When I heard that Jennifer Knapp came out as a lesbian yesterday, I shuddered.
But not for why you think.
No. I shuddered because the news meant another round of conversations about evangelicals and homosexuality. And that is a conversation which is fraught with danger.
There will be the obligatory (and alas, necessary) posts about how evangelicals have failed to respect and act toward the gay community. There will be questions and discussion on the proper pastoral response to gay Christians, and even about whether that modifier establishes an oxymoron. And there will be attempts to walk that disappearing line between demonstrate grace toward those who need it without abdicating on the question of whether homosexuality is, in fact, licit.
In all this, Jennifer Knapp–the singer and songwriter–will likely be forgotten. Her status as a person, a person with sinful inclinations that obscure the radiant, recalcitrant image of God, will be pushed to the background as we focus on the only salient fact for us: that instead of simply being a minor Christian celebrity, she’s now a gay minor Christian celebrity.
Jennifer Knapp, object lesson. For whatever we want to say. Objectification happens in many forms–and turning someone into a flash card for our broader spiritual lessons is only one of them.
Of course, such objectification is probably inevitable. After all, Jennifer Knapp isn’t in your church. I’m going to guess she’s not reading our blogs. And she’s probably not your friend. She exists for most of us only as an icon of that funny phenomenon we call “Christian culture.” And so because she has lent herself and her music–as all successful musicians must–to the objectifying press-machine that is Nashville, it’s tempting to say that she deserves whatever she gets.
But that doesn’t mean it’s good, or that it justifies our own objectification of her. Especially when in every interview I’ve read, she’s expressed reluctance and dismay that her sexuality will be used as a political football. And she seems, if nothing else, to be properly respectful of her differences with the Christian community. In other words, she seems to be want to left alone, even if her status as minor gay Christian celebrity doesn’t allow it.
And so maybe, just maybe, we should respect her subjectivity, not turn her into an object lesson, and move on.
This isn’t an appeal to ignore the questions of the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity. Far from it. Anyone who has read my work the last few years knows that I have not shied away from articulating my own views on the subject, and have always sought to do so graciously, patiently, and faithfully.
But the first step toward a good dialogue is recognizing that there’s a real person, with a real will, a real mind, and real problems at the other end of the line. And in this case, from what I can tell, Jennifer Knapp the real person would rather not be in the thick of things. I simply think respecting that would be a good start to whatever happens next.
Postscript: I realize the many levels of irony that could be directed at this post. I’m using her to make my own object lesson. I’m contributing to a conversation that I’m afraid we can’t handle. I’m responding to Knapp’s interview by suggesting that the proper response is to say nothing about Knapp. Well and good. Right now, I have nothing to say to those other than that I think the point still has merit, and am open to be persuaded otherwise.
April 14th, 2010 | 8:01 am | #1
If by “leaving her alone” you mean, keep the attack dogs locked in the shed, I agree.
However I don’t think she should be left completely alone. There is too much at stake. Her soul hangs in the balance and the gospel must be proclaimed.
This isn’t about Jennifer’s privacy and “right” to live as she pleases.
At a minimum, for the sake of the gospel, we must not call her a minor Christian celebrity but simply a minor celebrity.
And if we pray for her, pray for her repentance and salvation, and that her pastor and friends will call her to repentance and not just smile and say “She’s my friend, ain’t she grand.”
What I hope happens is that the Christian community remains fairly quiet about it, although firm and uncompromising when asked their opinion, and that her local church removes her from fellowship and, in love, calls her to repentance and faith in Christ.
I think those things would glorify God and serve Jennifer well.
April 14th, 2010 | 9:07 am | #2
My sister is gay, so I’ve a little bit of experience dealing with this subject, both from a non-Christian perspective and later, after God saved me.
My response, and the response of my family, has been to simply love her, treat her no differently than we have the rest of her life leading up to her coming-out to us. Since homosexuality is no different than any other habitual sin (all sins lead to death), I don’t see how I could do any less than show her the love and grace of Christ by living it for her, in the hopes that He will use us, our example, to bring her to Him in repentance. How would she have responded had we ostracized her and condemned her instead of loving her? My sins are no less crimson than hers. We are not so different, she and I, in our base, fleshy, sinful natures. The difference is that I fight against mine with Christ’s help, and hope and pray she will take up arms against hers at some point.
I love my sister, and it would break my heart more than I can express to see her continue in sin, but I can no more make that decision for her than I can will her salvation. All I can do is love her like Jesus, and hope that is enough. Maybe God will use me as an instrument of His grace, allow me to be there when conviction breaks through her resistance.
April 14th, 2010 | 1:46 pm | #3
One wonders what would have been the reaction on the part of the secular media if the artist were Ricky Martin and he was claiming to have recovered from his homosexual orientation.
I suspect it would have been ridicule, laughter, and disbelief. And I suspect, for example, that our masters on the cultural left would have not called for Bishop Robinson to lead the charge in being sensitive to those whose self-understanding may change over their lifetime.
Matt writes: “But the first step toward a good dialogue is recognizing that there’s a real person, with a real will, a real mind, and real problems at the other end of the line.”
That is absolutely correct, and we should, with a spirit of charity, remind ourselves of this again and again. However, we must also not shy away from recognizing the awful truth that dialog may very well be impossible with some folks who believe that the Christian view of human sexuality is fundamentally mistaken and ought to be eradicated from our cultural consciousness.
Remember, everything you say of Ms. Knapp–”a real person, with a real will, a real mind, and real problems”–is true of all of us, even those, like my fictional Ricky Martin, who part ways from the dominant understanding of homosexuality. We must be as quick to suggest charity for them as we do suggest charity for others. We must–and this is a tough pill to swallow– become skeptical of our own motives when it seems that the only people for whom we offer charity are those the cultural left claims are victims of our theological tradition. Just because one may feel good when being a tool does not mean that being a tool is good.
April 14th, 2010 | 1:48 pm | #4
For the record, I had never heard of Jennifer Knapp before reading this post.
April 14th, 2010 | 2:06 pm | #5
Welcome to the club, Francis. I hadn’t heard of her either until reading this post.
April 14th, 2010 | 2:41 pm | #6
Jennifer Knapp is not a fictional Ricky Martin.
She is a CCM artist of whom just about anyone who was immersed in Evangelical culture from the late 90s to the present would have heard.
I don’t understand why Dr. Beckwith is so quick to turn our attention toward the secular media and a fictional Ricky Martin. We all know people like Jennifer, but many of them are in the closet; as this post points out, this “issue” is personal before it is political. May we embody the ethos of Christ, who ate, drank, and died with “sinners.”
April 14th, 2010 | 2:53 pm | #7
The difference between Ms. Knapp and the sinners Jesus ate and drank with, is that they knew they needed a Saviour.
Ms. Knapp has apparently turned her back on the Saviour and decided she knows best.
Welcoming her and treating her like a sister in Christ is not the loving thing to do.
Her soul is a stake.
April 14th, 2010 | 3:35 pm | #8
Steve,
I don’t see anything wrong with what FB said, and for the life of me I can’t understand how you drew a negative out of it. What he’s saying is that we shouldn’t suddenly want to be cautious about a particular group solely on the basis of what those on the left find reprehensible. Homosexuality is serious in every age, in every culture. FB isn’t saying Ms. Knapp is a “bad person”. He’s saying homosexuality is either sinful at worst, and affliction at best. In neither case will it do a homosexual good to be pandered to by people who are afraid of being labeled.
I read the CT interview, and it sounds to me like she is sexually involved with a woman. Perhaps they are only friends, but she says the woman is her partner. Imagine if Billy Graham were shacked up with a woman. People would rightly find that offensive. I seriously doubt all the left-leaning evangelicals would start calling for tolerance and understanding. It’s a double standard.
I believe Peter Kreeft is right: people will often forgive you for being wrong, but rarely will people forgive you for being right.
With love we have to tell the truth, even to ourselves, especially to ourselves. Citing Kreeft again, honesty is the most important virtue. It;s not the highest virtue, but without it, we cannot achieve any other virtues. We have to tell the truth.
April 14th, 2010 | 3:39 pm | #9
Jennifer who?
I never heard of her either before this post. Of course, she may still very will be a minor Christian “celebrity.”
I want to give a shout-out to Francis Beckwith’s remark:
“However, we must also not shy away from recognizing the awful truth that dialog may very well be impossible with some folks who believe that the Christian view of human sexuality is fundamentally mistaken and ought to be eradicated from our cultural consciousness.”
I have known this truth for a long time.
Does anyone else know this truth? And if you know this truth, does it bother you to know that dialog is impossible with some folks?
God/Bible: Same-sex behavior is sin.
Some People: Same-sex behavior is NOT sin.
April 14th, 2010 | 8:03 pm | #10
Thank you friends for your defense of my post.
What Steve was doing is a terrific example of the bullying that occurs when this topic is broached, even in the most careful way.
We faced this last week at Baylor when the Soulforce folks arrived on campus. They came to campus to “dialogue,” but if you read their website carefully, they not only do not believe that the traditional (and biblical) Christian position on human sexuality is correct but that those who embrace this viewpoint are homophobic hatemongers. (That does not sound like people are interested in “dialogue.”)
So, even though I suggested kindness and love as the only appropriate sentiments that a Christian should take toward Ms. Knapp, I was immediately set upon by Steve for bringing to everyone’s attention this indisputable fact: the world hates the Christ and what he says about who and what we are. Let’s not kid ourselves.
What Steve does not know about me is that I grew up Las Vegas and worked for many years with many gay men and women. In fact, the Gillette shaver I use every morning was given to me in 1983 as a graduation gift (BA, UNLV) by a dear friend of mine who died several years ago, Francine. She was a lesbian whose partner, Liz, underwent a sex change. These people were my friends. They knew my views. But they didn’t hate me for them. And I knew they were gay. But I loved them, anyways.
Let me explain the Ricky Martin illustration. It was meant to make a point that many ex-gays who are not famous are routinely made fun of and called names by the secular liberal media. That’s a fact. (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/ ) So, all I was doing was imagining that this happened to someone famous.
April 14th, 2010 | 8:58 pm | #11
All,
Thanks for the comments. Lot’s in here, so let me just hit a couple points:
1) For the record, I think that homosexual desires are sinful (i.e. disordered). I think it’s important to say so, and without quotes around sin.
2) I actually agree with FB’s point about the dangers of being used as a tool by those who want to eradicate point (1) from public discourse. Part of the problem here is that this post appears in isolated fashion, when it’s really a part of an ongoing body of work for me–and if anyone bothers to look at that body of work, they’ll see that I’m not really in danger of being shouted down because I think homosexuality is, in fact, wrong. I’m still one of those crazy evangelicals who is against even the state recognition of gay marriage, which puts me in the minority of folks my age (late 20s).
3) I think my main goal was to help us, in our public discourse, not use people as examples who have expressed a conscious desire to not be examples. Even if Jennifer Knapp is unrepentant and is blowing off traditional Christian sexual ethics–a question with enormous implications, which I think means we should suspend judgment on given our distance from her as a person–that doesn’t mean that we should use her as a political football.
4) Not talking about Jennifer Knapp doesn’t entail that we shouldn’t have a respectful, and forthright discussion over the licitness of homosexuality, and the shape that Christianity’s pastoral response needs to take (two separate questions in my mind).
Thanks again for the excellent and cordial comments.
Best,
matt
April 15th, 2010 | 2:41 am | #12
“However, we must also not shy away from recognizing the awful truth that dialog may very well be impossible with some folks….”
O.k., but recognizing this, what do you suggest doing Francis?
“Remember, everything you say of Ms. Knapp–”a real person, with a real will, a real mind, and real problems”–is true of all of us….We must be as quick to suggest charity for them as we do suggest charity for others.”
Maybe we should call this the “Catholic response.” While those secularists make a fuss about child rape victims, let’s just remind them that the Pope has feelings too.
April 15th, 2010 | 10:25 am | #13
With only one comment exception, this thread is a good one, and a very healthy and useful topic for people worried about anyone who is finding ways to justify their sinful inclinations are “how God made them.”
Here’s what I think: I think Matthew is completely right, and the problem is that we somehow treat people as if they are not people. If Jennifer Knapp was Dr. Doom or something, a monologue rebutting her monologue might make an interesting comic book, but truth be told it makes for really lousy evangelism and ambassadorial pleading to be reconciled to God.
To Dr. Beckwith’s point that some people have defined the topic as discussion-proof, I think he’s right — but I also think that “the other side” isn’t the only side doing this. I would take it utterly for granted that when I make a statement of moral truth (“homosexuality is a sin”), someone someplace will make the statement about why believing this makes me a bigot (“you think you can define who I can ‘love’ and how”). This method of engagement is simply -designed- to stalemate the conversation. But how often does “our side” do the same thing, and simply shore up the stalemate so that there’s no way for the other person to see their need or how it is met in Christ?
The problem is that I think that reaction is not always motivated by self-interest or even an unwillingness to think seriously about the subject. I think that many people “go there” because they are repulsed by what they think it means to condemn some act or choice as sinful: they think it means that you want to put these people who do these things to death.
Somehow, in the advance of the Gospel, we -must- distance the real moral requirements of God from the unjust, unreasoned, and unprovoked violence and hatred of those who take it into their own hands to execute judicial punishment against those who sin. The fact is that it is wrong to hate the sinner — because we are just like him except for how each of us sees our predicament.
We see the problem as hopeless for both of us, unless there is a savior; he sees it as a way he defines himself, and can express his own identity. Somehow we have to overcome that evil with good.
Great post, Matthew. Those who pick at you for the object lesson are not really engaged on this subject.
April 15th, 2010 | 3:13 pm | #14
Indeed. Although I don’t think that homosexual temptation itself is sinful unless embraced/acted upon.
Furthermore, I also think it’s sinful for a heterosexual person to suggest that homosexuality is actually okay, along the lines of Jesus warning that “whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”
April 15th, 2010 | 4:24 pm | #15
Chris writes (quoting me in italics)
It does not get much uglier than that.
Suggesting that a spirit of liberal generosity should be extended to serious citizens who have moral objections to homosexual conduct is equivalent to tolerating child rape, according to the anonymous coward who calls himself (or herself or itself) Chris Thompson. Lovely.
Fr. Neuhaus’ body is barely cold and First Things has become a filth dump for anti-Catholic bigots. Keep up the good editing work, Joe.
April 15th, 2010 | 4:30 pm | #16
One more thing: I agree with Turk (the one here, not the one from Scrubs).
April 15th, 2010 | 5:11 pm | #17
Couple of thoughts:
Darryl-Knapp said in one of the interviews that she isn’t attending church these days. Still, I had some thoughts on your comment regarding removal from fellowship.
I get the church discipline thing; I really do. One of the things I love about my church is their commitment to it-kinda’ makes me feel safe, in case I ever went off the deep end (again). One of the interesting things about my church is that they really approach discipline in the honest, legitimate hope that the “early stages” (i.e. the private, one-on-one engagement) will work. I’m concerned for what happens when we skip those stages and go straight to removing people from fellowship. I have seen quite a few instances of Jesus’ words on discipline being utterly ignored in every case other than homosexual sex, and when applied to it, having all the restorative language passed over, skipping straight to the restrictive language.
Your comment mentioned removing her in the hopes of restoration; it didn’t mention speaking to her in hopes of the same. Again, I don’t know you and I imagine you’re more careful in your personal interactions, but many are not, so we need to be careful with how we present this.
Having seen so many abuses in this area, I don’t want to give license to those who simply use the Biblical process of discipline to essentially alienate everyone who makes them personally uncomfortable, in place of its intended use, which is the restoration of all things and people to Jesus.
April 15th, 2010 | 6:16 pm | #18
Doug,
I appreciate your point. However I went straight to removal from fellowship (assuming that you can’t do that without talking) because, as Knapp said, she knows what she is doing, and is doing it purposefully after a long time of soul-searching.
Of course, if she repented immediately upon confrontation, job done. But given her acknowledgement of how she knows Christians will respond, that seems a stretch.
But still, you are right, these things need to be done decently, carefully, and in order.
April 15th, 2010 | 6:45 pm | #19
Francis misunderstands my comment, but in a way that again illustrates that style of response which I am criticizing.
I criticize the attempts to regain the moral high ground by creatively portraying one’s own group as the victim, or one’s critics as insensitive. When this is done defensively (as in Francis’ creation of the fictional Ricky Martin, and in the Catholic comparison to the “collective suffering” of the Jews), it tends to be inappropriately dismissive of the issue at hand, avoiding the hard self-examination that is actually called for
Another drawback is that, once people start to recognize this style of response, it just looks desperate, making displays of moral indignation look manufactured, and making shows of nuanced moral sensitivity look a lot like the “I know you are but what am I” response of children on the playground.
April 15th, 2010 | 7:06 pm | #20
FB, I should point out that if there’s anyone to blame for leaving the comment there (though not for writing it), it’s me–not Joe. He has left comment moderation up to individual authors, and I (honestly) didn’t read Chris’ comment very closely at all.
What’s more, I always have been a lax moderator. I have never once deleted a comment at my personal blog (one of the virtues of a smaller, irenic audience), and am still trying to figure out where the line is at a place like Evangel. I’m probably overly lax, and so I apologize for letting the insulting comment stand.
Now that I’m in the difficult position of having a conversation arise from it, I will leave it there in the internet tradition of not deleting self-incriminating posts.
And for the record, Chris’ comments in no way reflect my own opinions on any matter at all.
Best,
Matt
April 15th, 2010 | 10:40 pm | #21
Dr. William Lane Craig has an excellent discussion of this issue in his book Hard Questions.
I think he treats the subject with dignity and grace, but does not pull any punches when it comes to what the Bible clearly teaches about sexual morality.
I really do think commenters like Chris Thompson should be ignored — their only interest is in instigating fights and hurling insults. It is best not to throw your “pearls among the swine.”
April 16th, 2010 | 10:55 am | #22
Chris writes:
And in order to achieve this noble goal, you victimize in a vile and disgusting way?
If that’s the moral high ground, then gravity is your friend.
I also object to manufactured grievances. That’s why I suggested that readers be careful and skeptical when celebrities like Knapp offer a narrative that seems intended to bypass our critical faculties for the purpose of advancing an agenda hostile to what the Scriptures have taught us about the nature of human persons. But we should do so with love and concern for her soul, not stooping to insult nor succumbing to sentiment. The devil is in both the details and the dovetails.
Being a Christian is difficult. That’s why Jesus asked us to carry our cross and follow him.
April 16th, 2010 | 12:38 pm | #23
“And in order to achieve this noble goal, you victimize in a vile and disgusting way?”
Certainly Chris was out of line with the comparison, and I’m not sure his chosen examples relate exactly, but it’s not like he made pulled his examples out of thin air.
This isn’t intended as a defense of Chris, but perhaps, FB, you could pull back on the rhetoric as well (filth dump, vile…for one post??) ?
April 16th, 2010 | 1:35 pm | #24
Daryl:
I believe Dr. Beckwith was using those terms to describe the incendiary analogy — wouldn’t you say that Chris’s comparison is “vile”?
How else can you put it?
April 16th, 2010 | 2:08 pm | #25
Richard,
I understand the sentiment, I really do. But the vileness of Chris’s comparison lies in it’s overstatement.
That is, what he used as a comparison was a real-life, true thing, that far surpasses the topic of this post, in it’s vileness.
And in that, I agree that it was both unnecessary and inappropriate.
Perhaps I read Dr. Beckwith wrongly, but it seemed to me that his complaint wasn’t that Chris’s example was too harsh, but that he didn’t like that the example shone the light back onto the sin of Dr. Beckwith’s church leadership.
It certainly wasn’t the time for Chris’s statements to be used, nor was it the time for the “filth dump for anti-Catholic bigots” bit.
I don’t think either has the high-ground here. Dr. Beckwith would have been wise, I think, to ignore the comment and carry on, because whatever stupid idea Chris had in his head…it worked. Sadly.
April 16th, 2010 | 6:03 pm | #26
“Certainly Chris was out of line with the comparison, and I’m not sure his chosen examples relate exactly, but it’s not like he made pulled his examples out of thin air.”
You are absolutely correct. He did not make it up out of whole cloth. He employed it as a weapon to cause hurt. So, rather than engaging the case I made, he said in so many words, “Hey guess what, the guy who is offering this argument is a Catholic, and Catholic priests have raped children, and so the Catholic guy’s comments means that we should sympathize with child rapists. You connect the dots.”
If you cannot see that such a move is vile and disgusting, I cannot help you.
Daryl, here’s the reality. If I had been black and Chris had called me a “nigger,” you would have been appalled, and in a split second FT would have made sure that the comment vanished. But instead Chris mentioned my Catholicism and implied that the principle I defended made me by Church affiliation an apologist for child rape.
Again, that’s not a “stupid idea.” A stupid idea is saying that the Earth is flat or that a vile and bigoted insult is merely a stupid idea.
Objectification….. tell me about it.
April 16th, 2010 | 6:37 pm | #27
“If I had been black and Chris had called me a ‘nigger,’….”
Now all that’s missing is for Francis to compare himself to a holocaust victim. As I’ve said, once we start to recognize this basic style of response…
April 16th, 2010 | 7:43 pm | #28
Chris, shut up.
Beckwith, I take your point. Its a good and valid one.
But what I was commenting on was your over the top comment about “First Things” becoming ” a filth dump for anti-Catholic bigots.”
A single stupid (or even vile)comment does not a filth dump make.
April 16th, 2010 | 7:58 pm | #29
Daryl, I get your point. You’re right. I painted with too broad a brush concerning the First Things site. That’s my bad.
As for Chris, he continues to amaze.
April 16th, 2010 | 8:51 pm | #30
No kidding…
April 16th, 2010 | 8:53 pm | #31
…about Chris I mean.
April 17th, 2010 | 1:19 pm | #32
Is the “K” in “Knapp” silent?
Which is to say, Knapp was never more than a very minor celeb, and she’s been gone ten years. For the few CCM diehards who were familiar with her work, the PATROL mag website offers the truest response to her announcement.
“Jennifer Knapp is Gay: We Kinda Figured”
April 19th, 2010 | 6:58 am | #33
I agree we should not attack her but if all she really wanted was to be left alone she could have kept quiet about all this.
April 19th, 2010 | 7:10 am | #34
I am a Christ-follower. I have also struggled with homosexuality for a long time: 20 of my 30-something years. I have acted out on my homosexuality countless times and am not proud of it. The brief time that I spent open in the gay community was the only brief sense of being understood (and communing) with people who I felt like understood me. The gay community was way more accepting of my struggle to follow Christ than the Christian community has been of accepting my struggle with homosexuality. However, I cannot deny Christ, the Gospel, the love of God that has taken hold of me. I know I am saved, even though I struggle with this, and I probably will spend my life turning it over to God in silence (and occationally failing) because the stigma in the Christian community is too great. However, I feel like I would be stronger against the battle if I was treated as “normal” by the church (even though the nature of my struggle is offensive) and could reach out to men in my church for help without feeling isolated.
April 19th, 2010 | 7:49 am | #35
[...] The Objectification of Jennifer Knapp – I appreciate the warning sounded in this post. "The first step toward a good dialogue is recognizing that there's a real person, with a real will, a real mind, and real problems at the other end of the line. And in this case, from what I can tell, Jennifer Knapp the real person would rather not be in the thick of things. I simply think respecting that would be a good start to whatever happens next." [...]
April 19th, 2010 | 1:22 pm | #36
It is so hard sometimes to deal with a prevailing belief that Jesus was sweet and welcoming and accepting while Paul was his theological attack dog. Jesus is the talent and Paul is the hatchet man. We get to hear that Jesus didn’t treat people like that, or He never said anything about that sin – just look in the Gospels. We are confined to the ‘red letter’ Jesus. I personally have a hard time reconciling a red letter Jesus with Paul who was commissioned by Jesus Himself to bring the message to the world, to write it and to die for it. Yet I still believe the entire word of God is true – even when it appears that Jesus says one thing and Paul says another.
Has anyone else ever dealt with this dilemma?
April 19th, 2010 | 1:28 pm | #37
Hi, I hope you don’t mind if I cross post this:
For me, the way that JK’s “coming out” story is unfolding is heart-wrenching and very personal.
About two years after I was saved and came out of a homosexual lifestyle, I was introduced to Jennifer Knapp’s music. Of all the musicians’ lyrics that I’d heard or listened to at that point, there were two who really connected and understood the depths of my soul – David in the Psalms and Jennifer Knapp. The fact that someone who had such an incredible grasp on sin, human nature, mercy, grace, and the glory of God has fallen so far is very, very, very sad to me. And personal too.
I’ve met her before and briefly spoke with her (1999), so to me she is a real person, who I would have a hard time not counting as one of the elect. However, from reading the interviews with her, it seems that she is really deceived and walking in darkness. Her reasons for giving in do not match up with her previous testimony of faith. I’ve been there. The deception of the world, the flesh and the devil is seductive. I guess some of us just have to find out the hard way.
I pray that God is not done with her and that the Lord will bring her back into the fold and profoundly glorify Himself in a way that He is setting up for Himself right now. Thanks.
April 19th, 2010 | 1:30 pm | #38
btw- Looks like there are 2 Debs here :-)
I’m Deb W. Thnx.
April 19th, 2010 | 1:33 pm | #39
nerd elf,
There are churches, good bible believing and Gospel centered churches out there that would not stigmatize you. Don’t let your experience thus far keep you from continuing to search.
April 19th, 2010 | 1:35 pm | #40
Deb #1,
Do you have an example of what you are referring to where Jesus and Paul seem to be in disagreement?
April 19th, 2010 | 1:35 pm | #41
Matthew’s point is excellent, I wish I had seen it earlier. It’s such a tough line to balance love for a person and a desire for them to change, with a realization you don’t truly know this person.
This is what I hate seeing happen,
http://www.patrolmag.com/scanner/2035/coming-out-as-an-act-of-faith
Jennifer isn’t a role model for the future of Christian progressivism, she’s just a sinner like the rest of us, one in need of salvation.
April 19th, 2010 | 3:34 pm | #42
[...] with a lot of various viewpoints. Whether you agree fully with the following quote from this post or not, I thought this was a very interesting insight: In all this, Jennifer Knapp–the singer and [...]
April 23rd, 2010 | 10:58 pm | #43
Jennifer Knapp is boldly moving christianity into the 21st century. As a follower of Jesus I applaud her. Thank you Lord for inspiring Jennifer to stand with her LGBTQ brothers and sisters. We also pray that the church follows.
April 24th, 2010 | 10:56 pm | #44
Ok, so I’m not into the whole bashing of Jennifer either. But I think the fact that she is comfortable to admit that she is a lesbian, should let me be comfortable and just as bold to say that I know she’s wrong. I think now is as good as a time as any to discuss the issue at hand. She will now become the poster child for gay Christians (yes, it is an oxymoron. Christian means Christ-like…my Jesus was in no way a homosexual). I think they’ll talk about this and use this as push for their agenda to be accepting and condoning of any behavior while ignoring the many scriptures on an issue.
I just wanted to share a few scriptures.
1. To back up what Daryl said and maybe to help Doug out. It is great to have a church to attend that will help you if you fall…etc etc. But I believe it’s a matter of the heart. Falling is inevitable, it’s the getting back up and trying to do right that should determine the church’s attitude toward the person. No, she is not attending a church, which might be a part of the problem itself…but that’s another topic for another post. The scripture I wanted to share is 1 Corinthians 5:11-13:
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler–not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Yes, if this were Ricky Martin, I would say who are we to judge. But this is a professing Christian. Someone who calls herself a “sister”, someone who claims the Bible has saved her. WE as Christians are to judge her. The Bible says to. Obviously this doesn’t mean to bash…but to maturely draw the line and say we must separate ourselves from you. And that’s not to say that we wouldn’t be accepting if she had a repented heart but she doesn’t…
2. Romans 1: 18-32
I’d paste the whole thing…but it’s quite long. But Paul starts out by listing a whole slew of sins…one of which being verse 26, Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. The key verse is 32. “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
We must not for a second condone her actions. The moment that we do, we become guilty as well.
I agree with Evan on this post…We should reflect Jesus to them in our actions. But never back down or sway from our stance.
April 28th, 2010 | 7:04 am | #45
The truth is there are many Christians out there that are gay. The truth is that the bible is a literal work that has roots in an ancient patriarchal mindset that considered women property.
The ancients considered those who could not bear children cursed and those who’s quiver was full..blessed. If a heterosexual couple that couldn’t reproduce was considered cursed, it goes with out saying that their perception of any homosexual relationship would be considered an abomination to God.
Like many other things though, the ancients did not understand God at all. Their perceptions were often inventions of their own human limitations, having nothing to do with God.
Natural sex is not based on a couple’s ability to reproduce. If it were, all of those married heterosexual couples out there who can not have children are living in sin. So are all of those heterosexual couples who CHOOSE not to have children. If it were, heterosexual rape and incest would be considered natural.
Also women were seen as second class. They were seen as subserviant to men. The ancients beleived that in a homosexual setting, one of the partners had to take on the role of a woman. That person would be considered effeminate, and thus an abomination to God.
Natural sex is based on love shared between 2 people, regardless of their gender.
Many of you may not be aware of this startling fact, but there are many, many gay Christians out there who love Jesus Christ and go to church. There are many gay Christian networks on the internet bringing together gay Christians from all over the world.
What we are seeing wth Ray Boltz, Jennifer Knapp and those who have yet to come out.. what we are seeing with traditional churches beginning to open up their doors to gay Christians… is God breaking down walls. God is correcting wrong thinking. Don’t think the ancients were wrong in their thinking? Think again. Over and over again Jesus was correcting priests and challenging tradition. Jesus talked about alot of things from divorce to child abuse. One thing Jesus never talked about was homosexuality. Apparently it was not an issue for him.
What about that verse in Romans? That verse in Romans was pertaining to idol worship. It was referring to people that could care less about God. Nothing in that verse describes a gay Christian.
What about the verse in Galations? The word homosexual does not appear in the original greek. Translators took extreme liberty using that word. If anything the greek word means effeminate. Remember, women were subservient. To be effeminate would be to deny your masculinity…and this was considered a sin by the ancients.
What about that verse in Jude. Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality. In Ezekiel, we are told that God who IS love, destroyed Sodom because of their lack of love and hospitality.
God is moving. The reason so many Christians that are gay are coming out is because God is calling them to live in the light and not the darkness. All across the world. In every denomination. Whether it is a neighbor or a high profile singer, etc: God is calling us out. Yes, I am one of hundreds of thousands of gay Christians. I love Jesus. I sing his praise. I am gay.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact