That fact alone would give me pause, if I were you, about whether my view of liberty is actually correct. Please note I say this not to judge, but to observe about what Scripture says and seek to apply the Word that comes from the one who loved me enough to die for me and enter into my life to help me become the person he designed me to be.
Lynn, I have no doubt by the tone of your interaction that your desire is to honor God and seek his will. This is why I write so directly. In everything God has revealed to us directly on this area of discussion in his Word, his remarks challenge this lifestyle as offensive to his design. He has not faked us out here. He means it. So with all the best intentions, I hope you will reconsider how you have created a "safe haven" for an alternative lifestyle. It is not a safe place to be. God desires more and better things for us that what that lifestyle offers.
Sincerely in Him,
dlb
Dr. Bock,
You said: "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..."
I realize this is a theological discussion, but since you raised this point, I thought I'd ask. Why is it only religious people who claim to have reversed their sexual identity, and why are these changes never confirmed with scientific study?
Skeptimal:
Are you saying that people who had an experience with Christ, show it in changed behavior, and who appear to be changed really are not? Is the Holy Spirit able to change us? You are correct; this is a theological claim. But it applies to a whole series of areas of which this is just one.
dlb
."Are you saying that people who had an experience with Christ, show it in changed behavior, and who appear to be changed really are not?"
I think there is tremendous pressure on gay people in our culture, so if some chose to ignore their sexual attraction and act as if they were straight, it would not be a surprise. If sexual attraction can be changed, we would expect to see it occurring outside of religion and to see it being scientifically proven. The fact that only the religious are claiming this change is possible (just as only the religious claim creationism is science) makes it suspect.
"Is the Holy Spirit able to change us?"
I doubt you and I would be able to agree on this question. People religious and otherwise do sometimes choose to make healthier decisions. Is that the Holy Spirit? We couldn't prove it wasn't.
Skeptics and theologians *can* theoretically come to agreement, however, about whether or not those individuals who claim a change in sexual identity are actually now physically attracted to the opposite sex. All that would be necessary is rigorous scientific testing opened to peer review by religious and non-religious scientists alike. Since such a change would strongly bolster the Christian political view, I would expect that many reformed gays would be willing to participate in such a study.
On a personal note, I greatly respect your participation in the creation of the Evangelical Manifesto. Although I'm not a Christian, and although you advocate positions with which I strongly disagree, I think a lot of Buddhists, liberal Christians, atheists, and skeptics would welcome it if Evangelicals would abandon attempts to enforce theocracy and return to the table as partners in democracy. I know I would.
I find the seeming choice between science and theology you pose interesting. I do agree about your view about the existence of pressure to conform, but that does not mean will power alone gets it done. Many people cannot overcome issues in their lives by will power alone. I do not mean that will power never works, but you are suggesting when a reversal comes that is always the case. Probably we are up against a worldview difference here.
As for the Manifesto, please know that many evangelicals have never pursued or are interestdd in a theocracy. So thanks for that note.
dlb
"I find the seeming choice between science and theology you pose interesting. I do agree about your view about the existence of pressure to conform, but that does not mean will power alone gets it done."
I may have been vague in how I worded things. I don't think that you have to choose between science and theology, necessarily. A high percentage of scientists are Christian (though admittedly not the majority). I was just saying that the question of whether legitimate positive change has come from the Holy Spirit is a question of faith unanswerable by science. Nevertheless the change itself, in the question of physical attraction, could be measured and confirmed by science if it were real.
"Many people cannot overcome issues in their lives by will power alone. I do not mean that will power never works, but you are suggesting when a reversal comes that is always the case."
And I didn't mean to suggest will power alone is always enough to make any change. For legitimate areas of emotional healing, however, it does not take religion to make that change. Recovering alcoholics do not all become religious. People with psychiatric disorders can see improvement through therapy. People with depression can be treated medically. When it comes to gay conversion therapy, though, it always seems to be the religious who claim this change has taken place.
If you are saying that physical attraction for "ex-gays" always remains for the same sex, and that they just learn to ignore it and make do with inherent limited heterosexual attraction, that's one thing. If you're saying that the physical attraction actually changes through religion, then that can be proven or disproven.
"As for the Manifesto, please know that many evangelicals have never pursued or are interestdd in a theocracy. "
The Manifesto is proof of that. By the way, I hadn't realized how much anger about the theocrats came through in my post. It isn't directed at you and those who agree with you. I hope that if it were necessary, I would be willing to die to protect the rights of Christians to worship as they choose and follow where their consciences lead them. For a long time now, I've suspected I might be a fool for having that attitude, since Christians apparently did not feel that my rights mattered at all. The Evangelical Manifesto renews my "faith" that people of differing world views can find a way to cooperate for peace.
The reaction to the Manifesto is fascinating, in that merely by suggesting that peace is better than war, the authors have been accused of moral relativism and weak faith (the two most serious crimes an Evangelical can be accused of).
Skeptimal:
Thanks for the helpful clairifications on your thinking. I like your tone as well.
dlb
It seems to me that a lot of the conversation about sexuality and Christianity presupposes that people are static in their sexual orientation. I am not a scientist, but I would assume that very few people are completely homosexual or heterosexual. I suspect that we are all somewhere on a spectrum in terms of our sexual desires at the moment. I also suspect that there is some ability to move oneself on this spectrum, not that such a movement is easy, but I think it is possible. So for example, although I consider myself to be currently on the heterosexual side of the spectrum I can imagine that over a period of time I could move myself to the homosexual side of the spectrum. I think such a movement is possible for most people in both directions, or in other directions towards different sexual desires. Again, I am not saying that such a move would be easy, but I suspect it is possible. I would appreciate a comment from someone who studies sexuality or might be able to speak authoritatively about this.
John:
Thanks for raising this.
dlb
It seems that John is saying that there is no such thing as being either "heterosexual by nature" or "homosexual by nature," as a deeply rooted part of one's being. I'm not a scientist, but I can speak from personal knowledge and experience, and I think most people would heartily agree with what I am saying.
If you are only speaking about exploring "sexual experiences," based on "sexual desires at the moment," apart from any notion of a relationship with God or a conservative approach to life, this is probably true on a physical and sexual level for most people, if one is thinking about life in that way. But John is speaking of discussions about "sexual orientation and Christianity," and the born-again Christian is not looking for different sexual experiences, but desires a wholesome and committed life, and many non-believers are also interested in a committed life-partnership. The person who deeply understands themselves to be attracted only to the opposite sex, is not likely going to ever be interested in learning how to be in an "intimate love relationship" with the same sex, and the same is true for the person who is attracted only to the same sex, in regards to a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. John is saying that he believes this is "possible but not easy" for the straight man, for example, to learn and grow into desiring an intimate relationship with another man. (I don't believe many straight men would agree with him, but I don't know where you would find data to this effect.) "Gender" is a very important part of attraction and intimacy. It would not be a desirable thing to try to change in oneself, and I have no doubt that most people would agree.
Some people understand themselves to be bisexual, and can be attracted to either sex. In my understanding, there are two different kinds of "bisexual": One kind has only to do with engaging in "sexual experiences" with both men and women, and has nothing whatsoever to do with an intimate love relationship.
I will say, though, that the person who changes from understanding themselves as a gay person, and now feels that he or she is sexually attracted to the opposite sex, I believe was never innately homosexual in the first place, as many people feel deeply that they are, and as is evidenced for many gay people dating back to childhood. Some people are engaged in homosexuality, and it is related to other issues in their lives, and is not about being born with a homosexual orientation. I have no problem believing that this person can come out of their former feelings, and can move on the "spectrum" and become attracted to the opposite sex. This is possible especially with the help of God, as with any other addiction or issue in a person's life. It is wholeness and fulfillment in love that God desires for all people. The genuinely gay person finds fulfillment in a relationship with a member of the same sex, and just as for the straight person, this is not something that many people would want to try to change.
I appreciate the comments. I do not have any doubt that the average homophobic person would say they could never move on the spectrum towards desiring the same sex. In my mind this would only display the person's lack of introspection. If we are making anecdotal evidence important then I might note that most research students that I have spoken to about this agree that they could concieve of themselves over time being able to move on the spectrum to desire the same sex. I think this is an important point for Christians who believe that homosexuality to be immoral. If they cannot admit that it is possible for them to move on the sexual spectrum then they cannot ask others on the homosexual side to move to the heterosexual side. To do so would be very hypocritical.
Now, whether one believes that those on the homosexual side of the spectrum should move to the heterosexual side depends on whether or not they believe God has set standards for sexual ethics that are more comprehensive than a loving committed relationship with another person (Of course the Bible itself presents homosexuality as immoral, but then again theological reasoning does not stop with the Bible). I think that another point to be considered in this conversation is that if a loving and committed relationship is the standard then what about other sexual activities in which this is possible outside of homosexuality. I would be interested to hear what Lynn thinks about incestuous relationships with one's sibling or parent. If the overarching principle is a loving committed relationship then I can see no reason why an incestuous relationship could not be considered moral, if of course both consenting members of the relationship are fixed not to have natural children.
In answer to the question John poses to me, the overarching principle is more than a loving, committed relationship. If this is the standard, then "adultery" would also be acceptable, which is a violation of one's commitment of love to their spouse and is sin on this basis, which was addressed in the Ten Commandments. The question is not particularly fit to be answered, but I'll just say that I would be just as offended by the concept of an incestuous relationship as just about anyone would be. The topic here is about people being born innately homosexual, and the type of love and commitment that I am speaking of is before God and is in the light. God will be the Judge of all people. I've never stated this to be the complete criteria that God, being a righteous Judge of the hearts of all people, would be looking at.
The issue here is about "gender," and gender issues do not constitute "immorality" in my understanding of the Bible. There is an explicitly stated context in all of the references that speak of condemnation, and this context explains that it is lust, rebellion, idolatry, and unfaithfulness that constitutes sexual immorality. "In Christ there is no male or female." (Gal. 3:28) To condemn purely on the basis of gender is legalism, and takes nothing into consideration except the written law, which is wholly not how law functions in the church. There is more to be taken into consideration on this issue, considering that we are speaking about an individual's "natural makeup," not the "rebellion" that was prolifically spoken of in the Bible. Man looks upon the outward appearance; God looks upon the heart. I could give a list of examples of how disastrous it would be to cite and apply biblical passages standing alone. John states that "the Bible presents homosexuality as immoral," but this is without any view to the context in which passages were stated, or any other principles of Scripture. This is no more true and complete, than it would be to say that to work on Saturday is worthy of death, or to eat pork or shellfish is abominable in the sight of God. God has written His law on our hearts, and this is a matter of one's own conscience and personal relationship with God. Also important to note, if the condemnation were about a particular act, it would have been forbidden for all people. The condemnation was regarding a certain type of lawless person, who had a rebellious heart towards God. The context of the passages explicitly shows this to be true. This theological reasoning does stop with the Bible, and it is based on the Bible.
In speaking about anecdotal evidence regarding "moving on the spectrum" in terms of our sexual orientation, I can tell you that I am not "heterophobic" and I would not be interested in an intimate relationship with a man. As a gay woman, it is not in me and would not be a possibility for me. I don't mean to be insulting about whatever it is that John is speaking of, but there is a difference between love and intimacy, and what it seems to me that John is speaking about.
He is saying that he could move on the spectrum, and that heterosexual people he has spoken with also believe they could desire the same sex. John, are we speaking about basically animalistic activities, or are we speaking about love and intimacy from the deepest and most complete part of one's heart and being? If you are speaking about the former, that would be like macaroni and cheese, compared to a seven course, porterhouse steak dinner with wine...if you are speaking of the latter, I don't believe many heterosexual or homosexual people would agree with you. Possibly, through introspection, you feel that an experience with a man would be something meaningful--I don't feel the same way, and there is no comparison for me. Most straight men would possibly do bodily damage to you if you physically tried to explore the prospect with them. I'm sure, and I mean this sincerely, that you could find plenty of gay or bisexual men who would love to give you or your friends the chance to explore this in yourself...provided they are not walking in a close relationship with Jesus Christ, who would require much more from them than what that would be about. I think your words do reveal what you are speaking about, but perhaps you will clarify what type of sexual relationship you are speaking about for all of Dr. Bock's readers.
As far as the straight Christian who believes the gay Christian should be able to change...the premise there is that they believe that all people are to be heterosexual, end of story. (I suppose they would believe that "asexual" would be acceptable) "Hypocrisy" I believe, has more to do with one's stated beliefs in an ethical sense, so I don't see this in terms of their belief that the gay person can change, while they would have no desire or consideration of what it would be about for themselves to change. They don't understand that the gay person's sexual orientation is as deeply a part of them, and important to them as part of the gift of life, as their own sexual orientation is--and there are many truths of the Bible that they do not feel an obligation to process. (I believe there is a hypocrisy, but not in the sense that you are speaking of.) In my belief, many Christians are challenged in the integrity department. It is one thing to believe homosexuality is wrong...other things many of them are engaged in for their beliefs, are another thing altogether. Just some thoughts for consideration.
Hmmm. Well I think the idea that the New Testament does not condemn homosexuality is flatly ridiculous. I do realize that there has been an article here and there in support of the point you are making (e.g. the one by L. T. Johnson) but for the most part I understand that those supporting your stance feel that they are the prophetic voice that is taking its starting point with the Bible and are moving on from there. An outstanding scholar, John Milbank, who supports your overall position also says: “Although I favor the gay cause, I actually think the conservatives are more or less right about the Bible” (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week707/commentary.html)... I certainly agree.
I still don’t see why you would think of incest as immoral. Why from scripture would someone being born heterosexual be prevented from having a deep and committed love relationship with their sibling which they also felt was before God and in the light? I do not think you can say they cannot have such a relationship without appealing to the dos and don’ts of scripture which you are so aggressively trying to avoid. You seem to feel that these laws which God gave (in the NT) can be tossed aside as long as you have some subjective sensation that you are “speaking before God in the light.” You appear to be randomly cutting out all things that sound like law and calling them legalism. What do you mean by legalism? Having a law does not make something legalistic. Legalism is following laws outside of empowerment from God’s Spirit. There is nothing wrong with following commands as long as you do not believe that you are somehow justifying yourself by following them (1John 5:3f).
Also, about your opening sentence: “In answer to the question John poses to me, the overarching principle is more than a loving, committed relationship. If this is the standard, then "adultery" would also be acceptable, which is a violation of one's commitment of love to their spouse and is sin on this basis, which was addressed in the Ten Commandments.” Obviously if one commits adultery then they are not in a committed relationship so I don’t see your point…and there you are appealing to laws when they fit your purpose.
John, people like you are difficult to have a dialog with, because you make statements regarding my beliefs that are unfounded, such as your statement about the complete criteria for an acceptable relationship being a "loving and committed" relationship, which is not what I have said. I speak of love and commitment, and I also speak of other components as well, such as one's conscience, personal relationship with God, which is who we are ultimately accountable to, and that all things will be in the light. The other reason you are difficult to have a cohesive dialog with, is because you feel that your condemnation is endorsed by God, while you give no argument in response to the truths that I have pointed out from God's Word. I'll give my answer to you one point at a time.
1. Your declaration that you could change your sexual orientation, based on "sexual desires of the moment" is, in my view, a statement that you do not cherish what you have felt to be your sexual orientation, as a heterosexual man. Possibly not in terms of your religious beliefs, as I see now from your condemning statements, but in terms of your sexual orientation, it is all completely interchangeable to you. You are making the statement that you don't feel that you have a gift of nature regarding women, that is incomparable in your desire for a woman, and you could have just as intimate and romantic of a relationship with a man. I would presume this is on all levels of intimacy, based on the more complete argument you are making. You are expressing yourself to be potentially bisexual in nature, and that you believe that basically all people are, and if they do not understand or believe this, they are lacking sufficient introspection. I completely disagree with your statements, and I have no doubt that probably most people would not consider their deeply-felt sexual preference to be interchangeable. It is a very significant part of our nature. This is from my knowledge of myself, which is based on my own orientation, and is evidenced dating back to my childhood in terms of gender-related behaviors and preferences, as with I believe most people who feel that they were born with either a heterosexual or a homosexual orientation. This is also something that parents can testify to, regarding their knowledge of their children that they raised. You are entitled to your beliefs about your sexual orientation; I don't agree with it as a principle. I'll have to look for a study to see if many people feel the way you do.
2. You are expressing what you believe the Bible states in a very limited manner. I don't believe I have done that in my presentation of my beliefs. I have not stated that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, so representing my belief as being that "the Bible does not condemn homosexuality" and calling this "ridiculous" is unfounded and aimed at a shallow and limited mindset regarding the Bible. If this is how you function in your judgments of people, it is likely that you will be found to be hypocritical in your application of Scriptural laws in your own personal life. I've explained all of this pretty thoroughly, and you might want to address the actual discussion and give an answer for your beliefs on these complexities of the Bible. To clarify, my belief is that homosexuality being spoken of as condemned, is stated within an expressed context, and is related to the sinful qualities that I have cited from Scripture. This context, Paul's explanation of the type of person he condemned, is all prolifically there in Scripture. I didn't make it up.
3. The individual that you say "supports my overall position," and who is also saying that "the conservatives are more or less right about the Bible"...obviously does not support my overall position. There are a lot of unanswered questions regarding the "conservative's" presentation of the Bible. (I'm not seeing them carrying out the laws of Scripture...the ones they apparently consider to be not the essence of righteousness, and not reasonable to be taken and applied at face value, as the words of Christ, while requiring this of the gay believer.) There is much that has been collectively ignored, which I have written extensively about, and which you do not address to any degree at all.
4. You don't understand why I would consider incest to be immoral, and you don't see why they could not have a sexual relationship that is before God and is in the light? I've never encountered a person for whom this is a desire or an issue ever in my life. Have you ever heard of someone saying, "This is my brother, who is also my life-partner."? This is not an issue in the church, or anywhere else, and it is self-explanatory why it is not and never will be. This renders it not "in the light," or before God. Other than something that might occur on the frequency of serial killing, this is not something that people want at all, and for reasons that are rooted deeply in our beings. My second answer is that God is the Judge, and this is not a concern of mine. Also, you are appealing to the Law, but I didn't obtain my belief on this from the Mosaic Law. His law is written on our hearts now, and this is something we understand instinctively.
5. I'm "aggressively trying to avoid the dos and don'ts of Scripture?" I don't know on what basis you believe you can make this judgment of me. God is the Judge of my heart, and this is a false and baseless judgment. I have not tried to avoid anything; I am writing about many compelling issues of Scripture, and it is based on verifiable truths of Scripture. Again, you might want to give an answer for your beliefs, in terms of the actual dialog and biblical truths that I have raised for discussion.
6. "You appear to be randomly cutting out all things that sound like law and calling them legalism." If you see a "random cutting out" of things that sound like law, you haven't read anything that I have written with any kind of thoughtfulness. I explained my understanding of "legalism," when I said that it is a use of law that takes nothing else into consideration but the written law, and applies laws simply on the basis that it is written in Scripture. Jesus Himself spoke against this use of the Law in several ways. This is also something that is imposed on other people, and is a principle that those who do this imposing do not live by for themselves. Many laws have no place in the function of the Christian faith.
You said, "There is nothing wrong with following commands as long as you do not believe that you are somehow justifying yourself by following them (1John 5:3f)." I haven't seen this practiced in Christianity, to blindly follow what you do not concur with in your spirit and your heart, as a born-again believer in Christ, to be inherent to righteousness. That is a main part of the substance of this discussion. You haven't addressed this, but perhaps you will back up your argument and address these truths and realities, for the sake of integrity.
Also to note, His commandments are "not burdensome," because His law is to love one another, and this is something we grow into through a relationship with Him, and in the growth of the fruits of the Spirit. We are a new creation in Him. His laws of love are found in the Ten Commandments, and the New Testament states the law of "love" to be the "fulfillment of His law." We are to "owe nothing to anyone except to love one another." (Romans 13:8) His law under the new covenant is not the body of Mosaic laws; it is only to place your trust in Christ, and to love your neighbor as yourself (and a couple of other things that He asked of us, e.g. water baptism, and communion). I agree that His law is not burdensome, if His spirit is in us. This is not quite the case, to say that "His laws are not burdensome," in viewing gender statements, apart from any context, as the law of God.
John, what is your explanation for why God set up laws in the Old Testament that had the "death penalty" and the word "abomination" attached to them, that are no longer "laws" in the faith today according to the New Testament? Does this have no meaning in our understanding of how He set up His laws, and the principles of the new covenant? Why do you believe that this particular law is in a different category, and reflects inherent truth apart from any context, unlike these other laws that I pointed out, and He would condemn a believing soul to hell based on gender issues, as Paul said in his understanding of the type of person who engaged in this? If this is how you understand God, you are welcome to your beliefs. This is not how I understand the God of Scripture, who established a complex religion in the Old Testament, and then simplified it in the New Testament to be "fulfilled in a word." We will all stand before God. My beliefs are based on Scripture, as I understand the bigger picture to be clearly presented in His Word.
7. As to your last point, if someone is going outside of their marriage to be with someone else, in a relationship that they are promising commitment to, then it is possible to claim a commitment of love to the second party. You said "committed," which means they will always be together, you didn't say "exclusive." You should be clear on how you are claiming to represent the totality of my beliefs, which are not what I have claimed on either count.
Also, the "laws that I appeal to" are the laws of love, as explained by Paul, when he spoke of the principles of how law functions under the new covenant. You must have missed all of these aspects of how I have presented my beliefs.
8. As far as your statement that, those who believe God does accept His gay and lesbian children, who live for Him and have love for God and for humanity, as claiming to be "a prophetic voice that is taking its starting point with the Bible and are moving on from there"...it seems to be the case, that the people who do not live by all of the laws of the Bible, even if you only want to count the New Testament, do not bother to give a reasonable explanation for their dismissal of laws, they just simply don't talk about it (which is approval by popular opinion). Paul stated that "women who make a claim to godliness, are not to wear gold, pearls, braids, or expensive dresses"...and he also said that we are not to "think beyond what is written." I do believe we need to think reasonably, and seek to understand what was intended in some of these statements. There is a basis for liberty, and it seems to me to be explained well in Scripture.
And before you say that I am picking and choosing what I am going to accept from the writings of Paul, let me address this by explaining, again, that there is a basis for concurring with the spiritual principles that he spoke of, as a born-again believer who has the spirit of Christ in them, and distinguishing this from laws given by Paul. I do believe he was capable of speaking not in complete terms, in some of the statements and requirements that he gave, and I believe I have proven this well.
I'm pretty sure this concludes my portion of the debate here, and if I answer further any point that John or anyone else may make, I will be brief. I'll reply to Jim soon, and I appreciate his story very much. And Dr. Bock, thank you for allowing this dialog on your blog.
First, let me state that I appreciate the tone and the open dialogue that Lynn has used.
This matter is very real to me. I was raised in a Christian home and put my trust in Christ at a young age. At some point in grade school, I increasingly became attracted to men. Living in a very conservative home, I had no clue or context to understand what was going on or that I was having homosexual desires. It wasn't until middle school that I even started to understand.
At the same time, I felt called to be a pastor. It was while attending Dallas Seminary (I had Dr. Bock for Greek class for 1 Corinthians) that the two worlds collided head on. That began a journey for me. I have wrestled through this and have come to a few firm convictions.
First, while every part of my being wanted to become intimate with a man, I have come to realize that this is not my identity. I am not a gay man. I am a man -- period. And when the biblical understanding of manhood is developed (which is very extensive), it is clear that a man was designed for a woman. This was not an ignoring of my physical desires. It was taping into an even deeper, core desire that was in my soul. This can't be "proven" by psychology or science, but theology seems to correlate well with reality as I have experienced it and as I observe in others.
Second, if a man at his core is a man in his very soul (and a woman the same as a woman), then I believe the most unloving thing I could ever do is suggest he get or stay involved in a sexually intimate same-sex relationship (and the same for a woman). While it would deal with the surface desires, it would actually damage the very soul of the person.
There is no way I could explain all of this in a short comment in a blog. I can only state what has been true for me. It took 10 years of struggle and working through this, but I am now very happily married and have a son. Yes, I still am attracted to the same sex. But that is not my identity. And I can say with full conviction that my wife complements me in a soulish way that a man never could. Our relationship is not just based on my physical arousal. It is based so much deeper than that. While I have no doubt that same-sex relationships can be very deep and loving, they can't complement each other in the same way as a man and woman do in their soul any more than they can physically match and complement each other in their body parts. In other words, without a physical bodily change, gay sex is unable to replicate heterosexual sex in how a man and woman come together and are able to reproduce. The complementing in gay sex physically and soulishly is changed and adapted from what it was meant to be. Yes, it works on one level, but I find it a pale imitation of the original.
Bottom line, my identity has nothing to do with my desires. It has everything to do with my soul, and as a Christian under the New Covenant, my soul has already been transformed. So at this point, to live a gay lifestyle would be a violation of the very foundation of who I am. So while it is still a temptation at times, it is never an option that holds any appeal in the light of day.
Let me just add, knowing how hard the struggle can be, I definitely do not judge those who embrace the gay lifestyle. But at the same time, it would be unloving for me to accept it as the best choice for him or her to make.
Jim, I very much appreciate your thoughtful letter and your personal story. I am not one to be threatened or feel a need to insult those who believe as you do, and who hold the deep convictions that you do. I do not believe as you do, but I respect your beliefs. God is the only One who can give honor to His children as being obedient to Him, and I have no doubt that you will be rewarded for your obedience to your conviction and your understanding of God's Word and His will for you. In my understanding of the bigger picture of His Word, as I have explained, and in what I have experienced profoundly in my relationship with Him, I am being obedient to my deepest convictions regarding His Word and His will for me. I'll just give you a few thoughts on how I understand what you are speaking about, and my understanding of these things.
I see what you are saying about your "identity" not being found in your desires, but in your soul. I understand my identity as being who I am in my soul as well. My sexual orientation is not how I define my identity, any more than my hair color, eye color, or any other aspect of my natural makeup. It is an aspect of who I am, and who God made me to be. It is not "who I am," but it is certainly part of who I am in this life, and I would say that it is an important part of who I am. It is on the same lines as the "heterosexual" aspect of a person, and is part of the gift of life. But as far as my identity, this is found in who I am as a person, and as a born-again believer in Jesus Christ. If all were lost tomorrow, including any of my senses, physical mobility, ability to think rationally, or my life itself...I would still be who I am in Christ, which is eternal. You are separating your "natural sexual orientation" from "who you are," but at the same time, understanding that who you are is a "man." In my belief, this is part of who I am as a woman, and that appears to be where you disagree on this aspect. I am a woman...I'm not a man trapped in a woman's body, but I am a gay woman in my natural, God-given makeup. My "desires" are in the same category as the natural-born heterosexual's desires. You have chosen to deny your homosexual desires, but I don't believe that to permit this aspect of a relationship establishes it to be your identity itself, though I believe I understand what you are saying.
You seem to understand your sexual orientation as a "disorder"...I do not understand my natural sexual orientation as a disorder. If it could be shown to cause harm, through evidence or even compelling reasoning, I would agree that it should be denied of oneself, if we are to place God first. If something were to come into a person from some adverse experience in their life, as opposed to from birth, I would agree that "wholeness" would be found through healing from this experience. We are fearfully and wonderfully made in the womb by God. (Psalm 139) An accident of birth, a true disorder, has a definable, adverse consequence involved. (They are who they are eternally in Christ as well, and God is a God of hidden blessings sometimes.) Jim, you spoke of this as being "surface desires," but I don't see it this way. In the deepest "core" of my being, not in terms of the eternal soul that I am in Christ, but the person I was created to be in this life (viewing this in the same category as for the heterosexual person), I am still very much a gay woman.
To address very briefly the biblical "hierarchy" and what is said about marriage...let me just say that there are exceptions to this model: in the life of the single person, the Christian marriage where this does not play out, due to a desire for a more equal partnership, and yes, the same-sex relationship. The man may be the head of the household, but Paul seems to be speaking about much more than that, saying that "Christ is the head of the man, and the man is the head of the woman." To not strictly adhere to this model, I believe does not constitute something that is immoral. We all have our own relationship with God personally, and as I understand God's plan, He works through all of us as we avail ourselves, and as He pleases.
As to the complementary balance of the soul of the male and female that you are speaking of...it is evident in God's creation that all men and all women are not the created the same. There can be vast differences between men and between women. Some men are much more sensitive and emotional than other men, and some women are much more dominant, or even emotionally private, as you might associate with many men. As I see this, there could be a much better match between two men or two women, than between many male/female partnerships (as the divorce rate might suggest, but I would agree that there are also other issues involved there). A complementary experience does not simply fall along gender lines, and we do not have to be opposites in every way to compliment each other in many ways. We are all people, and we are all different. What you are saying is probably true "as a rule," but not "as a principle" across the board, which is why I believe we need to be flexible in our thinking about these things. Some people are created gay, or one might prefer to say with a homosexual orientation. I don't believe we are in too much disagreement on this point, and though I don't want to presume to speak for whatever your complete understanding of this may be, I believe you are a testament to this fact.
I might add that you seem to be very satisfied in your heterosexual relationship; you obviously have an adequate supply of an intimate, physical attraction to your wife, considering that she is staying married to you, and this is obviously how God has led you...but it could not be that way for me. I have no attraction to men at all. They are fine as friends and individuals to talk to, but the concept of intimacy with a man has no appeal for me whatsoever. If I were married to a man, this would be a serious injustice to both him and to myself. Any notion of how much better heterosexual sex might be is not important to me, because it is incomparable. More personal information...there are no abuse or neglect issues for me either. I was raised in a very healthy home, and never had any abuse experience in my life. In my understanding, what God calls "ideal" and what He calls "moral" is not going to be rendered along the lines of gender on that day, but will be rendered in a different way. You are obedient to what you believe to be true, as am I, and God will be the Judge of all people.
One thing I want to say, in defense of myself against many accusers (one not being Jim)...my understanding of this issue was not born out of any fleshly desire for sexual activities. I have always known that I was attracted to females, as of age twelve, but I never saw this as being something that would be fulfilled. I assumed that I would do what everyone else does, as a girl growing up in a small town in the 1970s. When I was 18, I felt deeply that I was called to serve God in a life of ministry. I later understood that I would not be getting married, and that there was no place for a husband in how I now saw my future, and I was very happy to realize this truth the year after I gave my life to God. I took the Bible in the same way that most people do, and this was not even a remote issue for me, or something I thought much about. I was very contented in how I understood my life and my calling from God, and the eternal rewards that would follow. I absorbed myself in His Word, and His music, and the ministries of all the great teachers.
It was not until my early twenties that I began to listen to a lot of talk in the media about the issue and all other issues, when I heard many untruths being spoken by Christians about the issue, and sometimes what I would consider disregard and even hate for people for whom this is a reality. Being in Denver Colorado, it is a very prominent issue here, which opened my eyes to this reality as it exists for many people (though still very much a minority of course). I began to see many truths of Scripture that are not spoken of in the church, and listened to many distortions from Christians, in the media and personally, and this is where my understanding of the issue began to be formed.
The point that I want to make here, is that I never looked at the Bible from the perspective of looking for how I might justify my desire or attraction to women. It happened quite from above, and this is what God has led me to do, to write about these truths of His Word, and His love and acceptance for His gay and lesbian children. This is a biblical explanation for how and why He will not be condemning these individuals as immoral, disobedient, and destined for hell. In answer to Sean, I'm sure many, many people would agree together that "Lynn has misinterpreted the Bible." But the fact is that God will be the One to say who understood and who didn't. I'll address his post briefly in a while.
I am writing this book and blog, for the sake of bringing out these much unanswered and ignored truths of Scripture, and I am genuinely open to being shown what anyone believes I have misstated about God's Word. I wrote a slightly revised version of why I ended the "comments" section in my post, "A Better Method..." but I maintain my openness to the whole picture on the issue, and I will write about all that I might see in this regard. Jim, I may post your letter on my blog, with your permission of course, because I believe people who were born with a homosexual orientation should see all that can be said truthfully about the issue, in the sense of how this is to you and has worked for you, and I will work to promote the whole picture for as many people as I can reach...including reaching people for the truth of Jesus Christ and His glorious gospel, which is incomparably the most important truth of all. This presentation of the issue is the subject of many insults, and God will sort out and judge the hearts of all people. Again, biology is not rebellion, lust, or idolatry, and God loves all of His children with an infinite abundance and promise.
Jim, please contact me through my blog if you would like, and let me know if I can use your well-written letter in my book and blog, or you can write a more complete version if you would like to contribute that way. I understand if you would rather not, but I find your story compelling and important for this study. It's possible you've written something more extensive that I could read. All that may be necessary is a link to your letter on my blog, so we'll see, but I hope to hear from you. God bless you and thank you.
Lynn
Lynn,
I could not read your whole post right now but will do so later. (I did a very quick read / scan.)
One new thought: How exactly do you define the term "New Covenant"? I did not see that right away on your blog and feel it is crucial in your argument. What exactly did Christ do at the cross for us? I see us having a new purity and a new identity as a result of the New Covenant. How does this make something that is clearly sin acceptable? When you look at other issues the church has "changed" on over the years (such as slavery or the role of women), it does not come out of nowhere. There are some pretty strong suggestions of another option. I just don't see that in regards to issues dealing with sexual morality. That is one topic the Bible consistently and overwhelmingly treats as wrong and harmful. To suddenly say that a same sex relationship is ok when there is not even a valid hint of this in the Bible seems questionable to me. Other than reinterpreting Romans 1, where else would you see the Bible as allowing for this exception?
I went to your blog but didn't see how to comment. I will look again. I would rather write something with more thought and conciseness if you want to post it or use it somewhere else. If I come up with something I will be glad to post it there.
Lynn,
I went into this while searching for something else entirely, but I needed a break from research so I read. I purposely went into this to try and understand your point of view and how, as a follower of Christ, that you would find it in the Bible a place where any type of a homosexual relationship would be justified, because our actions do have to be justified. But when I read down to the end of one of your posts that stated "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." So no matter what the Bible states, if you believe in something you can find justification in the matter (according to you) that God meant for there to be a misunderstanding of his Word. This is one of the most intellectually dishonest views of the Bible and God that I have ever heard. As someone else posted, you have indeed nitpicked and misinterpreted scripture, but when they were all addressed as being false you fall back on a position of saying that what God said isn't really what He meant. If that is the case, then why choose to be religious? If your position is that of "interpretation", then there is no point in following anything in the Bible.
Lynn, thanks for the exchange. I am sorry you feel I have made unfounded statements about your beliefs. I understand that to be the nature of a back-and-forth dialogue, with both sides trying to come to an understanding but falling short in some ways each time they respond to one another. As for your disappointment in my limiting your criteria to a loving and committed relationship, I would be comfortable including the other things you list (i.e. conscience, existential relationship with God, etc.) and still made the same points. I don’t know why you wish to characterize what I have said as “condemnation,” except perhaps to victimize yourself. I disagree with you, and at the moment I would even say that I think you are wrong, though I am open to correction (I, like everyone else, has thought things to be wrong in the past that I now think to be ok). I certainly do not condemn you. I would even be willing to say that we would get along quite well in person. As for your other comments, I will give a response below to some of the points, and other than some brief future comments this will be my final extended post on the whole matter.
1. I am not a geneticist so I can’t speak to how much we are wired at birth for certain orientations. I do believe that we are all born sinful and that there is something innately wrong with our orientations to all aspects of our future lives. As to your other comments on your first point, I think it comes down to that I think all people have the potential to change in their sexuality (in all areas, not just in terms of homo/hetero sexuality) and you do not. You feel that we all have an unchanging orientation and I do not. You feel that most people would agree with you I think the same about the opposite. I appreciate your looking for several studies as, if you recall, this was the point of my initial post on the matter.
2-3, 5. I agree with Darrell’s comments on the specifics regarding the fuller “presentation of your beliefs” about the Bible, which he sums up saying: “Now as for condemnation. The beauty of the gospel is that grace triumphs over sin. There are thousands, I am sure, saved homosexuals. Just as there are thousands of saved liers, slanderers, greedy, etc. Many of these people struggle to overcome that for which Christ died. What is disturbing about the position you are holding to is that it fails to truly face the way God spoke about this practice. You even make a point of it in stating your personal identity ("I am a gay, born again believer myself"). I can be greedy and angry as a person, but that does not make me proud to have those qualitied in my life and I pray that God continues to work on these areas. Grace is capable of reversing and is at work on these. Your position is such that you are arguing this is not necessary in an area Scripture consistently portrays negatively. That fact alone would give me pause, if I were you, about whether my view of liberty is actually correct.” If you wish to rehash your overall arguments I will let you do that with him.
I would only add to his statement that it is not just a practice which “Scripture consistently portrays negatively” but it is also a practice that those in the 2000 year history of Christianity have not questioned as being incorrect, and even now, your beliefs are an extremely small minority of worldwide ecumenical Christianity. I realize that you are sincere in what you think, as am I, but sincerity in the context of a relationship with God does not make one’s position correct. Clearly, one of us is sincerely wrong and only time will tell if your position is adopted by the rest of Christianity (in which case I would also adopt it) or if it will, as so many other past notions held by sincere Christians, be judged to be incorrect and outside of Christian teaching.
4. Just because neither of us have encountered incestuous relationships in the church does not mean they do not exist. I have not doubt that a long time ago you could have made all the statements that you have never heard of someone in a homosexual relationship that also believed themselves to be Christian, and that something like that “might occur on the frequency of a serial killing.” Since homosexuality is only recently a real issue in the church you cannot say that because incest is not currently an issue that it is illegitimate to make it one. You have not really engaged this issue, and perhaps you could explain why it is so “self-explanatory.” I only bring it up because I think your same method for justifying homosexuality could be used to justify incest. Obviously, sincere Christians disagree on a number of issues and so I do not give much weight to your “instinctive” understanding.
6. There are laws established in the Hebrew scriptures that Christians no longer follow. It is important to realize though that Christians would still want to follow the spirit of those laws even though they do not follow the laws in their wooden sense. I think you have to say this or else you will make God’s revelation in the NT in disagreement with his revelation in the OT, which then would be Marcionism. Darrell is a dispensational scholar so perhaps he has fuller thoughts on this then what I can present. However, I don’t even see this as an issue with homosexuality since it is presented as sinful in both the Old and New Testaments.
Finally, those who believe homosexuality to be sinful do not believe it haphazardly. It is born out of a deep desire to obey God, perhaps even against some of their own sexual tendencies, which they would also believe to be rooted in their sinful nature. Again such sexual tendencies need not be limited to homo/hetero sexuality but all areas of sexuality. Also, love is not absent from those who believe homosexuality is sinful. There is a desire to love God by obeying what they believe he has told them and there is a love for neighbor in the belief that their relationship with their neighbor is best when they are obeying God.
John:
May I also add to your response to Lynn, that in an earlier post she condemned a situation that involved adultery. For Lynn, homosexuality is ok as well as pre-marital sex...but adultery is somehow out of bounds. This is the faulty logic that I brought up with her assessment about God making the Bible to be intentionally misunderstood. with that theory, you can justify anything you want to at all and there is nothing that anyone can say contrary. When you believe in a theory that allows you to change the rules at any time for any reason, there is no sense trying to make a point to someone if they have no intention of 1)being honest 2)entering a conversation about something with an open mind, which is needed if you are looking for the truth, because life changes will have to be made. But that is not what she wants to do. She doesn't want to do the right thing, hence her continued faulty arguments which have been dispelled by each person who has responded to her, and yet she just takes something else out of context (because the bible was meant to be misunderstood, right?) to try to defend her lifestyle which she has absolutely no intention of changing. What she wants is some kind of justification for her lifestyle and someone to say "Hey, you're right, God didn't really mean it. Times have changed and God wouldn't have know that way back then." ...and other excuses that have been or will be brought up. None of it will be truth, however.
The other problem I have with her is that of her being a false teacher because she knows that homosexuality is wrong, which is why she is trying to get someone to agree with her....validation. But the problem I have is that she is using what she thinks thinks the Bible says, which is text taken out of context, flat out wrong, or simply made up when she needs it to be...and she has put herself in a position of being a false teacher. So not only is she bringing herself down, but others as well, and that is not acceptable. I would normally be much more respectfull in others beliefs, but this person is not looking for the truth...she's looking for someone to agree with her so she feels validated/justified with her actions.
Sean,
Your comments about my beliefs are far from anything that I have said, so you would've done well to be careful before God in what you are doing, if you are going to claim to be the one speaking the truth in this conversation, because God condemns all liars. I have spoken nothing falsely about the Bible. Addressing liars is a waste of my time, but I am going to defend myself and be done with the hatefest that you are embracing for your God. To lie about people is to hate people, and what awaits liars is wrath. I'll address your lies and your irrational statements one at a time, starting with your first letter.
1. You have no ability to distinguish the concept of a "principle" in Scripture. The principle that I am speaking of, is that the law of God under the new covenant, in its entirety, is love. Paul explained that all that defines love is the law of God, and we are accountable to each other for nothing more. Laws are subject to new covenant principles. This is verifiable several times over. This biblical fact renders your statements about me to be false. Nothing about what I am saying places all of Scripture in a state of being dismissible. I don't expect you to understand this, because your false statements are devoid of any spiritual understanding, reason, or discernment.
2. Based on your statements, unless you live by all laws stated by Paul, and speak out to defend all of his laws, you will be found to be the worst of all hypocrites, because of your severe judgments which are based on many false statements. You have not engaged in the debate here, you have merely launched an attack on me. If you have a shred of integrity, explain why it is no longer a disgrace in the church today, for women to attend church and pray without their heads covered, in obedience to the explicit teachings of Paul. Explain why this is no longer a teaching in the church. This is just one example of several, but I am keeping my time spent addressing you to a minimum.
3. For me to believe that God inspired and governed the writings of Scripture, and to believe that He allowed Paul and others to misunderstand what precisely was condemned by Him, in regards to same-sex relations, is not intellectually dishonest. It is not unreasonable to believe that His purpose was to nail down the predominance of heterosexuality for societies, and for "judgment" to fall along the lines of condemning the heart of rebellion only, which is explicitly laid out in the context of the statements. There are many compelling facts of how He purposely established His Word, which leads me to be convinced of this. This issue involves clear complexities, and God is a righteous Judge who looks upon the heart.
4. You are claiming that I have "nitpicked" Scripture. I assume you are referring to the many laws that have no place in Christianity today. Is this what you are going to say to God about these facts that I have brought up for discussion? "She nitpicked Lord; why should I be accountable for my judgments on her, and my dismissal of l