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.