How should Christians respond to Jennifer Knapp's admission?

A new album by Jennifer Knapp, a Christian artist who has not released an album in 7 years, is scheduled to go on sale in a couple of weeks. According to past record sales she has many fans, including my wife. As many know, according to a recent interview in Christianity Today, Knapp talked about her professional absence from music and her current, intimate relationship with a women. Consequently, based on the reactions from her fans and the larger Christian community, she was invited to appear on Larry King - the episode aired last Friday night.

The interview included Knapp, Ted Haggard, the fallen pastor of a mega church in Colorado, and a conservative, evangelical minister from California who have been an outspoken critic of Knapp, regarding her sexual orientation; indeed, all the essential ingredients for a 'Springer Circus' were in place. However, in my opinion, the interview actually turned out ok. Knapp was able to speak and question the criticisms of the evangelical pastor and most surprisingly, Haggard appeared to be a voice of compassion and reason!(I guess 'Jesus Camp' has not started up yet this season). Consequently, the interview sparked a meaningful discussion between my wife and I, and inspired me to think about the issue of homosexuality and leadership within the Christian church.

First, I would like to write about 3 common responses I have heard from folks who consider themselves to be Evangelical Christians. The reason I have chosen to focus on this group is because the only voice of opposition I have heard has come from members of this community. It is important for me to state that not all evangelicals agree with the premises I have included - I am only writing about my own conversations with evangelicals. Finally, although I do not agree with most of the assumptions / conclusions / responses, I do not question the positive intentions of the conservative Christians I have spoken with - in fact, all the evangelicals I have talked with about this topic are genuine in their concern for Knapp, homosexuals, and their concern for preserving the integrity of the Bible.

Premise #1: Homosexuality is a sin

Action: Knapp and all homosexuals who consider themselves to be Christian must be confronted by the Christian community and informed of their sinful behavioral; warned of the impact their chooses may have on their salvation; and encouraged to make better choices, which are more in line with the Bible.

Assumptions:

1. Knapp / homosexuals must not know their behavior is sinful according to an Evangelical interpretation of the Bible - if they did, they would make better choices.

2. Knapp / homosexuals must not know that Jesus died for our sins and therefore, missing out on a true relationship with Him.

3. It is our job as Christians to confront each other when we see personal, sinful behaviors in our Christian neighbors.  Also, 'lifestyle sin' is qualitatively different than isolated sin.

Ideas not considered:

1. Opinions from Biblical scholars, which question the classic / conservative interpretation of the few scriptures pertaining to sexual relationships between same-sex individuals in the Bible.

2. Knapp's ability to know herself and her relationship with God.

3. 'Lifestyle sin' and isolated sin are the same thing.

Premise #2: Christians are called to facilitate behavior change in their members.

Action: Christians are called to provide verses, prayer, and encouragement for Knapp / homosexuals in order for them to change their behavior by make heterosexual choices.

Assumptions:

1. Awareness changes behavior:  knowing the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible, receiving God's blessings through the prayers of other Christians, and being the recipient of peer support will change Knapp's sexual orientation or curb her behavior.

2. Intentionality: people who choose homosexual behavior are 'stubbornly' choosing to reject the church and God.

3. The power of encouragement:  if Christians do not provide the encouragement necessary to help Knapp change, her lifestyle sin may encourage others to choose to be gay.

Ideas not considered:

1. We are all sinners who need unconditional support and encouragement, despite our behavior.

2. Homosexuality is not a choice.

3. God changes people in the manner in which He wants to change them; we do not. Encouragement is nurturing, but does not change deep-seated drives.

Premise #3: Adopting a 'repentance or rejection' outlook leads to positive behavior change

Action: Inform Knapp / homosexuals that they must accept the need for behavior change or they will be turned over to Satan, with the hope that they will repent eventually and so their sin will not influence the rest of the community to follow their example.

Assumptions:

1. Homosexuality is 'catching'

2. Rejecting a person is not going to lead to bitterness and despair, but compel them to bring their behavior in line with the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible.

3. Sanctification of the heart - God's relationship work, stops (Catholicism / Protestantism) or was never started (Calvinism) if a person fails to repent and conform to the correct interpretation of scripture or the church.

Issues not considered:

1. We are making moral judgments based on a technicality, rather than recognizing that God's sanctification of the person's heart is the only thing that matters.

2. Rejection often leads to anger, resentment, and bitterness, which negatively impacts a person and their relationship with the church.

3. The scriptures, like the Sabbath were made for people, not people for the scriptures.

Rationalizations for confronting homosexuals who consider themselves to be Christian:

"As Christians, we are called to...."

"stand up for Jesus"
"defend the Truth"
"protect the sanctity of marriage"
"protect the family"
"guard against sex perversion in our community"
"be watchful for liberalism in the church"
"protect the integrity of the scriptures"

So......What if??

...we are missing the forest for the trees? What if making an issue out of homosexuality is actually diverting us from our primary purpose - to love others unconditionally?

...homosexuality isn't catching?

...the world is watching how we are treating each other and concluding that there is more love and acceptance outside of Christianity than within?

...when condemn homosexuality primarily because it is emotionally rewarding? After all we (heterosexuals) are not tempted by the behavior.....

...our ability to recognize personal sin in others is only possible in order to allow us to see our own sins to assist God's sanctification of our hearts?

...the issue of homosexuality is merely a test to see if Christians will continue to love people who are different from us, despite our feelings associated with cognitive dissidence?

...the scriptures are inspired (which is not synonymous with inerrancy, btw) but, like the sabbath, made for us, rather than us for the scriptures?

...same sex attraction is not a moral issue, but a result of our polluted environment? - we have lots of hormones swirling around in our water and according to scientists, boys born today have, on average, softer features compared to boys born 50 - 100 years ago - the fact is, we just do not know.

...Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in the NT, which is defined as sexual relationships between boys and their male teachers in exchange for education, was merely one example of 'worldliness'.  If Paul were talking to us about our worldliness he might mention - consumerism, slave labor (children, illegal aliens), addictions (drugs, alcohol, pornography).

...homosexuals already know that Evangelicals believe they are breaking the rules of the Bible?

...the sin of Sodom really was the sin of not being hospitable to strangers?  How many of us would be sodomites?

...standing up for Jesus; by picketing funerals, abortion clinics, and sacrificing people's God-given faith for the purpose of promoting our own understanding of the scriptures is not an effective means of witnessing God's love, but is just mean?

...we are saved by Grace, not a 'correct' understanding of doctrine?

...Jesus came to free us from legalism and blindness through radical love for Him and one another?

...our attempts to 'defend the Bible' and 'stand up for Jesus' is simply a self-serving way to manage our own anxiety?

...we considered consumerism a sin and confronted each other for engaging in the behavior as frequently as we confront homosexual behavior? Could you give up buying more than you need to actually live, if your community believed God required it? Or would you do it simply to make your peers feel better, even if you knew they could not possible understand your perspective and were basing their judgment of your behavior on their own interpretation of scripture? How much harder would it be to give up your sexuality?

...homosexuals within the church are simply people who are tired of sacrificing a core drive within themselves for the sole purpose of helping the rest of us feel less anxious about our narrow understanding of the Bible?

...we if we actually emphasized the "loving the sinner" part of "we are called to love the sinner not the sin", rather than using the phrase to justify being mean to one another?

...we have been doing this Christian thing all wrong?

So, what is the Christian response to Jennifer Knapp's public admission?

As fans, no response is necessary or appropriate - if you like her music buy it - if you haven't heard it - go listen!  If you are a Christian and walk in the same circles as Jennifer - imitate Christ by practicing respect and unconditional love.

More than

One of the basic ideas in Cognitive Behavior Therapy is that human beings are more than their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. In fact, we are the source of everything we think and feel and how we choose to behave. If you apply this idea to God, it makes sense that He is beyond our understanding - indeed, He is the source behind his own thoughts, emotions and behavior.

After, spending several years practicing contemplative prayer, I have noticed that God is found, not in the details, but in the paradoxes of life. The great thing about paradoxes is that because they defy definition, they resist our tendency to compartmentalize life and create idols of our own understanding. Jesus' ability to work within paradoxes (set aside work on the Sabbath; feed the hungry, heal the sick all the time) defied the religious leadership of the day and their attempts at control and compartmentalization of God.

Reductionism

The quickest way to lose life's mystery and beauty is to reduce reality to the measurable.

Symbolism

One of the core characteristics of humans is our need to assign meaning to our environment; we do this primarily through the use of symbolism. Language is a shared set of random symbols, which we use to understand our environment, our relationships with others and our need for a relationship with something greater than ourselves.

It is interesting for me to think about this need; I choose to believe in God based on tradition and experience in prayer, but many choose to place their faith in science or humanism or both. I think scientists, philosophers, and people of faith have a core need in common and in order to reach it, we all have to travel past the limits of reason into faith. Being born on this side of the Enlightenment has provided us with the advantage of witnessing the stretching of reason - the more we can explain about our world the more I believe it enhances faith.

Avarice

After reviewing and contributing to a friend's discussion regarding taxes, I remembered that it is tax day (if my wife had not filed months ago, I may have forgotten), which brings up the issue of greed. I would love to have a discussion about the topic, and although this blog is not a political forum, political ideas that tie into greed are welcome.

Political greed, corporate greed, ownership in general are up for discussion. I just read an article on the Tea Party rally in Washington - the statistics tell us that Tea Party supporters tend to be critical of the Obama administration because in their opinion his policies favor the poor, and they claim to be worried about the economy. In addition, they are worried about being taxed into poverty, yet there income tends to be higher than the average American.

What do you think about greed in America? how do you define it? and is there anything to be done to curb it or is it just an inevitable part of life?

Eulogy

“Come play with me!” hastened a longing whisper from my window, one autumn evening.

Enraptured! No resistance! Soaring together through the Night on gossamer

I followed you, down the nights and down the days....

“A land without fears! A place to never grow up!” seduced the ancient child, weaving promises in the half-light

“Blackstone! Turning Leaf! Laughing Raven! surely you are the Pan!” I surrendered. “I will chase you!....only for a time" A mindless musing - forgotten reason, wrapped in warmth and numbness

I followed you, down the arches of the years.....

“So many games to play! hide and seek; success and scandal. desperate scramble!” blazed the decadence; serpentine and velvet

“I fear you; I want you!” Overtly splitting; reality, rose-colored; brooding despair; confused denial

I followed you, down the labyrinthine ways of my mind; through the mist of tears.....

“Dueling shadows; waking nightmares; Lost Boy!” Condemnation, haunting the silent chaos

“Wait! How?” Blindness! stomach churning and head spinning; shame consuming

I followed you, through the maddening laughter....

“Pursue Me! Consume Me! I AM!” Bellowed the Liquid Nothing

“Nowhere!” bitterness and madness; binding darkness

I followed you down the titanic gloom of chasm fears....

"All will betray you, if you betray Me"

“O Selfish Giver! Slavish devotion... must I die for you?"

Entrenched! Resistance....sinking only deeper within my static Night

Behold, in the midst of darkness, Dawn; a Piper playing, reaching out at the Crossroads

“Weakness is strength; the Ego, deadly” offered a still, small voice.

Tomb; New Life

“Goodnight my Pan; Numbness, Seducer, Child Thief. Today, I declare my Hope”

Ownership

Every time we claim ownership over someone or something, we assert our control over them or the object/idea. Ownership is viewed by many as contrary to the gospel and that is why monks renounce it.

One of the biggest problems with idolatry in the OT is that the ancient civilizations wanted to worship a god they could own. A god made of wood or gold could be owned and worshiped in the manner they chose to worship him. Yahweh was different - He rejected idolatry because, first, gods made of wood and gold are not real, and secondly, He was not going to let his creation control Him.

Based on this understanding, I think it is profitable to examine our need to own things in our life. Jesus didn't own a thing. I think ownership also communicates a lack of faith because it is the assertion of our will instead of trust in God.

In addition, abuse is rooted in asserting ownership over another person - sexual abuse and spousal abuse used to be accepted when we believed women and child were our possessions - now thankfully, things have changed for the better.

Also, memorizing scripture, rather than the message of scripture can be a form of ownership - if we control the Word and use it to assert our will over others - sure we call it God's Will, but a lot of times, that is a justification for belittling and attacking others with our superior understanding of scripture.

Ownership and objectification of people go hand in hand.

Spirit of the law

I think it is easy to get confused about what the Bible is telling us because we want to approach it like the disciples approach Jesus' teachings - tell me what I must do?

Instead of following a list of behaviors to act out, Jesus wants us to change the manner in which we do everything. What may be the most loving option in one context may not be destructive in another. Without considering what is the most loving thing to do, every behavior is sinful.

Jesus advocated making a loving choice, even if it conflicted with an established law.

Situation ethics is often dangerous, but with the Spirit guiding us, we have the potential to choose the most loving choice every time

The Morality of the OT

The ramifications of interpreting the OT as God's direct commandment to His people, literally, and without mercy for people who do not share our beliefs is troubling:

1. The ends justify the means - any behavior is justified by a good result. That means we can lie, cheat, steal, murder, pillage, and covet our way to success.

2. War is just as long as it is waged to protect our beliefs. Fanaticism is the norm according to the Bible, if it is directed towards the preservation of our beliefs.

3. God created evil to discipline us - God, who cannot sin, farms out His dirty work to the Devil in order to assert His wrath and judgment on His disobedient creation.

4. God is characterized as threatening, petty, jealous, and wrathful. His mercy and love for us is dwarfed by His terrifying emotional volatility, which is justified by our sins and unfaithfulness.

5. God has no problem treating His creation like a Sim game - if people get out of line just damn them to toil upon the Earth, suffer in childbirth until they raise a murderer, drop dead and go to Hell. Or call in a flood and start over. Then after sacrificing a son to get everyone back on track, delay the ending for centuries in order to rack up as many atrocities as possible, and blame creation for it so that vengeance can be wrought once more, this time ending in total destruction.

6. God place fossils and signs of an old universe to confound the scientific community, yet convinces the Church that the Creation story is the literal (even scientific) account.

7. Blesses sinful nations like Egypt and then send plagues and bugs and blood to punish them.

8. Creates a law which must be followed so that it can end up condemning the people who faithfully follow it.

9. Murders a faithful man's family to prove a point to an evil entity - as if his opinion matters.

I do not believe God intended us to interpreted the OT in this manner, yet it is exactly what many Christians believe and defend!

None of it is characteristic of the God of the Universe - no way! It is instead the interpretation of humans who are looking out for their own interests. God is speaking and people are using selective listening and responding in a way that furthers their agenda.

1. The ends never justify the means and no Good God would ever consider it. Instead God asserted His will despite his people's thieving, murdering, unfaithfulness, in hospitality, sexual perversion, and nationalistic expansion.

2. God asserted His Being. His people responded by murdering nations who did not recognize Him, claiming their lands, and giving the credit to God.

3. God did not create evil. In fact, evil is not a force - it is the misuse of creation. God punishes us by allowing us to experience the natural consequences of our less than good choices.

4. God is just, Good, merciful, loving, and compassionate. He wants to be in communion with us. The human portrayal of God in the OT is the mirror image of an abusive spouse. Instead of reflecting God's nature, it gives us a picture of humanity's character - petty, jealous, wrathful, immoral (implementing the ends justifies the means ethics), murderous, unable to take personal responsibility, with no regard for the sanctity of life, and self righteous.

5. Here is another glimpse into the human heart, not God's heart. In actuality, the flood story and other miraculous, catastrophic events are included in the Bible to display God's omnipotence

6. Science is accurate. Evolution has some validity. The Creation story is actually a vision or inspired story of creation. It is important because it speaks truth about human nature, and God's power, not because it lays out the actual creation of the Earth.

7. Egypt was just as morally guilty as any of their contemporaries including the people they were enslaving. Although their is no historical record of Egypt enslaving the Israelites during the reign of the Pharaoh named in the story, it is likely that the records were expunged because they caused embarrassment to the civilization. However, I also believe that the story of emancipation was a lot less dramatic. It seems likely that the leadership of Egypt was weak and the Israelites simply left. They may have been pursued and there may have been hardship in Egypt that was attributed to the God of the Israelites. In any case, the point of the story was to unite the tribes and provide them with a legendary history. Also, it reinforced the message of the OT - God's omnipotence. One of the parts that did not happen is the parting of the Red Sea, which is a mistranslation of the Reed Sea - a small river.

8. God did give Moses the law, but it was not enforced by striking people dead or to bring down God's wrath on the people. It was a practical law, which was necessary for any large group of people to live by. I am sure tragedies where attributed to the breaking of the law, and it was enforced through intimidation in God's name. It also served to reinforce the culture, which has endured into the present.

9. The story of Job is a story. It is in the Bible to showcase God's omnipotence. No merciful, loving God would murder a man's family, steal his possessions and inflict health problems in response to a challenge from an evil servant.

The fact is, the ancient Israelites were a tough group of desert nomads - they were shepherds who became warriors and they had a primitive and tough view of God. Indeed, God had His hands full declaring His being to primitive man, but He succeeded. The result is a magnificent, inspired record of a primitive peoples attempt to respond to the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient God and I think the best way to interpret the OT is to place ourselves in the shoes of all the characters - we can learn from their mistakes, because their mistakes are our mistakes.

What "is" and what "should be"

Lately, I am reading the Bible through the lens of 'what is' rather than 'what should be' and it has been very enlightening.

The OT is record of humanity's interactions with God. Most of the interactions tell us what happens when people stop trusting God and take matters into their own hands. The story about the Israelites worshiping the golden calf is a good example of this; David and Bathsheba is another; and Sodom and Gomorrah is another - the larger lesson is God is powerful so you better not disobey Him, or try to apply a human solution to problems because you will end up creating greater atrocities (worshiping Baal / offering up your daughters).

Paul's writings are filled with stories of what is, which we interpret as what should be. Boasting, covering your head, women speaking out in Church - are we supposed to be imitating these practices - no. Paul is talking to specific churches about specific problems - what is.

As soon as we figure out which verses are communicating what is instead of what should be in the Bible, we will stop having dumb arguments over wearing long hair, or works vs, faith, or whether or not Jesus ascended under His own power to Heaven, or who should be kicked out of the church. None of these events or arguments should be getting in the way of loving each other. We are constantly missing the forest for the trees because we try to imitate what is instead of just interpreting as simply what happened.

Superstition and Deism

I read an interesting book a couple of years ago - it was called "The Catholic Imagination".

The premise was that when Catholics fall into heretic beliefs and practices they tend to fall in the direction of superstition. When Protestants fall into heresy they tend to fall towards Deism.

The reason Catholics fall into superstition is because their religious practice tends to involve all the senses (incense, stain glass, holy water, homilies, etc) and the mind and is often tactile - crossing yourself, blessing with holy water. Also, for Catholics, God's influence is everywhere we look - holy water, the Eucharist - St. Francis viewed animals and plants as saints because they were acting exactly how God created them to act. Even Catholics that fall away from the church completely still cross themselves - you cannot easily take the catholic out of a person

Protestants tend to limit religious practice to their minds - right doctrine is paramount, reading the word is emphasized. God is often viewed as far away by pew-sitters - The Watchmaker god, the man upstairs, or simply a concept.

The book really made a lot of sense to me - and it taught me why we tend to judge each other so harshly. Protestants are afraid of magic and superstition - it rubs the Western Enlightened mind the wrong way. Catholics are afraid of God being seen as distant - we want to be involved in our faith - that is why the liturgy is so important to us - it connects us to God in a rich and meaningful way.

Catholics tolerate superstition from their pew-sitters - which frightens Protestants when they see it. Protestants tolerate Deism from their pew-sitters - as long as they have right doctrine and claim to follow the same Christ they are tolerated. Catholics are not as worried about about right doctrine as they are about an unwillingness to join the community in participating in Mass.

Although these are all generalizations, I thought the book had a point. It reminded me that I am apart of a church that holds different standards for religious practice then my old Protestant tradition. And even though I can see the value of both traditions it helps me to be more likely to judge each tradition by it's own standards, rather than each others.

Radically moderate

Its my answer to fundamentalism. I am tired of the drama and hype of the FOX News version of life, swinging from one extreme to another. I have decided to become radically (boldly meek and passively upfront) moderate (middle-ground, reasonable, french vanilla; strong, yet plain).

No drama, please! I will take the middle road - thank you!

Is arrogance compatible with Christianity?

Is it ok to be an arrogant Christian?

Is having an arrogant spirit ok if it is promoting the Gospel?

Is Paul telling us it is ok or even desirable to be arrogant, if we are arrogant (boasting) in the Lord?

Do ministries that seem to run off of arrogance, get a free pass because they are saving people from Hell?

Is arrogance actually love if it is used to spread the gospel in order to lead people to Christ? James White would say that his ministry (which oozes arrogance) is all about love because the ultimate act of love is saving people from Hell.

Have you quietly accepted arrogant preachers because they were sharing the gospel?

I believe humility is the only way to preach the gospel - I think that an arrogant heart is far worse than a heretical brain.

Reality is stretched

Ok - has anyone ever thought about time and space in relationship to God? If you turn linear time on its side - sort of like standing up a toothpick - it forms a dot - there is no length - the same is true with time. What if God confronted Adam and Eve in the Garden and forgave them instantly - but stretched out the incident to form time and space? What if He did it to show us how His heart (Son) was broken when we sinned in the Garden and denied it? What if He wanted to teach us how to forgive so we could understand His forgiveness for us?

It suggests a possible explanation for the problem of pain in the world without contradicting Einstein's theory of gravity - space is stretched.

Children

We are all God's children.

We fight like children and judge each other like children and enforce justice like children and try to control our environments like children and exclude others like children and most of all, we are self-serving just like children.

The trick is to learn to love like children, trust like children, obey like children, forgive like children, and wonder, just like children.

I think most of our disagreements are akin to childish arguments regarding the possession of a favorite toy. I used to hate it when my dad refused to take sides in the arguments I used to have with my sister - now I cannot wait for God to act the same way.

Misnomers

1. People who believe that works play apart in their salvation are proud of themselves and take the credit away from Jesus.

2. Only Fundamentalists really believe the Bible is true.

3. Religious people are Pharisees

4. People are saved according to doctrine.

5. God makes the rules so He can break them as He pleases; He will never break his own rules to save a person who does not believe Jesus died for our sins.

6. Acknowledging people's freedom to sin is the same as condoning it.

7. Witnessing effectively does not require a relationship.

8. Sanctification of the heart by Jesus requires a full understanding of His nature and intention in our lives.

9. Recognizing personal sin in others is for the sole purpose of rooting the sin from our community

10. The ends justify the means.

11. Jesus died to make God like us.

12. The effects of Original sin stem from eating the Fruit.

13. Freewill did not exist before the Fall.

14. God wanted Humanity to sin, and then punished us for doing so.

15. God created people for Hell.