Jennifer Knapp Interview with CT (It's about her being gay) [Archive]

Jim Chabot

April 16th, 2010, 07:51 AM

I know it perhaps should be a "ministry", but in reality I think it is more business. Christians with musical talent are put in front because they can sing and perform and we call it "ministry"- the church does very little to prepare, equip, and affirm a call to ministry in those people as they set out on their "Christian music careers" but we are eager to criticize when they fail.

I am not just talking about Jennifer Knapp, I am talking about the whole industry going back to Amy Grant when it was just begging to get big. It seems to me that the consumer mentality of the church has contributed greatly to the problem. While it may not be a game (because people take remissness seriously) I don't know if any of us has taken this seriously enough as a "ministry". I think the church has let these folks down as much as some of them has let us down.

I agree with most of what you have said here, although many "singers" will simply move around until they find a way to get out front. Churches that I have been in over the years have been careful to see this as ministry and therefore they look for a lifestyle that will support "service after the sale" for lack of better words.

So while I wholeheartedly agree that we as a church should prepare, equip and affirm in this area. We need also to be the ones to put on the brakes when this does not measure up as ministry. While christian music, and I'm including church music as well, is certainly entertainment, the main focus needs to be ministry.

And yes the consumer mentality of the church has contributed greatly to this. Funny that you should bring up Amy Grant, if I may i would add Michael English to the mix. We need to discern, we need to be selective in what we will buy or listen to. I'm not advocating going to concerts with negative banners or boycotting bookstores or anything like that. Just discernment, perhaps we have let some musicians down, should we continue?

Maybe I'm especially sensitive to this because that is my role at church. I'm the guy that leads the singing, I'm the guy that picks the songs, along with others we do it as a team. I introduce and counsel the singers who sing specials, I sing a special every other week. I need to constantly and prayerfully consider what I do as ministry, I need to take seriously the charge that what I do can affect others. If I can't do that, I need to give it up, others should heed this same warning. This needs to be ministry!

Jim Chabot

April 16th, 2010, 07:52 AM

From the interview, it sounds like she's not doing "Christian music" or "public ministry" anymore. She's claiming only to be a musical artist who is also a Christian.

I should have read more closely then. If that is the case I see no problem.

Jim Chabot

April 16th, 2010, 07:55 AM

There are a number of biblical charcters with whose lifestyles - including sexual patterns - I can't exactly comprehend. Some are pointed to as the Lord's leaders, even His chosen ones. Even Jesus' apparent sex life frankly wasn't much like my own, although I was a Christian most of my first thirty-three years. Paul's references to a celebate pattern have often been the occasion of raising my eyebrows. Often we discover that modern church leaders "carry on" for decades in ways that violate their own anounced values. I personally have known couples whose twenty-plus year mariages have never been physically consumated. Try as I might, identifying with same gender oriented Christians is difficult for me. This paragraph isn't about identifying sin: it's simply an observation that there's a wide range of stuff going on out there. That argument doesn't make sinful behavior less so. When that stuff occurs within the ranks of believers, it should diminish the level of pious platitudes. Jesus didn't condemn people with sexual lifestyles different from His own: He offered them love, forgiveness, freedom, and acceptance. We all need those, regardless of sexual lifestyle. While I personally may not be able to be comfortable with the sexual pattern Jesus exampled, his other ways of dealing with people is something we need more abundantly.

Remember that although Jesus and Paul exhibited sexual lifestyles that you and I might regard as odd, they were not sinful in any way. And you are correct Jesus dd not condemn people with lifestyles different than his own. He reserved his condemnation for religious leaders.

Jeremy D. Scott

April 16th, 2010, 07:56 AM

Homosexuality?

Haven't we discussed this already?
:smilies0295:

Ryan Scott

April 16th, 2010, 07:58 AM

The Christian Music industry is doing more to harm the cause of Christ than almost everything else, mostly because it masquerades as something positive. It's all about sales figures and avoiding controversy. There isn't much room for depth or challenge - it's all about happy songs. Perhaps I'm jaded knowing more than a few people who've been involved in the CCM machine and come out of it with awful stories.

I am glad that Jennifer Knapp has found a place for her music and that she continues to be inspired by God. I've always liked her music and I expect I will continue to appreciate it. I wish her peace.

I appreciate this quote from the interview. - "If God expects me, in order to be a Christian, to be able to theologically justify every move that I make, I'm sorry. I'm going to be a miserable failure."

Tami Martin

April 16th, 2010, 09:05 AM

I agree with most of what you have said here, although many "singers" will simply move around until they find a way to get out front. Churches that I have been in over the years have been careful to see this as ministry and therefore they look for a lifestyle that will support "service after the sale" for lack of better words.

So while I wholeheartedly agree that we as a church should prepare, equip and affirm in this area. We need also to be the ones to put on the brakes when this does not measure up as ministry. While christian music, and I'm including church music as well, is certainly entertainment, the main focus needs to be ministry.

And yes the consumer mentality of the church has contributed greatly to this. Funny that you should bring up Amy Grant, if I may i would add Michael English to the mix. We need to discern, we need to be selective in what we will buy or listen to. I'm not advocating going to concerts with negative banners or boycotting bookstores or anything like that. Just discernment, perhaps we have let some musicians down, should we continue?

Maybe I'm especially sensitive to this because that is my role at church. I'm the guy that leads the singing, I'm the guy that picks the songs, along with others we do it as a team. I introduce and counsel the singers who sing specials, I sing a special every other week. I need to constantly and prayerfully consider what I do as ministry, I need to take seriously the charge that what I do can affect others. If I can't do that, I need to give it up, others should heed this same warning. This needs to be ministry!

What a delight to find we have a common ground, Jim! That's my role at church...well, some of it. Our pastor has delegated each and every single task to a variety of people so that we seldom have any coherence unless God intervenes. But mine is the face people look at and I pick about half of the songs. It is a major ministry in my eyes. I have to pray for the person who picks the other half of the music regularly. She looks for new and interesting and often has us leading the congregation in choral numbers with notes even most of our sopranos can't reach. I try to understand what our purpose is (praise and worship). There's often quite a bit of disconnect!

But while I understand that my role in church is not to perform, the reason I'm in that position is because I am a performer. I suspect there are many like me who walk that tightrope every week, trying to deny their God-given talents and abilities (to stand out front and perform) and hide behind the cross. Hiding is not necessarily in the nature of a performer! It makes Sunday the most stressful day of the week for me, and I spend the work week working with abused and neglected and otherwise mentally ill kids!

James Diggs

April 16th, 2010, 10:10 AM

I would like to look at some of what Knapp said in the article, not to pick apart what she says about homosexuality, but rather to look at where we might be falling short in regards to our own theology and actions. To me the articles in many ways say a lot more about us as a Christian culture than it does Knapp herself.

What about what Scripture says on the topic?
Knapp: The Bible has literally saved my life. I find myself between a rock and a hard place—between the conservative evangelical who uses what most people refer to as the "clobber verses" to refer to this loving relationship as an abomination, while they're eating shellfish and wearing clothes of five different fabrics, and various other Scriptures we could argue about. I'm not capable of getting into the theological argument as to whether or not we should or shouldn't allow homosexuals within our church. There's a spirit that overrides that for me, and what I've been gravitating to in Christ and why I became a Christian in the first place.
She both reveals the objectivity and the lack there of concerning not only her own views but also how the church has largely commented on the topic. First she categorizes homosexuality in terms of “loving relationships” and I am not sure the even heterosexuality quantifies as categorically “loving” or not. Like most things, I think how we apply our sexuality that makes them loving or not. The question then is if applying our sexuality in a homosexual way is loving to ourselves and our neighbor? Let’s leave that question unanswered for the time being so that it does not obfuscate what I think is a bigger problem…. How applying heterosexuality in loving to ourselves and our neighbor.

My concern is that I believe the church has oversimplified the issue of sexuality to the point that as long as it is heterosexual and within marriage it is somehow automatically loving, healthy, and holy. It is the classic case of concentrating so much on what we think loving, and healthy sexuality isn’t that we almost never get around to helping people understand what it IS. The amount of relational (and related to this sexual) dysfunction of heterosexual people whom meet the technical requirement of being faithfully married in the church (and our culture) tells us that there is a BIG problem with what we are communicating as being “loving relationships”.

I say all this not to get homosexuality off the hook, but I think it a symptom of a much larger problem for all of us. I also think that the way we engage the issue of homosexuality can not be one that makes homosexuality somehow a bigger deal than the root of the problem in all of us a culture. I believe if we start to deal better with the core issues we will have a better foundation to deal with homosexuality.

Now some say we already have a foundation- the Bible. Yet few want to deal with the legitimate contextual arguments that Knapp points too here. She admits she isn’t “capable of getting into theological arguments” here, but neither again are most of us. She knew enough to know that most (I don’t think all) verses (which there are only a few) that mention homosexuality specifically come in the context of Jewish practice meant to create distinction among the Israelites from the ancient world we live in during the time of the Old Testament. What some take from this is a kind of cherry picking of things that people want to object too while they ignore the rest.

Knapp argues for liberty in Christ which I believe does apply, the question is how do we have liberty in Jesus in a way that doesn’t just dismiss the law or cherry pick it but instead “fulfills it” even if it must in Christian liberty move beyond some of the technicality of it.

Most Christians are not equipped to handle these theological questions either (I feel I am just barely grasping it myself sometimes), but again it is much easier to use scripture as a way to win an argument then it is to seek for how it can and should transform our own lives and move us toward fulfilling its purpose of loving God and our neighbors as ourselves.

Some argue that the feelings of homosexuality are not sinful, but only the act. What would you say?
Knapp: I'm not capable of fully debating that well. But I've always struggled as a Christian with various forms of external evidence that we are obligated to show that we are Christians. I've found no law that commands me in any way other than to love my neighbor as myself, and that love is the greatest commandment. At a certain point I find myself so handcuffed in my own faith by trying to get it right—to try and look like a Christian, to try to do the things that Christians should do, to be all of these things externally—to fake it until I get myself all handcuffed and tied up in knots as to what I was supposed to be doing there in the first place. If God expects me, in order to be a Christian, to be able to theologically justify every move that I make, I'm sorry. I'm going to be a miserable failure.

The first sentence here is important, and I think again emphasizes my previous point. I think we have failed to really effectively flesh out what it means to love our neighbor as ourselves. Fulfilling this is to fulfill the law and its purpose as it transcends the endless loopholes in looking at love as a legal system (even a divinely inspired one). Yes we can abuse the point of understanding how “love my neighbor as myself “transcends the law and perhaps we think Knapp has. On the other hand we ourselves have often become reductionist and minimalist as we retract into the law to defend our “rights”- looking for our liberty in the law rather than in Christ.

Whenever Christians asks “what we are allowed to do” they ask a legal question, as they seek to find out what they can get away with. If we fail to find where the Bible tells us “no” we go right on doing it; often without question if it is loving or best for us in honoring our God created humanity or another’s. We look for legal ways out of the problem so we can do what we want to do in the end. It does not matter if we do this by being strict with the law on one end or by believing that Christ somehow voided the law on the other, the reality is a common attitude that seeks to do what it can to get away with what we want rather than seeks love.

I say all this to point out that I believe the church needs to step up the simple teaching of seeking to “love my neighbor as myself” in all things. I feel that we do not adequately look to always be fleshing what this looks like out in our lives in a way that expresses righteousness that “exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees”. I believe if we did this it may help answer these difficult theological questions as we better flesh out the point of it all.

I don’t think Christians have modeled loving our neighbors as ourselves to the homosexual community in our obsession of making sure we don’t somehow accidentally make them think we condone homosexuality. If we can not flesh out “love your neighbor as themselves” in the society we share with them (or even in a heterosexual sense in our own relationships) how can we help them in sorting out how homosexuality may not be compactable with “love my neighbor as myself”. Again I want to resist trying to answer the question how homosexuality may fall short of “love my neighbor as myself” and focus instead on how we can model it better. I just honestly think that we need to work on removing that which obstructs our own eye before we can help our neighbor.

You're living in Nashville. Are you in a church these days?
Knapp: No.
I find this most sad as it reflects I think the common misunderstanding of Christianity and spirituality in our culture that it is “just me and Jesus”. How we can learn about “love my neighbor as myself” outside of community I don’t know. I don’t say this to pick on Knapp, she may find it difficult to find a place in church now that she is “out”. But, understanding the individualized nature of Christianity and church culture I wonder if she ever really had real Christian community even when she was part of a “church”.

Again- I am saying all this trying to focus on us, not Knapp or “homosexuals”. Even though the board has been rebooted, we all remember the many conversations we have had about the issue. I would like to instead talk about how we may contribute the issue, and/or fail to adequately help through our own theological and cultural shortfalls. I would like to spin the issue on its head and take some time looking in the mirror. What do you think?

Marsha Lynn

April 16th, 2010, 10:14 AM

The Christian Music industry is doing more to harm the cause of Christ than almost everything else, mostly because it masquerades as something positive.

I don't know about the cause of Christ in general, but I can testify that Christian music does me much more good than harm. I'm not familiar enough with Jennifer Knapp to know whether I like her music, but I don't know how her sexual orientation would be a factor in whether I benefited from it.

I have never understood the concern about the lifestyle of entertainers of any genre. Entertainment is by nature disembodied from the personality and lifestyle of the entertainer. I can enjoy music and humor and athletic ability and good acting without probing into the personal life of the musician, the humorist, the athlete, and the actor. When I enjoy their talents and buy what they produce I may be making a small contribution to supporting their lifestyle but I'm not endorsing it. And I can appreciate truth and integrity in the lyrics of Christian music without putting a stamp of approval on the artists behind it.

I don't understand your comment about everything being "happy songs" that avoid controversy in CCM. Have you listened to anything by Derek Webb? Am I misunderstanding you?

Marsha

Shea Zellweger

April 16th, 2010, 10:30 AM

Homosexuality?

Haven't we discussed this already?
:smilies0295:

Sadly, not since the Great Crash. Can we just say that homosexuality is a complex issue, and the Bible does not address the ideas of homosexuality which are being advocated in our culture (ie, a monogamous romantic relationship between two members of the same sex, which they would like to take place within the confines of marriage if that were allowed), but rather to specific forms of lechery and debauchery that would have been equally wrong if men had been doing them with women?

There are certain conversations that you hate to have, but almost feel obligated to join. For me, homosexuality is one such conversation, and I would love to not have it.

Todd Erickson

April 16th, 2010, 11:09 AM

Hans Deventer

April 16th, 2010, 12:01 PM

A question which occured to me today...if a man and woman are married, and engaged in sexual relations with each other, but they do not look upon each other with Agape, but just personal satisfaction and need...is it sin? Or does the fact that their sex is "natural" excuse the intent of the act?

If it's just personal satisfaction and need, then it is definitely sin in the sense of "missing the mark".

Jim Chabot

April 16th, 2010, 12:16 PM

I would like to look at some of what Knapp said in the article, not to pick apart what she says about homosexuality, but rather to look at where we might be falling short in regards to our own theology and actions. To me the articles in many ways say a lot more about us as a Christian culture than it does Knapp herself.

She both reveals the objectivity and the lack there of concerning not only her own views but also how the church has largely commented on the topic. First she categorizes homosexuality in terms of “loving relationships” and I am not sure the even heterosexuality quantifies as categorically “loving” or not. Like most things, I think how we apply our sexuality that makes them loving or not. The question then is if applying our sexuality in a homosexual way is loving to ourselves and our neighbor? Let’s leave that question unanswered for the time being so that it does not obfuscate what I think is a bigger problem…. How applying heterosexuality in loving to ourselves and our neighbor.

My concern is that I believe the church has oversimplified the issue of sexuality to the point that as long as it is heterosexual and within marriage it is somehow automatically loving, healthy, and holy. It is the classic case of concentrating so much on what we think loving, and healthy sexuality isn’t that we almost never get around to helping people understand what it IS. The amount of relational (and related to this sexual) dysfunction of heterosexual people whom meet the technical requirement of being faithfully married in the church (and our culture) tells us that there is a BIG problem with what we are communicating as being “loving relationships”.

I say all this not to get homosexuality off the hook, but I think it a symptom of a much larger problem for all of us. I also think that the way we engage the issue of homosexuality can not be one that makes homosexuality somehow a bigger deal than the root of the problem in all of us a culture. I believe if we start to deal better with the core issues we will have a better foundation to deal with homosexuality.

Now some say we already have a foundation- the Bible. Yet few want to deal with the legitimate contextual arguments that Knapp points too here. She admits she isn’t “capable of getting into theological arguments” here, but neither again are most of us. She knew enough to know that most (I don’t think all) verses (which there are only a few) that mention homosexuality specifically come in the context of Jewish practice meant to create distinction among the Israelites from the ancient world we live in during the time of the Old Testament. What some take from this is a kind of cherry picking of things that people want to object too while they ignore the rest.

Knapp argues for liberty in Christ which I believe does apply, the question is how do we have liberty in Jesus in a way that doesn’t just dismiss the law or cherry pick it but instead “fulfills it” even if it must in Christian liberty move beyond some of the technicality of it.

Most Christians are not equipped to handle these theological questions either (I feel I am just barely grasping it myself sometimes), but again it is much easier to use scripture as a way to win an argument then it is to seek for how it can and should transform our own lives and move us toward fulfilling its purpose of loving God and our neighbors as ourselves.

The first sentence here is important, and I think again emphasizes my previous point. I think we have failed to really effectively flesh out what it means to love our neighbor as ourselves. Fulfilling this is to fulfill the law and its purpose as it transcends the endless loopholes in looking at love as a legal system (even a divinely inspired one). Yes we can abuse the point of understanding how “love my neighbor as myself “transcends the law and perhaps we think Knapp has. On the other hand we ourselves have often become reductionist and minimalist as we retract into the law to defend our “rights”- looking for our liberty in the law rather than in Christ.

Whenever Christians asks “what we are allowed to do” they ask a legal question, as they seek to find out what they can get away with. If we fail to find where the Bible tells us “no” we go right on doing it; often without question if it is loving or best for us in honoring our God created humanity or another’s. We look for legal ways out of the problem so we can do what we want to do in the end. It does not matter if we do this by being strict with the law on one end or by believing that Christ somehow voided the law on the other, the reality is a common attitude that seeks to do what it can to get away with what we want rather than seeks love.

I say all this to point out that I believe the church needs to step up the simple teaching of seeking to “love my neighbor as myself” in all things. I feel that we do not adequately look to always be fleshing what this looks like out in our lives in a way that expresses righteousness that “exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees”. I believe if we did this it may help answer these difficult theological questions as we better flesh out the point of it all.

I don’t think Christians have modeled loving our neighbors as ourselves to the homosexual community in our obsession of making sure we don’t somehow accidentally make them think we condone homosexuality. If we can not flesh out “love your neighbor as themselves” in the society we share with them (or even in a heterosexual sense in our own relationships) how can we help them in sorting out how homosexuality may not be compactable with “love my neighbor as myself”. Again I want to resist trying to answer the question how homosexuality may fall short of “love my neighbor as myself” and focus instead on how we can model it better. I just honestly think that we need to work on removing that which obstructs our own eye before we can help our neighbor.

I find this most sad as it reflects I think the common misunderstanding of Christianity and spirituality in our culture that it is “just me and Jesus”. How we can learn about “love my neighbor as myself” outside of community I don’t know. I don’t say this to pick on Knapp, she may find it difficult to find a place in church now that she is “out”. But, understanding the individualized nature of Christianity and church culture I wonder if she ever really had real Christian community even when she was part of a “church”.

Again- I am saying all this trying to focus on us, not Knapp or “homosexuals”. Even though the board has been rebooted, we all remember the many conversations we have had about the issue. I would like to instead talk about how we may contribute the issue, and/or fail to adequately help through our own theological and cultural shortfalls. I would like to spin the issue on its head and take some time looking in the mirror. What do you think?

You bring up some good points James. After reading this through, I find myself drawn to the conversation with the rich young ruler. Jesus asked him to sell all and follow him. I believe that Jesus may have the same to say to Miss Knapp. Cataloging others sin instead of facing ones own sin just doesn't cut it. Yes we have all sinned and fallen short, no doubt in my mind. But we must each face our own sin and we must recognize that it is sin. Maybe we will not overcome it, but admit to it we must.

Todd Erickson

April 16th, 2010, 12:59 PM

You bring up some good points James. After reading this through, I find myself drawn to the conversation with the rich young ruler. Jesus asked him to sell all and follow him. I believe that Jesus may have the same to say to Miss Knapp. Cataloging others sin instead of facing ones own sin just doesn't cut it. Yes we have all sinned and fallen short, no doubt in my mind. But we must each face our own sin and we must recognize that it is sin. Maybe we will not overcome it, but admit to it we must.

I don't see anything in Ms. Knapp's interview that gives anybody other than Christ room to point fingers at sin.

In fact, a strong element running through the article seems to be how she feels rejected by the church, and perhaps always have. It has not been a source of community, love, or healing for her, and so she's found herself outside of that. But not outside of God.

James Diggs

April 16th, 2010, 01:13 PM

You bring up some good points James. After reading this through, I find myself drawn to the conversation with the rich young ruler. Jesus asked him to sell all and follow him. I believe that Jesus may have the same to say to Miss Knapp.

I believe (and I am sure you do too) that Jesus says this to all us in one way or the other. Cast away all of that which distances you from God and your neighbors and follow Jesus!!!

Cataloging others sin instead of facing ones own sin just doesn't cut it. Yes we have all sinned and fallen short, no doubt in my mind. But we must each face our own sin and we must recognize that it is sin. Maybe we will not overcome it, but admit to it we must.

You are right Jim, but I don't think we can really face our sin until we understand that it does not take place in a vacuum just between me and God and his laws. It is not until we seek solidarity with others through Christ (loving them as ourselves) that we will truly see the things that get in the way and that we need to strive together to overcome through Christ. Sin may be individualistic (perhaps part of the reason it is "sinful"), facing it and repenting of it so as to live in the Way of Jesus is not.

Jim Chabot

April 16th, 2010, 01:26 PM

I don't see anything in Ms. Knapp's interview that gives anybody other than Christ room to point fingers at sin.

In fact, a strong element running through the article seems to be how she feels rejected by the church, and perhaps always have. It has not been a source of community, love, or healing for her, and so she's found herself outside of that. But not outside of God.

Ahh but she may be wrong on both counts. Does she really think that God condones her sin? God loves her and he has not rejected her, however she is fooling only herself if she thinks that he is ok with her sin. So how about the church, do they really reject her? Maybe they have, and that would be wrong, but I wouldn't be so quick to paint with a broad brush. I can tell you that my local church would not reject her, we would love her the same as anyone for whom Christ died. And we would do this in genuine love. We would not condone her sin, we would point out that it is sin and we would do so because we love her. She wouldn't be on the platform singing and she wouldn't be involved in ministry, but she wouldn't be rejected she would be loved.

Some people claim rejection when they don't get everything that they want, in fact a lot of people do that. But have they actually been rejected? I wouldn't necessarily take their word for it.

James Diggs

April 16th, 2010, 01:40 PM

Some people claim rejection when they don't get everything that they want, in fact a lot of people do that. But have they actually been rejected? I wouldn't necessarily take their word for it.

I would rather give the benefit of the doubt, while seeking redemption and solidarity with them and see where it goes then to "not take their word for it" and put another barrier in the way. I think when we add barriers unnecessarily then we compound our sin on top of theirs and fail to be an avenue of redemption and reconciliation Christ calls us in to.

Jim Chabot

April 16th, 2010, 02:10 PM

What a delight to find we have a common ground, Jim! That's my role at church...well, some of it. Our pastor has delegated each and every single task to a variety of people so that we seldom have any coherence unless God intervenes. But mine is the face people look at and I pick about half of the songs. It is a major ministry in my eyes. I have to pray for the person who picks the other half of the music regularly. She looks for new and interesting and often has us leading the congregation in choral numbers with notes even most of our sopranos can't reach. I try to understand what our purpose is (praise and worship). There's often quite a bit of disconnect!

But while I understand that my role in church is not to perform, the reason I'm in that position is because I am a performer. I suspect there are many like me who walk that tightrope every week, trying to deny their God-given talents and abilities (to stand out front and perform) and hide behind the cross. Hiding is not necessarily in the nature of a performer! It makes Sunday the most stressful day of the week for me, and I spend the work week working with abused and neglected and otherwise mentally ill kids!

Hey this is great! One of the things that I have prayed over since the great crash and subsequent new beginning is to seek out common ground.

I hear what you are saying about music selection, I feel a great burden to pick music that will truly minister.

I learned something quite by accident from Gene Scott of all people. He was yelling at his two singers at the time, John Jordan, and Toni Rodriquez, (what a beautiful strong voice she had) He had stopped them in the middle of a song and he shouted "You two don't get it do you! Your job is to put me in the right mood so that I can preach! That song has the word happy in, now sing it again and you had better convince me that your happy!" I have replayed that rant over and over again, one of the things that I tell our congregation is that we are engaged in a group effort, I need to minister to them and to the pastor, in turn they need to minister back. In other words we need to actively "do church" while we sing!

So music selection has to minister, we pick the songs as a team. Once a month we (the organist, pianist, bass player, drummer, sound man, choir director and myself) meet with the pastor to select the songs for the coming month. He shares his vision for the upcoming months messages and we endeavor to select songs that will lead the congregation toward the message. We try to keep new songs to one a month as the unfamiliarity can be distracting, and we close out the congregational singing with a chorus that leads into the prayer time so we try to keep that chorus for at least a month. Last month we used "Above All" this month we are using "There is A Redeemer" by Melody Green. After we pick the songs, I put together the power point and order, then I look the songs over and select a proper key. I try to keep everything in the range between C3,4 and E4,5 although an occasional dip to Bb or a reach to an F is ok.

I think that your description of a tightrope is appropriate. It is difficult to keep everyone happy. Our 85 year old organist is a graduate of New England Conservatory, she is truly a gifted musician, so long as there is written sheet music in front of her. (no chord tab lead sheets) While over on the other side of the platform we have three men who play strictly by ear. So we have a tightrope to walk there as well. We do "Above All" and "Easter Song" with mostly piano, while "And Can it Be" and "Christ Arose" are big organ songs, so we need to balance the type of songs out so that everyone feels appreciated, and yet we have to convey a message in song leading to the Pastor's message. Hey that is stressful isn't it? But is incredibly rewarding when things go well and we are able to build unity in the church through worship!

I am not naturally a performer, I have had to work at that. In fact I am happy to sit in the back and run the sound, I'm very comfortable back there. Hiding is my nature, but I have found that one cannot minister while hiding!

Thanks for sharing! This type of conversation is much more fulfilling than the pitched battles that sometimes occur. And I fall into those far to easily.

Jim Chabot

April 16th, 2010, 02:16 PM

I would rather give the benefit of the doubt, while seeking redemption and solidarity with them and see where it goes then to "not take their word for it" and put another barrier in the way. I think when we add barriers unnecessarily then we compound our sin on top of theirs and fail to be an avenue of redemption and reconciliation Christ calls us in to.

That barrier only exists if we verbalize that doubt. I suppose that we could explore the tension that exists between solidarity and redemption. If we seek redemption only then solidarity isn't possible. While if we head all the way down the solidarity avenue, then redemption passes from our view.

Todd Erickson

April 16th, 2010, 02:25 PM

Ahh but she may be wrong on both counts. Does she really think that God condones her sin? God loves her and he has not rejected her, however she is fooling only herself if she thinks that he is ok with her sin. So how about the church, do they really reject her? Maybe they have, and that would be wrong, but I wouldn't be so quick to paint with a broad brush. I can tell you that my local church would not reject her, we would love her the same as anyone for whom Christ died. And we would do this in genuine love. We would not condone her sin, we would point out that it is sin and we would do so because we love her. She wouldn't be on the platform singing and she wouldn't be involved in ministry, but she wouldn't be rejected she would be loved.

Some people claim rejection when they don't get everything that they want, in fact a lot of people do that. But have they actually been rejected? I wouldn't necessarily take their word for it.

So...how can you tell if anybody is committing sin that you shuoldn't condone through allowing service? It would seem that by that standard, nobody can have ministry in your church, unless they're willing to hide what they are...and I would think that you would have to suspect people of hiding, because that is human nature.

James Diggs

April 16th, 2010, 02:29 PM

That barrier only exists if we verbalize that doubt.

Oh I don't know, perhaps. But I think for many it is difficult to hide and it comes out other ways.

While if we head all the way down the solidarity avenue, then redemption passes from our view.

I can see this when people find solidarity in shared sinfulness- but someone else is always on the outs of that solidarity as sin (if truly relational) is always directed at someone (even if it comes from a like minded group).

If we seek redemption only then solidarity isn't possible.

I don't follow you on this one. I think the goal of reconciliation and redemption is solidarity in a restored humanity in the likeness of Jesus Christ. I don't understand how seeking redemption only can exclude solidarity when solidarity is what we are being redeemed and reconciled into.

Benjamin Burch

April 16th, 2010, 04:17 PM

I, like James, just wish the church had a way to talk about sexuality in terms of love, loving one's self, and loving one's neighbor. I wish we could talk about all forms of sexuality within that, and I wish we could be honest enough to say that the Bible does not possess the sexual ethic which we so often attempt to claim that it does.

Timothy Parker

April 16th, 2010, 07:06 PM

I'm certainly not looking for another discussion on Christian faithfulness and homosexuality (or however you'd trend to phrase it), but I will say that scanning through the posts (almost 500 already) to the interview on CTs website, I was really quite appalled. Lots of hatred/ignorance/prejudice barely disguised by a very, very small theology. I know... web comments are notoriously bad that way, but still...

James Johnson

April 16th, 2010, 08:13 PM

Shea Zellweger

April 16th, 2010, 08:21 PM

I doubt Jennifer Knapp's problems with feeling accepted is with the church, It's more likely with the Holy Spirit. As an alcoholic I was alway's blaming the church, I never felt comfortable, it was alway's THEM! When in truth it was the Holy Spirit who was making me uncomfortable because of my sin, my lifestyle. Praise God for his love and Grace, I allowed him to change me from the inside out, and I'll never be the same again. And I know he can do the same for Jennifer Knapp when she's willing to allow God to be bigger than her desires. jmo

Jim,
You have a wonderful testimony, and I don't want to take anything from that, but the Church has a longstanding track record of treating homosexuals in a very unloving manner. I have never heard of the Catholic Church denying communion to an admitted alcoholic, but they will to an open homosexual. I have never heard of churches saying some natural disaster or disease is because there are so many alcoholics in the US, but I've heard plenty of things (AIDS, Hurricane Katrina, the Haiti Earthquake to name a few) blamed on the US homosexual population. Gay people have been assaulted, beaten, killed, had bricks thrown through their windows, and been faced with individuals who tell them they can never get to Heaven because they are an abomination. Had our board not recently crashed, I could point you to more than a few posts where individuals here had asserted that it is impossible to be both gay and a Christian. I have never heard of any of these things being done to or said about alcoholics. Maybe I've just not been exposed to the hardcore underground prohibitionist movement in the US, but so far as my experiences show, people who drink are far more accepted in the church than people who have same-sex attractions.

Benjamin Burch

April 16th, 2010, 08:29 PM

Jim,
You have a wonderful testimony, and I don't want to take anything from that, but the Church has a longstanding track record of treating homosexuals in a very unloving manner. I have never heard of the Catholic Church denying communion to an admitted alcoholic, but they will to an open homosexual. I have never heard of churches saying some natural disaster or disease is because there are so many alcoholics in the US, but I've heard plenty of things (AIDS, Hurricane Katrina, the Haiti Earthquake to name a few) blamed on the US homosexual population. Gay people have been assaulted, beaten, killed, had bricks thrown through their windows, and been faced with individuals who tell them they can never get to Heaven because they are an abomination. Had our board not recently crashed, I could point you to more than a few posts where individuals here had asserted that it is impossible to be both gay and a Christian. I have never heard of any of these things being done to or said about alcoholics. Maybe I've just not been exposed to the hardcore underground prohibitionist movement in the US, but so far as my experiences show, people who drink are far more accepted in the church than people who have same-sex attractions.

Thank you, many times over, for this well-written post, Shea. Thank you simply isn't enough, but I'm not sure what else to say. Thank you.

Jim Chabot

April 16th, 2010, 08:29 PM

Oh I don't know, perhaps. But I think for many it is difficult to hide and it comes out other ways.

I can see this when people find solidarity in shared sinfulness- but someone else is always on the outs of that solidarity as sin (if truly relational) is always directed at someone (even if it comes from a like minded group).

I don't follow you on this one. I think the goal of reconciliation and redemption is solidarity in a restored humanity in the likeness of Jesus Christ. I don't understand how seeking redemption only can exclude solidarity when solidarity is what we are being redeemed and reconciled into.

Exactly, I suspect that you and I are on the same page, although it seems that we speak a different language. We cannot have solidarity with sinfullness, or we will lose sight of redemption. And yes we seek a solidarity with those who are being redeemed and reconciled, that solidarity is not with sinfulness. We must support, we must love, we must empathise. Yet that love, support and empathy must be working toward redemption and reconciliation. There is a tension, and sometimes we fail others, and sometimes others take advantage.

James Johnson

April 16th, 2010, 08:32 PM

Jim Chabot

April 16th, 2010, 08:47 PM

Shea, I'm probably one of those you're talking about. I personaly do not believe you can be an alchoholic and a Christian (I couldn't) and I don't believe one can be living the homosexual lifestyle and be a Christian. But I am here to testify that God can, and will be bigger than your desires if called upon with an earnest heart.

James, I believe that you can be an alchoholic and a Christian, but not for long, the Spirit will persuade you to make a choice, if your listening. I believe that the same is true for someone afflicted with homosexuality, the Spirit will persuade, but one needs to listen. I don't doubt Ms. Knapp's faith, but her posturing toward a position that accepts her sin will eventually cause a hardening of her heart. In either case ministry is not the right option.

I will have to add the disclaimer that we need to love the alcoholic and the homosexual, we must love all for which Christ died.

James Johnson

April 16th, 2010, 08:49 PM

Jim, I agree!

Rich Schmidt

April 16th, 2010, 08:56 PM

James, I believe that you can be an alchoholic and a Christian, but not for long, the Spirit will persuade you to make a choice, if your listening. I believe that the same is true for someone afflicted with homosexuality, the Spirit will persuade, but one needs to listen. I don't doubt Ms. Knapp's faith, but her posturing toward a position that accepts her sin will eventually cause a hardening of her heart. In either case ministry is not the right option.

I will have to add the disclaimer that we need to love the alcoholic and the homosexual, we must love all for which Christ died.

I'll admit I only gave it a quick read, but what I heard from Ms. Knapp in that interview was her "posturing toward a position" of openness to God. It sounded to me like she's trying to listen to God and live as a Christian. If so, then perhaps the Spirit will one day persuade her to make a choice, as you said. Let's pray that she chooses continued openness to God and obedience to him.

Jim Chabot

April 16th, 2010, 09:09 PM

I'll admit I only gave it a quick read, but what I heard from Ms. Knapp in that interview was her "posturing toward a position" of openness to God. It sounded to me like she's trying to listen to God and live as a Christian. If so, then perhaps the Spirit will one day persuade her to make a choice, as you said. Let's pray that she chooses continued openness to God and obedience to him.

Amen Rich! Amen!

Jerry Richards

April 16th, 2010, 09:13 PM

I don't claim to know or understand all that Jennifer is coping with. I don't particularly like her style of music, but I do like her. She played her trumpet in my oldest son's wedding. I have been acquainted with her, although not closely, since she was a young teenager growing up with my sons in Chanute, KS. I pray that she will find the peace of God.

James Diggs

April 17th, 2010, 06:21 AM

Exactly, I suspect that you and I are on the same page, although it seems that we speak a different language.

I certainly don't think we are far apart and I have real hope we can overcome whatever "language" barrier we may have.

We cannot have solidarity with sinfullness, or we will lose sight of redemption....We must support, we must love, we must empathise. Yet that love, support and empathy must be working toward redemption and reconciliation.

Yes, we both have said this and agree with that we don't have solidarity with sinfulness- at least not in the the way we typically think of solidarity. When I look at Jesus though he did find a certain kind of solidarity with our sinfulness- not that he took part of or approved of our sin, but he shared in the consequences and results of that sin as if they were his own.

Jesus found solidarity with humanity even though it was broken in order to restore that humanity. As the church we have not "fellowshiped in his suffering" nearly enough as we share in the suffering of others. Christians should have been the first in line to help those with Aids, to stand up against hate crimes, and to fight for basic human rights against those being discriminated against in employment or for hospital visits.

If we had done this, our stand against gay marriage might be believed as one where we are taking a stand against what we believe as sin and not the sinner. (I shared in an earlier post what I thought a good solution is for the marriage issue, but it isn't the point now.) The point is that I do not believe that we have found solidarity in the basic humanity of homosexuals despite that fact that we think they represent fallen and broken humanity in their homosexuality.

We have not met them in their suffering in a way that says 'we see how injustice has robbed you of your humanity as you are treated sometimes as somehow less then human by others and we want to stand with you against these things and restore you.'

Not only is this simply the right thing for Christians to do, it gives us credibility when we speak of love and begins a relationship where we might explore with them how homosexuality may be robbing them of their humanity too. But in the meantime we show how we are going to do all we can on our end to restore, respect, and love them as the human beings made in God's image that they are.

I believe that as a Christian culture our failure to engage homosexuals by appropriately seeking solidarity with them by standing WITH THEM in the ways they are unjustly treated as human beings is a huge log in our eye which obstructs our view of really being able to see and help them remove that which is in their own eye.

There is a tension, and sometimes we fail others, and sometimes others take advantage.

Yes there is tension in all these things- but not tension that worries about being taken advantage of. We stepped all over Jesus for our redemption. If people need to step on us, or take advantage of us because we treat them with human dignity then that is a risk we will have to take.

Bob Hunter

April 17th, 2010, 11:14 AM

I was saddened but not surprised to hear the news. I remember the promising stardom of Knapp a decade ago. And perhaps that was the problem. The Christian establishment, marketplace, industry, whatever you want to call it, has its own celebrities. We prop these people up and make them very rich. The expectations we attached to their ministry are cruel. That is why a lot of bands do not want to play the Christian circuit and opt rather to play general market venues. I was a concert promoter in the 90's and promoted several bands, a couple of which made it big, but even more don't even exist. I recall these conversations with band managers, members about the industry and its expectations. I'm quite certain Knapp fell victim to some of that and it shook the foundations of her faith, caused dismay, etc. As a result, there is a trend away from the Christian meat grinder that musicians and artists are drawn into.

Take the band Lifehouse, for example. The lead singer, Jason Wade, is a missionary kid. Wade started a band in the 90s that catered to Christian market, but later discovered that was not the way to go. He left the Christian music scene and formed Lifehouse, which now enjoys huge success apart from the narrow and cruel expectations of the Christian marketplace. I see what they are doing as a ministry. And quite often you can hear their songs on Christian radio, but their ministry at large is to general market.

In any event, as one who dabbled in the industry for a time, I just wanted to share my observations and reflections. Quite honestly, I find myself listening to bands that are NOT a product of Christian establishment for some of the reasons I have outlined. I am deeply saddened that Knapp does appear to be a victim of sorts, though her sexual orientation is a whole separate issue. And we also have to be mindful that not all people who go into the lifestyle full blown, stay in the lifestyle. Some of them come out disillusioned and seek healing. It is not a bed of roses. I had a lady in my Church that was gay for 30 years and wrote comedy for gay stand ups. She was X-rated. God woke her up one day and she left the lifestyle, the scene and never returned. So bear in mind...not everyone stays in the lifestyle. God is not through with Jennifer Knapp.

Mike McVey

April 17th, 2010, 12:54 PM

I doubt Jennifer Knapp's problems with feeling accepted is with the church, It's more likely with the Holy Spirit. As an alcoholic I was alway's blaming the church, I never felt comfortable, it was alway's THEM! When in truth it was the Holy Spirit who was making me uncomfortable because of my sin, my lifestyle. Praise God for his love and Grace, I allowed him to change me from the inside out, and I'll never be the same again. And I know he can do the same for Jennifer Knapp when she's willing to allow God to be bigger than her desires. jmo

My story is different. I never knew that my church didn't accept me until right before I moved for a job. I did not even know that I was to blame the church. Then I had the opportunity to serve in quite a few churches where I was accepted, but those who visited that were different, were not. I have been told by people only a couple years older than me (I'm 31) that God doesn't love people who ride motorcycles and/or listens to heavy metal. I have been a part of a church that was extremely prejudiced against blacks, hispanics, and poor people. One church I worked at as an associate treated me as if I was a rock star while all but ignoring my wife. Oh, and all of these churches 'loved' everyone who came through the doors. They were friendly churches.

I'm glad God has done something in your life where you were blaming the wrong area. That does not mean that anyone else has no good reason to blame the church.

Kevin Rector

April 17th, 2010, 02:56 PM

I appreciate this quote from the interview. - "If God expects me, in order to be a Christian, to be able to theologically justify every move that I make, I'm sorry. I'm going to be a miserable failure."

I was going to highlight that quote too. I loved it.

Hans Deventer

April 17th, 2010, 03:21 PM

I was going to highlight that quote too. I loved it.

I'm not so sure if it's a good quote. As it stands, yes. But in context.......... I don't think I could live my life as a Christian if I could not theologically justify the situation she finds herself in.

Benjamin Burch

April 17th, 2010, 03:33 PM

I'm not so sure if it's a good quote. As it stands, yes. But in context.......... I don't think I could live my life as a Christian if I could not theologically justify the situation she finds herself in.

Is it about theological justification? Sometimes isn't this life just about living faithfully, and living faithfully into the love of Christ? We find out what that means along the way, and we have the Bible which is very helpful on that path. But, as many have said, the Bible may not really address her situation, and it may speak to it with voices in tension.

I, personally, would have to disagree with you here, Hans. I think she's attempting to live faithfully, and sometimes that' all we have. She could surely use prayers along the way.

James Diggs

April 17th, 2010, 03:42 PM

Is it about theological justification? Sometimes isn't this life just about living faithfully, and living faithfully into the love of Christ? We find out what that means along the way, and we have the Bible which is very helpful on that path. But, as many have said, the Bible may not really address her situation, and it may speak to it with voices in tension.

I, personally, would have to disagree with you here, Hans. I think she's attempting to live faithfully, and sometimes that' all we have. She could surely use prayers along the way.

I agree with what you are saying about the Bible, but isn't what she is saying in itself really a theology as she tries to live faithfully to who her understanding of God?

Seems to me people often live out of their theology to a great degree despite their ability to articulate it verbally.

Hans Deventer

April 17th, 2010, 03:46 PM

Is it about theological justification? Sometimes isn't this life just about living faithfully, and living faithfully into the love of Christ?

But Ben, your statement IS a theological justification.

Benjamin Burch

April 17th, 2010, 03:53 PM

I agree with what you are saying about the Bible, but isn't what she is saying in itself really a theology as she tries to live faithfully to who her understanding of God?

Seems to me people often live out of their theology to a great degree despite their ability to articulate it verbally.

Everything is a theology when we relate our whole life to God in Christ. However, it's not always a justification. I think one can wrestle it out, and live as faithfully as they know how, as they allow the Spirit to work in their lives. Eventually, I'm sure Miss Knapp will find herself in a solid place theologically, either in justification, renunciation, or repentance. It doesn't mean that justification is in any way her goal right now. I also think that she knows that this road will lead somewhere... she's not dumb.

Benjamin Burch

April 17th, 2010, 03:56 PM

But Ben, your statement IS a theological justification.

You might be right here, Hans.

Jim Chabot

April 17th, 2010, 06:57 PM

Is it about theological justification? Sometimes isn't this life just about living faithfully, and living faithfully into the love of Christ? We find out what that means along the way, and we have the Bible which is very helpful on that path. But, as many have said, the Bible may not really address her situation, and it may speak to it with voices in tension.

I, personally, would have to disagree with you here, Hans. I think she's attempting to live faithfully, and sometimes that' all we have. She could surely use prayers along the way.

I hope that you are right Ben, I really do. But that isn't what I heard in her quote. What I heard was someone saying that God must accept her the way she is, and that is ok. But I also heard someone telling God that she plans no change, God will have to continue his acceptance on her terms. What I heard in her quote worries me, so I hope that you are right.

Benjamin Burch

April 18th, 2010, 04:09 AM

I hope that you are right Ben, I really do. But that isn't what I heard in her quote. What I heard was someone saying that God must accept her the way she is, and that is ok. But I also heard someone telling God that she plans no change, God will have to continue his acceptance on her terms. What I heard in her quote worries me, so I hope that you are right.

I can understand all of that. I think there's a chance you're right.

Ryan Scott

April 19th, 2010, 08:19 AM

I don't understand your comment about everything being "happy songs" that avoid controversy in CCM. Have you listened to anything by Derek Webb? Am I misunderstanding you?

Derek Webb's been mostly shut out of the CCM scene for exactly the reasons I listed. He's still on a "Christian" label basically because he's proven he can still make them money. He's also the one who's given Jennifer Knapp a platform to tour and re-enter the music scene.

Again I'm a bit biased because of anecdotal evidence, but CCM always put me off as a bit too manufactured and fake, then hearing stories from people deeply involved in songwriting, recording, and producing who say that most of the people they met in the industry could care less about the Church or the gospel - it really only justifies my preconceived notions.

I've yet to find evidence to change my views - and believe me I'd love to do so.

Marsha Lynn

April 19th, 2010, 09:06 AM

Ryan Scott

April 19th, 2010, 09:11 AM

There's definitely more areas than music to critique if you're into that sort of thing.

Oh, I do, believe me. I won't listen to Christian radio stations and I refuse to set foot in a Christian bookstore. I bristle at most examples of Christian pop culture. I think it would be creepy to me even without any theological or practical predilection. I've felt the same way since I was a child. The whole thing has always rubbed me the wrong way, now I just have big words to help describe why.

I'd much prefer if books, music, and movies would stop being labeled "Christian." There's plenty of "Christian" stuff that has no resemblance to Christ and lots of "secular" stuff that does. I think the labels are counter-productive and the CCM industry is one of my examples. I doubt we really differ all that much in our view of the situation, just perhaps in our tolerance of it.

Todd Erickson

April 19th, 2010, 09:48 AM

Ryan Scott

April 19th, 2010, 09:54 AM

I think that the statements in this thread about "the lifestyle" are fascinating. As if, if somebody is gay, then they're abusive, hateful, fornicating, dirty, etc. and that's the only thing for them.

There are many homosexuals who are in commited long term relationships, who don't appreciate most of the things that are part of the "lifestyle", and who would question the need to label them in such a way.

I agree with you, but "the lifestyle" has sort of become a term for something specific - even homosexuals in my circle use it to mean the same thing - a sort of freewheeling, reckless, indulgent style adopted by a certain portion of homosexuals. Assuming every gay person is in that group is wrong, but I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the term or its meaning.

Todd Erickson

April 19th, 2010, 09:59 AM

Shea Zellweger

April 19th, 2010, 09:59 AM

I agree with you, but "the lifestyle" has sort of become a term for something specific - even homosexuals in my circle use it to mean the same thing - a sort of freewheeling, reckless, indulgent style adopted by a certain portion of homosexuals. Assuming every gay person is in that group is wrong, but I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the term or its meaning.

I can think of more than a few heterosexuals who would fit very well into this "homosexual lifestyle" if only their promiscuity were with the same sex. When straight people do it, they're "sowing their wild oats." When gay people do it, they're held up as an example of the "homosexual lifestyle." I believe you that your gay friends have come to realize the actual meaning of the term, and that they are not a part of that, but isn't this one of those terms we should seek to rectify? Kinda reminds me of that little kid a while back who gave a speech on why black people shouldn't use the "n-word."

Marsha Lynn

April 19th, 2010, 10:10 AM

I doubt we really differ all that much in our view of the situation, just perhaps in our tolerance of it.

I think you're right, although we might be approaching a similar point from different directions. I used to frequent Christian bookstores far more than I do now. Lately, it seems I walk in and look around and can't remember my purpose for being there. (I'm sure I could ask and get a book recommendation to clarify my purpose for me.) Christian radio seems more and more annoying as time goes by (although I still enjoy "Adventures in Odyssey"). So I am becoming less tolerant whereas you are starting at a position of intolerance and could easily mellow as you find instances of God using methods you disdain to bring genuine change in people's lives.

On the other hand, as one directly involved in music selection for the local church, I need to remain aware of what is happening in the world of Christian music. I'm thankful that there are some gems among the shale, even if we sometimes have to extract them from their native environment and shine them up a bit before we can see their value.

Marsha

Ryan Scott

April 19th, 2010, 10:26 AM

I can think of more than a few heterosexuals who would fit very well into this "homosexual lifestyle" if only their promiscuity were with the same sex. When straight people do it, they're "sowing their wild oats." When gay people do it, they're held up as an example of the "homosexual lifestyle." I believe you that your gay friends have come to realize the actual meaning of the term, and that they are not a part of that, but isn't this one of those terms we should seek to rectify? Kinda reminds me of that little kid a while back who gave a speech on why black people shouldn't use the "n-word."

I'd be more inclined to get people to stop using the phrase "sowing their wild oats," and recognize the behavior for what it is, no matter who is doing it. For most gay people, in my experience, they just want to be people - I think a lot of them view "the lifestyle" as a phase the same way it is viewed for heterosexuals. The problem for all of us is that more and more people, gay and straight, are making hedonism a life choice rather than just a phase.

I've always said, the gospel applied to life will deal with a whole lot of other habits and actions before the subject of sexual identification even comes up.

Shea Zellweger

April 19th, 2010, 10:34 AM

I'd be more inclined to get people to stop using the phrase "sowing their wild oats," and recognize the behavior for what it is, no matter who is doing it. For most gay people, in my experience, they just want to be people - I think a lot of them view "the lifestyle" as a phase the same way it is viewed for heterosexuals. The problem for all of us is that more and more people, gay and straight, are making hedonism a life choice rather than just a phase.

I fully agree.

I've always said, the gospel applied to life will deal with a whole lot of other habits and actions before the subject of sexual identification even comes up.

Yup.

Bob Hunter

April 19th, 2010, 11:15 AM

While we're trying to define lifestyle, I would just say there is a real blurring of the lines when it comes to sexual behavior and which gender is involved. Lady Gaga, Adam Lambert, Madonna, Brittany Spears, and many other cultural icons have glamorized a lifestyle that involves sexual contact in groups with multiple partners, etc. Guy on guy, girl on girl, or whatever your sexual appetite desires. I would simply point out that whatever lifestyle a person chooses can be devoid of self control and sexual restraint and it can be equally destructive to ones psyche and physical well being. To say "Lifestyle" can be very subjective and prone to a lot of misunderstanding.

Shea Zellweger

April 19th, 2010, 11:37 AM

While we're trying to define lifestyle, I would just say there is a real blurring of the lines when it comes to sexual behavior and which gender is involved. Lady Gaga, Adam Lambert, Madonna, Brittany Spears, and many other cultural icons have glamorized a lifestyle that involves sexual contact in groups with multiple partners, etc. Guy on guy, girl on girl, or whatever your sexual appetite desires.

For the record, Lady Gaga has stated in multiple interviews (including the Cosmo article about her in the issue where she was on the cover), that she is currently celebate, does no drugs, and only drinks in moderation. Her songs are more about fame, money, and dancing than they are about sex. I don't think she deserves to be listed along with Lambert (whose act includes simulating oral sex) or Spears (whose latest single is about a menage a trois)

Ryan Scott

April 19th, 2010, 11:57 AM

For the record, Lady Gaga has stated in multiple interviews (including the Cosmo article about her in the issue where she was on the cover), that she is currently celebate, does no drugs, and only drinks in moderation. Her songs are more about fame, money, and dancing than they are about sex. I don't think she deserves to be listed along with Lambert (whose act includes simulating oral sex) or Spears (whose latest single is about a menage a trois)

Yeah, this isn't really the place for this discussion, but Lady Gaga's whole career is essentially a negative commentary on all the things we've been decrying over the last few posts, although the vast majority of her fans have failed to see the irony, which actually makes it more amusing for the rest of us looking on.

Shea Zellweger

April 19th, 2010, 11:59 AM

Yeah, this isn't really the place for this discussion, but Lady Gaga's whole career is essentially a negative commentary on all the things we've been decrying over the last few posts, although the vast majority of her fans have failed to see the irony, which actually makes it more amusing for the rest of us looking on.

yes it is.

Bob Hunter

April 19th, 2010, 01:17 PM

For the record, Lady Gaga has stated in multiple interviews (including the Cosmo article about her in the issue where she was on the cover), that she is currently celebate, does no drugs, and only drinks in moderation. Her songs are more about fame, money, and dancing than they are about sex. I don't think she deserves to be listed along with Lambert (whose act includes simulating oral sex) or Spears (whose latest single is about a menage a trois)

I actually would include Lady gaga in that group, in previous interviews she has confirmed her bisexual orientation. She has also become a defacto spokesperson for homosexual, bisexual,and transgender issues. Some theorize her latest statements are little more than just publicity. But who really knows (or cares), if her latest video is indication, she has not changed one bit. Like Adam Lambert, she uses imagery of sexual slavery and sado masochism (which is coming out into the mainstream now). I personally couldn't bear to watch it, it was too sexual and dark. Anyway, we live in a sexualized, pornified, perverted world. May God help us.

Shea Zellweger

April 19th, 2010, 05:24 PM

I actually would include Lady gaga in that group, in previous interviews she has confirmed her bisexual orientation. She has also become a defacto spokesperson for homosexual, bisexual,and transgender issues. Some theorize her latest statements are little more than just publicity. But who really knows (or cares), if her latest video is indication, she has not changed one bit. Like Adam Lambert, she uses imagery of sexual slavery and sado masochism (which is coming out into the mainstream now). I personally couldn't bear to watch it, it was too sexual and dark. Anyway, we live in a sexualized, pornified, perverted world. May God help us.

Not much point debating this, I'd just re-iterate what Ryan said:

Yeah, this isn't really the place for this discussion, but Lady Gaga's whole career is essentially a negative commentary on all the things we've been decrying over the last few posts, although the vast majority of her fans have failed to see the irony, which actually makes it more amusing for the rest of us looking on.

Mike McVey

April 19th, 2010, 10:01 PM

I used to frequent Christian bookstores far more than I do now. Lately, it seems I walk in and look around and can't remember my purpose for being there.

Everyone knows that the only valid reason to go to Christian bookstores is to pay less for secular educational material... duh! :p

Seriously, though. When I worked for a Christian bookstore, the secular education materials were the most sold. For places like Family Christian it is to buy things that look nice that can show our Christianity (http://www.zazzle.com/they_will_know_we_are_christians_tshirt-235786357731105599) or something of that sort. Sad, but true.

Brian Postlewait

April 20th, 2010, 01:45 AM

Homosexuality?

Haven't we discussed this already?
:smilies0295:

Life after the crash!

Naznetter #1 "Hey guys, like, remember that time we talked about homosexuality."
Naznetter #2 "Yeah, yeah, I remember."
Naznetter #1 "That was cool." :smilies1722:

I just found out about the big crash yesterday. It was like the rapture happened, and I was left behind. :smilies0295:

Jim Chabot

April 20th, 2010, 05:36 AM

Everyone knows that the only valid reason to go to Christian bookstores is to pay less for secular educational material... duh! :p

Seriously, though. When I worked for a Christian bookstore, the secular education materials were the most sold. For places like Family Christian it is to buy things that look nice that can show our Christianity (http://www.zazzle.com/they_will_know_we_are_christians_tshirt-235786357731105599) or something of that sort. Sad, but true.

No doubt that what you are saying is true, but can we blame them? I get the regular flyers from CBD, and they are filled with "Jesus junk" mostly. I would guess that 80-90 percent of the flyer is devoted to fiction, self help or "study" or other specialty Bibles. They do carry good in depth reference materials and they are very reasonably priced, but the bulk of their advertising is selling fluff.

I don't see them as active self help and life coach promoters, I think that focus is customer driven. This is what the customers want. They need to do this to stay in business. I worry that we are becoming the modern day Church at Laodicea. Are we becoming the generation of "whats in it for me" Christians, looking only for "self help" and pleasant fiction?

Ryan Scott

April 20th, 2010, 07:46 AM

Mike McVey

April 20th, 2010, 02:16 PM

No doubt that what you are saying is true, but can we blame them? I get the regular flyers from CBD, and they are filled with "Jesus junk" mostly. I would guess that 80-90 percent of the flyer is devoted to fiction, self help or "study" or other specialty Bibles. They do carry good in depth reference materials and they are very reasonably priced, but the bulk of their advertising is selling fluff.

I don't see them as active self help and life coach promoters, I think that focus is customer driven. This is what the customers want. They need to do this to stay in business. I worry that we are becoming the modern day Church at Laodicea. Are we becoming the generation of "whats in it for me" Christians, looking only for "self help" and pleasant fiction?

I don't have too much a problem of Christian sectarian culture - making similar products for Christians as opposed to the buying from the secular - as long as the product is quality and that the only difference is one has a semblance of Christ and the other does not. If the products only sell because they are Christian-esque, than they are probably not worth buying. I used to think all of the t's were awesome witnesses, but ultimately only other Christians appreciated the messages. Christian music has made many leaps and strides in production value, but let us be honest: most Christian music is valued in a devotional or feel good sense than because of the quality. But what if instead of being a Christian bookstore, band, shirt company, etc. they are just a bookstore, band, or shirt company?

This is the problem when we try to create our own subculture from the rest of the world. We create these illusions that there will be no way for these companies to make money. If the product is a shoddy rip-off, then I don't care if they stay a business. CBD and some of these bookstores at least offer some quality product. The ones that call churches to sell shirts, mugs, pen, candy, etc. do not. They expend much energy to try and convince you how you need their product without telling any real benefits. If one is dumb enough to ask for a sample (which I have done now twice - I must be double dumb) it almost costs you more to send it back than it does to buy the sample.

My problem with these 'Christian' business/bands is that I don't see the marks of Christ in how they do business. But we 'Christians' have no problem questioning and condemning a young lady who is feels like the church has no place for her.

Todd Erickson

April 20th, 2010, 04:08 PM

My problem with these 'Christian' business/bands is that I don't see the marks of Christ in how they do business. But we 'Christians' have no problem questioning and condemning a young lady who is feels like the church has no place for her.

Hey, the moment she's willing to get right with God and get rid of the sin in her life, I'm sure that the church will be willing to welcome her.

Ryan Scott

April 20th, 2010, 04:18 PM

Hey, the moment she's willing to get right with God and get rid of the sin in her life, I'm sure that the church will be willing to welcome her.

That's generally how we do things. Thank God no one knows my secrets!

Todd Erickson

April 20th, 2010, 06:50 PM

That's generally how we do things. Thank God no one knows my secrets!

I'm glad to know that we all affirm the standard that no sinners are allowed at church.

James Johnson

April 20th, 2010, 07:13 PM

Hating the sin is not the same as hating the sinner. I will never condone the homosexual lifestyle anymore than I would condone anyother sin. I have never seen a person that I would not invite into my church. Matthew 22:9-10 tells us to "invite everyone" both the "good and bad". But I also realize that Matthew 7:13-14 tells us that MOST are not going to make it into God's kingdom. My job as a Christian is to invite ALL in, not to choose who I think is worthy, because I myself am not worthy.

Todd Erickson

April 20th, 2010, 08:47 PM

I will never condone the homosexual lifestyle

As I was saying.

James Johnson

April 20th, 2010, 08:49 PM

As I said, I do not condone sin!

Todd Erickson

April 20th, 2010, 08:57 PM

As I said, I do not condone sin!

And you're labeling the type of sin as well. The nazarene church upholds people having a homosexual attraction without acting on it, and states that that is not sinful. She is stating that she is gay. You appear to be stating that, contrary to the statement of the church, she is already in sin because she is gay, and have decided what lifestyle she is living.

Benjamin Burch

April 20th, 2010, 09:15 PM

And you're labeling the type of sin as well. The nazarene church upholds people having a homosexual attraction without acting on it, and states that that is not sinful. She is stating that she is gay. You appear to be stating that, contrary to the statement of the church, she is already in sin because she is gay, and have decided what lifestyle she is living.

Actually, she claims, in a very straight forward fashion, that she is in a same-sex relationship. I assume that doesn't mean it's a celibate relationship. I don't think Jim is doing any labeling here. I think that she has clearly crossed the line of what our church would say is "sinful."

Jim Chabot

April 20th, 2010, 09:15 PM

My problem with these 'Christian' business/bands is that I don't see the marks of Christ in how they do business. But we 'Christians' have no problem questioning and condemning a young lady who is feels like the church has no place for her.

Yeah, I'm not sure how we got there. I agree, I don't see the witness in some "christian" artists and I don't buy their stuff, and I don't use their songs. I don't know for sure who is and who isn't genuine, so I need to just do the best I can. I do know that most of the "christian" labels are not owned by Christians, and that troubles me. Brentwood-Benson is owned by Sony, Word is owned by Warner. I guess business is business?

As far as questioning her. She is claiming two things, she claims to be a Christian and she claims to be a practicing homosexual, or at least that is what I am hearing. If so, then what are the churches instructions to deal with this situation. Unless I am off or missing something here, I believe that the process involves an attempt by one then others then the church to reconcile this, followed by shunning for lack of a better term with hopes of redemption. Is that correct or not?

James Johnson

April 20th, 2010, 09:16 PM

Perhaps you should read my whole statement again Todd.

And for the record, I don't care what the CON say's is sin and not sin. :tongue:

Ryan Scott

April 20th, 2010, 09:20 PM

Unless I am off or missing something here, I believe that the process involves an attempt by one then others then the church to reconcile this, followed by shunning for lack of a better term with hopes of redemption. Is that correct or not?

Maybe if she were in your congregation. The fact is we have brothers and sisters in Christ who are homosexuals, some who are practicing, and many others who affirm these relationships. There are a lot of things over which I disagree with Christians on any number of things, at times there might be something over which I would break communion - I'm not sure shunning is something I'd resort to.

Jim Chabot

April 20th, 2010, 09:21 PM

You need to buy a couple of scholarly work through them. I got a CBD gift certificate at my seminary graduation. I bought a number of books that never appear in their catalog, but show up on their website. With the order I got this cool little catalog full of professional and scholarly works available from CBD.

Oh I have, and I have been surprised at the low prices. Sadly, I believe that the prices are low because no one is buying these works any more. A while back I got the works of John Wesley in seven hardcover volumes for $49.95

Jim Chabot

April 20th, 2010, 09:33 PM

Maybe if she were in your congregation. The fact is we have brothers and sisters in Christ who are homosexuals, some who are practicing, and many others who affirm these relationships. There are a lot of things over which I disagree with Christians on any number of things, at times there might be something over which I would break communion - I'm not sure shunning is something I'd resort to.

I have had to do this. A friend of my wife attends a baptist church in town where we have attended years ago. Her husband decided that he was gay and has openly admitted to a relationship with another man. I and others went to him in an attempt to reconcile, he refused. The church board voted to take action in accordance with our instructions to treat him as an unbeliever. Paul's instructions in Corinthians are clear he says not to keep company with them and not to eat with them, it is a difficult thing, an unpleasant thing and it is done with a heavy heart, but it is required of us.

Jim Chabot

April 20th, 2010, 09:37 PM

Hey, the moment she's willing to get right with God and get rid of the sin in her life, I'm sure that the church will be willing to welcome her.

Exactly right, and that is how we are instructed to act. You can be in open sexual sin and the church should welcome you. You can be a Christian and the church should welcome you. Pick one for you cannot be both. And please let's not go of on a tangent about any and all sin. There is a list.

Ryan Scott

April 20th, 2010, 09:47 PM

Mike McVey

April 20th, 2010, 10:11 PM

Actually, she claims, in a very straight forward fashion, that she is in a same-sex relationship. I assume that doesn't mean it's a celibate relationship. I don't think Jim is doing any labeling here. I think that she has clearly crossed the line of what our church would say is "sinful."

See, that is my problem here. We assume that she is or isn't in a celibate relationship. I think it takes tremendous guts for anyone to openly admit to CT that she is gay. If you read any of the comments off the CT article, half the people are ready to condemn her to hell. Even the reactions on this forum are a bit unsettling regardless of our viewpoint.

If she was telling CT for the purposes of bragging or sticking it to the church, then the feelings behind the commenters are understanding. But I do not find that her posture in the interview. I hear someone being honest when asked directly a question that if we were asked seriously most of us would probably be embarrassed or upset.

Also, I wonder how many people in our churches read the interview and because of the responses on these two forums have decided it is better to have the sin of lying on top of being homosexual.

If we want relationships to be reconciled and redeemed, the church (meaning the people) need to give places where others can confess their sins and have a true opportunity to repent. I doubt CT is the forum for that.

Jim Chabot

April 20th, 2010, 10:12 PM

Did you ban him from worship? There has to be some difference between pretending nothing changed and shunning.

He doesn't attend my church, he attends the baptist church where I live. No they did not ban him from worship, the deacons considered both 1 Corinthians 5 which requires shunning, and Matthew 18 which instructs us to deem him as a heathen. Since we welcome unbelievers into the church, they feel that he should be allowed to come. I don't believe that they would allow him to take communion. He has not returned to church.

I'm I guess concerned. Do they not teach this stuff in University these days. This is all pretty basic stuff, very rarely used thankfully, but basic nonetheless.

Bear in mind that no one is condemning this man, people are concerned about him, people are praying for him, and for his family to be restored and reconciled. The real victim here is his wife and his family. Sin doesn't occur in a vacuum, it causes harm.

Shea Zellweger

April 20th, 2010, 10:38 PM

I have had to do this. A friend of my wife attends a baptist church in town where we have attended years ago. Her husband decided that he was gay and has openly admitted to a relationship with another man. I and others went to him in an attempt to reconcile, he refused. The church board voted to take action in accordance with our instructions to treat him as an unbeliever. Paul's instructions in Corinthians are clear he says not to keep company with them and not to eat with them, it is a difficult thing, an unpleasant thing and it is done with a heavy heart, but it is required of us.

Sure, except Paul's words about not even eating with people is 1 Cor 5:11, and it does not mention homosexuality. Let's also look at some of the other things in the same verse (using NIV):
Sexually immoral- Sexual immorality is very prevalent among all people. If you found out a teen in the church was sexually active, would you refuse to even eat with that person?
Greedy- Hey, Greed is an American virtue these days...
Idolater- yeah, that's a lot of the church as well
Slanderer- Gossip spreads faster in the church than in any other social structure of which I have been a part
Drunkard- we welcome people with addictions with open arms in hopes that we'll have an opportunity to help them later on.
Swindler- well, can't say I really know any "swindlers," but I'm sure there are a few in the church here and there, and I sincerely doubt the deacons of the church are meeting together to decide whether or not to shun them.

In 1 Cor 6:9, sexual immorality is again listed alongside a term that some have translated as "homosexual offenders," although that is not the only acceptable translation of the term.

It is the paramount of selective adherence to pluck one example of one portion of a verse and enforce it while almost completely ignoring the remainder, as the majority of churches have done.

Mike McVey

April 20th, 2010, 11:14 PM

In 1 Cor 6:9, sexual immorality is again listed alongside a term that some have translated as "homosexual offenders," although that is not the only acceptable translation of the term.

It is the paramount of selective adherence to pluck one example of one portion of a verse and enforce it while almost completely ignoring the remainder, as the majority of churches have done.

How dare you use context to illustrate your point?

Benjamin Burch

April 20th, 2010, 11:57 PM

See, that is my problem here. We assume that she is or isn't in a celibate relationship. I think it takes tremendous guts for anyone to openly admit to CT that she is gay. If you read any of the comments off the CT article, half the people are ready to condemn her to hell. Even the reactions on this forum are a bit unsettling regardless of our viewpoint.

If she was telling CT for the purposes of bragging or sticking it to the church, then the feelings behind the commenters are understanding. But I do not find that her posture in the interview. I hear someone being honest when asked directly a question that if we were asked seriously most of us would probably be embarrassed or upset.

Also, I wonder how many people in our churches read the interview and because of the responses on these two forums have decided it is better to have the sin of lying on top of being homosexual.

If we want relationships to be reconciled and redeemed, the church (meaning the people) need to give places where others can confess their sins and have a true opportunity to repent. I doubt CT is the forum for that.

I'm sorry. I asked all of my homosexual friends (all 6 of them) and they all said that when she says "in a same-sex relationship", they would naturally assume that means it's not celibate. They said they'd be very surprised if it were, as they think she'd say it differently. I apologize if I was wrong to assume.

Jim Chabot

April 21st, 2010, 06:22 AM

Sure, except Paul's words about not even eating with people is 1 Cor 5:11, and it does not mention homosexuality. Let's also look at some of the other things in the same verse (using NIV):
Sexually immoral- Sexual immorality is very prevalent among all people. If you found out a teen in the church was sexually active, would you refuse to even eat with that person?
Greedy- Hey, Greed is an American virtue these days...
Idolater- yeah, that's a lot of the church as well
Slanderer- Gossip spreads faster in the church than in any other social structure of which I have been a part
Drunkard- we welcome people with addictions with open arms in hopes that we'll have an opportunity to help them later on.
Swindler- well, can't say I really know any "swindlers," but I'm sure there are a few in the church here and there, and I sincerely doubt the deacons of the church are meeting together to decide whether or not to shun them.

In 1 Cor 6:9, sexual immorality is again listed alongside a term that some have translated as "homosexual offenders," although that is not the only acceptable translation of the term.

It is the paramount of selective adherence to pluck one example of one portion of a verse and enforce it while almost completely ignoring the remainder, as the majority of churches have done.

"As the majority of churches have done" Shea that has to be the worst possible justification for your argument. By this logic we are bound by the sins of our past and are doomed to repeat them until the nest reformation. We are called to follow our Lord and adhere to his instruction, we have plenty of past wrongs that we can bring to remembrance both individually and corporately. Our calling is to look forward and to earnestly seek his will. He commands us to love him and each other, how else should we do that other than to seek his will. "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father in Heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother." "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." "Trust the Lord with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding." How many reminders do we need, we need to seek his manner of Love, our own inventions are insufficient, disobedient and I suggest that they are actually unloving as well.

So yes for your list Shea, absolutely yes, in for a dime in for a dollar. Do you think that just because the discussion os about a person who has fallen into the sin of homosexuality, that we ignore the rest. Oh I see, the majority of churches has done so, therefore one can paint with a broad brush? We are all guilty, we must all repeat the sins of the past. Where is the story of redemption in this logic, I don't see it. Where does redemption fit in with the practice of condoning sin under the guise of love? Yes, yes, lets just make people feel happy content and welcomed as they pass this way to hell! I understand that it is the spirits job to convict of sin, we also play a part, in fact we are instructed to do this.

So how about your list?

A teen who is sexually active? Firstly does this person claim to be a Christian? If not then there is no problem. If so, then you bet, absolutely I would not eat with that person, I would explain why. I would do it in as gentle and loving a manner as possible, we need to have the courage to do the hard things as well as the easy. It is not loving to pass it off as God's problem when he has clearly asked that we help in this regard. So as not to have to repeat myself for the rest of the list, this is the thought throughout.

Greedy? That may take some discernment, and that's a whole other discussion. I can tell you that the right wing cranks are in a much better position to deal with this.

Idolater? Yes it needs to be dealt with where it exists, and please let's not drop it down to the level of watching football on a Sunday or something equally foolish. Idolatery is serious, it does indeed jeopardize salvation. Actually if it poses no danger to a person's salvation, then maybe it isn't Idolatry?

Slanderer? Now that's the best one yet. I can tell you a story about a good friend of mine who was accused publicly of slander by his pastor. Yes he skipped the preliminary steps and went public first off, I would maintain that the pastor's actions may actually constitute slander on it's own merit. I can tell you that if this situation had been dealt with properly, the concerned nazarene's would be much smaller in number.

Drunkard? Yes we welcome them, of course we do. When one makes a confession of faith, and becomes a follower of Christ, we are instructed that the dynamic changes and we must change with our instruction. So yes we are not to condone this either.

Swindler? Maybe the best on the list. Wow I would love to see this one take off. I have seen plenty of swindlers in the church, roaming around like so many wolves seeking to gain. How about if someone were taken advantage of, they would go to the person, then bring others, than bring it to the church? Wow, what a concept, I'm getting goosebumps just thinking about it. How many do you know that have been taken advantage of, only to retreat into a shell feeling powerless to do anything. Wow, this is sermon material!

I'm also thinking back to the thread about the play at ENC last year. There was a valid point raised about how the complainer did not follow the biblical mandate found in Matthew 18, and I agree it was not followed. I'm curious though, would we agree to actually follow through when someone does use the proper prescription. Would a person who felt wronged have any hope that the church would follow through on their end of the deal. My guess would be no, for the majority of churches have plenty of rugs to sweep things under. Why do we repeat the mistakes of the past when there is a better way?

And Shea, I need to add that this isn't about homosexuality, not at all. This is about public sin and homosexuality just happens to be the one up at bat, it is no worse nor any better than the others listed.

Jim Chabot

April 21st, 2010, 06:28 AM

I'm sorry. I asked all of my homosexual friends (all 6 of them) and they all said that when she says "in a same-sex relationship", they would naturally assume that means it's not celibate. They said they'd be very surprised if it were, as they think she'd say it differently. I apologize if I was wrong to assume.

Ben you were not wrong, not at all. As Americans we follow the utmost in caution when we say that we must find beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course we only do this in criminal cases, where imprisonment could be the outcome. If we seek civil damages, our standard changes to find by the preponderance of the evidence, in other words, it is more likely than not.

Your assumption passes the question of reasonable doubt. No reasonable person would assume otherwise. If she is attending a church, someone should ask her. That is the proper course of action, but will anyone do that?

Todd Erickson

April 21st, 2010, 08:26 AM

So, I'm going to start shunning the following people from my church:

A. Those who are divisive.
B. Those who are inhosptiable.
C. Those who are not charitable.
D. Those who are not patient (have to shun myself here. Hrm. How do I biblically shun myself?)
E. Those who do not love their enemies
F. Those who are scornful

Hrm. I guess I have to stop going to church.

Ryan Scott

April 21st, 2010, 08:26 AM

I'm I guess concerned. Do they not teach this stuff in University these days. This is all pretty basic stuff, very rarely used thankfully, but basic nonetheless.

I don't know the situation, so it's pretty tough to know how I'd handle it. For me, though, the bigger issue in this situation is the betrayal of family and marriage. At least initially, my primary concern would be this betrayal, not so much who it was he was cheating with. I don't have much problem with the community handling the situation in this way (assuming it was done with loving and redemptive purposes), but more why it came up in this thread.

Jennfier Knapp wasn't married, nor does she appear to be worshiping in a community that has issue with her lifestyle. I just do see how this example has a bearing on this particular situation.

Shea Zellweger

April 21st, 2010, 10:28 AM

Mike McVey

April 21st, 2010, 11:32 AM

Your assumption passes the question of reasonable doubt. No reasonable person would assume otherwise. If she is attending a church, someone should ask her. That is the proper course of action, but will anyone do that?

So now we are the judge and jury?

Someone did ask her. She said no.

Mike McVey

April 21st, 2010, 11:38 AM

I'm sorry. I asked all of my homosexual friends (all 6 of them) and they all said that when she says "in a same-sex relationship", they would naturally assume that means it's not celibate. They said they'd be very surprised if it were, as they think she'd say it differently. I apologize if I was wrong to assume.

Sorry, Ben. Your post had the words I wanted to reply to even though I was not necessarily replying to you. An area that I grew up that wasn't far from Knapp's hometown in Kansas had a slightly different meaning. It just meant they found a life partner, regardless of sexual encounters. I have made some assumptions, too. The thing is that we don't know, and scrutinizing her words in the way we are bothers me. Several of us have made statements on her relationship with God without having hardly any information. Whether she is in 'sexually active' or not is besides the point when people say that she may or may not allow God to change the pattern of her life.

Hal Kreps

April 21st, 2010, 12:52 PM

Who is Jennifer Knapp?

Jim Chabot

April 21st, 2010, 12:53 PM

Jim,
If you genuinely are an "equal opportunity" shunner, then fine. I disagree with the actions, but at least you're consistent. However, your post, as you pointed out at least twice, was not about you. It was about a Baptist church close to you and how they dealt with your wife's friend's gay husband. Does that church call a meeting of the elders every time they find out someone in their church has done something on that list?

My point here is not about "repeating the sins of the past" as you've suggested. It's that you can't adhere to half (or 1/20th, or 1%...) of a rule. As you said, "in for a dime, in for a dollar." Does a church that will not shun the drunkard, the slanderer, or the swindler really have any justification for shunning the homosexual? No, because they have shown by their actions that they do not take 1 Cor. 5 as an applicable command, so doing so would be the height of hypocrisy, which was the sin Jesus preached most against. If they want to start removing all sinners from their fellowship, that's another story, but they're going to end up with a pretty empty church. Just because someone's sin is made public does not make it somehow worse than the many private sins which nearly all people commit. This may be a horribly unWesleyan statement for me to make, but I have sincere doubts that there is anyone who has not at some point in his or her Christian life fallen into habitual sin. If we're going to start refusing fellowship with everyone who does, then every church will be roughly the same size as mine, if not smaller.

Yes I agree with you wholeheartedly, one needs to be for the whole dollar, that is the point. However the shame of only being in for the dime should case one to seek to be in for the dollar, rather than fall back on our own thoughts and our logic. We need to have faith that God knows what he is doing. You know, I wish that someone could convey this to the State Police, or the Courts, because they stop less than 1% of those who habitually go over the speed limit and I would like to remind them that they have no moral authority to charge me.

I also agree that many at some point have fallen into habitual sin, I'll admit to that myself. But habitual sin is only the issue with the Matthew 18 solution, which falls short of shunning. To follow the advice given in 1 Corinthians 5, we need to confine ourselves to "the list" and we need to be careful.

What I find most interesting is that both of these procedures or solutions come from the grass roots. The church as a whole only gets involved if the problem reaches the bitter end. There is no place for busy-body pastor's or boards, they get involved when all else fails.

And no this particular Church does not call a meeting every time someone does something on the list, in fact this is only the third time I have seen it used there, in the 25 years that I have lived here. Remember this needs to start out as a one on one conversation, there needs to be a steadfast refusal to repent. If we are to continue to fellowship with those who steadfastly refuse to repent, I will gladly go to a church smaller than yours, or stay home.

You aren't arguing against me, you are arguing against what Jesus and Paul instructed us to do. I don't believe that they contradict wither themselves or one another. But I also wouldn't really care if they did.

Jim Chabot

April 21st, 2010, 01:01 PM

So now we are the judge and jury?

Someone did ask her. She said no.

Hey that's great! Would have saved us a bunch of time if you had said that earlier. But she has said more than that.

"Before Knapp met her girlfriend in the United States, she was celibate for 10 years, which she says is in line with the general expectation for unmarried members of the evangelical community.

"Anyone who has a decade of celibacy has 'complete loser' written on their back," she joked, although she still respects those who do abstain. "

Oops forgot one.

"I'm definitely getting a lot more friendly winks from the girls (at her concerts) than I have in the past!"

And she understands that she should be in mainstream music. I find that encouraging.

"I just wouldn't find it respectful at all to say, 'Hey, this is something that you want in your store next to your Jesus statue,'" she said. "It would just be disingenuous to try and convince someone that they needed to do that."

Cynthia Prentice

April 21st, 2010, 01:04 PM

Hey...this thread has almost 2500 views...it is full of intense discussion and is primarily focused on the subject of homsexuality. Naznet is definately back on line.

I'd love to have a thread with 2500 views, intense discussion and have it focused on a different sin...malicious gossip. It keeps those who are struggling with problems...or sin...or shame etc...it keeps them masked, veiled, shackled, broken and alone with no safe place to go to find people...to find a community who will love them and help unbind them. If it is present and pervasive it destroys community and/or renders it impotent. I think it is easy for people to rank homosexuality as one of the top sins. But I vote for malicious gossip. The writers of the New Testament could have called the adversary to freedom, the "Devil", by any name. They could have chosen murderer, rapist, child molester, homosexual etc...but they chose the word diabolos...traducer. I truly believe it would be good to cross homosexual off the top of the list and replace it with this.

Shea Zellweger

April 21st, 2010, 01:07 PM

Hey...this thread has almost 2500 views...it is full of intense discussion and is primarily focused on the subject of homsexuality. Naznet is definately back on line.

I'd love to have a thread with 2500 views, intense discussion and focused on a different sin...malicious gossip. It keeps those who are struggling with problems...or sin...or shame etc...it keeps them masked, veiled, shackled, broken and alone with no safe place to go to find people...to find a community who will love them and help unbind them. If it is present and pervasive it distroys community and/or renders it impotent.

I agree. However, I am grateful for the courteous manner in which people have interacted here so far. This thread has caused much less emotional distress than several threads on this topic did BC.

Jim Chabot

April 21st, 2010, 01:15 PM

Cynthia Prentice

April 21st, 2010, 01:18 PM

I agree. However, I am grateful for the courteous manner in which people have interacted here so far. This thread has caused much less emotional distress than several threads on this topic did BC.

I agree Shea..I should have included in my comment that it isn't directed to the people on this thread. I guess I'm thinking of all the people...dare I say lurkers who are drawn to a controversial topic like this. Would a thread on gossip generate the same traffic? I don't know..but my guess would be that it wouldn't. Yet, I can think of no sin that has been more destructive (and dare I say tolerated) in the Church of the Nazarene...than the sin of malicous gossip.

Mike McVey

April 21st, 2010, 01:24 PM

Hey that's great! Would have saved us a bunch of time if you had said that earlier. But she has said more than that.

"Before Knapp met her girlfriend in the United States, she was celibate for 10 years, which she says is in line with the general expectation for unmarried members of the evangelical community.

"Anyone who has a decade of celibacy has 'complete loser' written on their back," she joked, although she still respects those who do abstain. "

Oops forgot one.

"I'm definitely getting a lot more friendly winks from the girls (at her concerts) than I have in the past!"

And she understands that she should be in mainstream music. I find that encouraging.

"I just wouldn't find it respectful at all to say, 'Hey, this is something that you want in your store next to your Jesus statue,'" she said. "It would just be disingenuous to try and convince someone that they needed to do that."

Okay, I misread part of what you stated earlier. I thought you said, "Does she go to church? Someone should ask her." What you wrote was, "If she is attending a church, someone should ask her." That was I responding to when I said she said no. I have no idea where these quotes are coming from as they were not in the article. So can you at least cite the source?

Ryan Scott

April 21st, 2010, 01:45 PM

Are we afraid of homosexuals? I say this not as an accusation of anyone, but simply as an attempt to analyze my own reactions. I have a number of gay relatives and friends, people with whom I have close relationships. Still, often when I'm around them I have a tense feeling. This is similar to the feeling I have speaking with friends who live together unmarried or when someone orders a beer at dinner. I have this feeling even if these people do not claim Christ.

I suspect for evangelicals, regarding sexual issues, and Nazarenes regarding alcohol, these are taboo things we've grown up to dread even the discussion of. Intellectually these are not difficult situations for me and I don't actually have trouble acting as I wish, but it bothers me that I get the feeling anyway.

In the same way I intellectually understand those people around me who have issues with taking care of their bodies, or gossiping about people, or being controlling, or inconsiderate or any other thing I consider less than ideal. Some "issues" in life are normal to me and others are especially "scary" (it seems like the only correct word, yet its not a perfect description). Is homosexuality something that has been public discussion for most people only recently and that's why it creates extra tension for us?

I think back to when another "Christian" singer, Amy Grant, left her husband for another man - the couple continue to this day to proclaim that God brought them together. There was a lot of backlash from Christians and she put out a couple "secular" albums. After a few years it all blew over and she was welcomed back to the fold.

Again, I don't want to make accusations of anyone, as I see this tension in myself most of all, but I wonder how much homosexuality has to do with the treatment here and if Jennifer Knapp would ever be welcomed back with open arms in the CCM community that once loved her so much.

What is the relationship between our reactions to divorce and remarriage and our reaction to homosexuality.

Mike McVey

April 21st, 2010, 01:58 PM

Jim Chabot

April 21st, 2010, 02:23 PM

Okay, I misread part of what you stated earlier. I thought you said, "Does she go to church? Someone should ask her." What you wrote was, "If she is attending a church, someone should ask her." That was I responding to when I said she said no. I have no idea where these quotes are coming from as they were not in the article. So can you at least cite the source?

No problem Mike, that makes much more sense. I only went looking for info, because I thought maybe I had missed something, and I'm sure that I have because I haven't spent much time looking.

Anyways the quotes came from the Washington Post article (link below) I didn't have any particular reason to go there, it was there on a long list of google possibilities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041303136.html

Jim Chabot

April 21st, 2010, 02:42 PM

Hi Ryan:

I can honestly say that I'm not afraid of homosexuals, and if they are not saved then the sin issue is nonexistent Same goes for heterosexuals engaged in divorce, promiscuity, prostitution, whatever, sin is not an issue. I do feel some tension around anyone who is unsaved, I realize what their end will be, and I also realize that their happiness isn't real, there is a better way.

Once someone claims Christ as their own, things are different. I don't view homosexual christians any different that I would view christians sleeping around, getting divorced and remarried, the whole gamut whatever. When one claims Christ and also claims sin, they pervert the gospel with their justification.

Amy Grant is a good example of a bad example. I have no qualms in saying that God did not bring them together. Amy is either deluded or lying, one cannot call sin good, even worse to say that God actually had a part in sin. And yes you are right she was eventually welcomed back into the fold. Shame on us that we would do such a thing.

Will Jennifer Knapp be welcomed back. I really don't know anything about her or her music, but I would guess that she will be welcomed back after an appropriate time to forget. Oh well at least grace will abound!

And as Shea has pointed out, I am equal opportunity. There is no difference between divorce with remarriage and homosexuality.

Mike McVey

April 21st, 2010, 02:46 PM

No problem Mike, that makes much more sense. I only went looking for info, because I thought maybe I had missed something, and I'm sure that I have because I haven't spent much time looking.

Anyways the quotes came from the Washington Post article (link below) I didn't have any particular reason to go there, it was there on a long list of google possibilities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041303136.html

Well, this article is definitely disappointing to me. I guess it shows that CT still doesn't know how to interview... or that they refuse to in case they might lose readers. :(

George Wallace

April 21st, 2010, 03:41 PM

Ryan Scott

April 21st, 2010, 03:54 PM

Benjamin Burch

April 21st, 2010, 03:54 PM

Shea Zellweger

April 21st, 2010, 04:02 PM

Maybe I am simple minded, but I think many posts here are mixing apples and oranges.

Isn’t there a huge difference between a believer struggling with sin, a pattern or previous pattern of sin in their life of; say greed, gambling or some sort of an addiction, homosexual activity….what have you - AND a person who claims to be a believer yet willfully refuses to give up a sin or pattern of sin?

Yes.

Don’t Knapp’s comment place her in the later category?

I don't think so. Let's just pretend for a minute here that I do not have a reputation on this site for defending gay people, and that I fully agree with those of you who think living as an openly gay person in a homosexual relationship is sinful. Even then, I don't know that she is guilty of what you suggest here, because I don't see anywhere in her interviews where she acknowledges her lifestyle as sinful. Let's face it, there is no church which adheres to every command in Scripture, and most have taken the time to theologize away this or that command or statement. For the Church of the Nazarene, it's things like "women should remain silent in Church." For the hardcore Calvinist, it's denying that the author of Hebrews really believed it was possible to lose one's salvation. And for at least some within the Christian community, it's the 8 or so verses which appear to condemn homosexuality. Are they wrong? Perhaps, but are they willfully sinning? I don't think so. If you tell her that she is living in sin, and she says "I disagree," is she willfully sinning, or does she simply have a different understanding of those eight scriptures, perhaps informed by one of several individuals, both straight and gay, who have demonstrated how it's a hard sell to compare homosexual activity in Bible times to the sort of gay romance that occurs today? I don't know too many people who say "yeah, I know it's a sin, but I'm gonna do it anyway." I know plenty who disagree with me about something being a sin, and plenty more who agree about it being a sin, but have not yet found a way to be free from the addictive power of a given sin (the use of pornography, for example), and no, it's not always as easy as saying a tidy little prayer for deliverance and then letting God take it from there. So until such time as she is convicted to acknowledge her homosexual activity as inherently sinful, I don't think we can say that she is willfully sinning.

Shea Zellweger

April 21st, 2010, 04:04 PM

I think the whole issue is complicated because there are a lot of Christian who would not consider homosexual "marriage" (not so much in a legal sense, but as a way to define a committed, lifelong relationship) as sinful. And while we may disagree with their claims, they can't be dismissed out of hand. I'd equate it to perhaps a Christian group that allows for polygamy - that issue is much more complicated to deal with, especially in a group of which we're not a part.

I actually don't think that's an apt comparison. There is no biblical admonition against polygamy (except perhaps in the case of deacons and overseers, depending how you read that verse), while there are several verses which at the very least appear to be condemning homosexual relationships. I'd say it's more comparable to women in ministry, and whether it's a universal or specific command.

Todd Erickson

April 21st, 2010, 04:14 PM

I actually don't think that's an apt comparison. There is no biblical admonition against polygamy (except perhaps in the case of deacons and overseers, depending how you read that verse), while there are several verses which at the very least appear to be condemning homosexual relationships. I'd say it's more comparable to women in ministry, and whether it's a universal or specific command.

Actually, all of the verses regarding homosexuality appear to take place outside of relationship, so far as i can tell. I haven't seen anything which can clearly argue that the language (hebrew or greek) argues for relationship.

Shea Zellweger

April 21st, 2010, 04:19 PM

Actually, all of the verses regarding homosexuality appear to take place outside of relationship, so far as i can tell. I haven't seen anything which can clearly argue that the language (hebrew or greek) argues for relationship.

I agree, but there are still verses which speak specifically to homosexual intercourse of some kind. What we don't see is a similar statement about polygamy.

Todd Erickson

April 21st, 2010, 04:32 PM

I agree, but there are still verses which speak specifically to homosexual intercourse of some kind. What we don't see is a similar statement about polygamy.

True. I've just had to do a lot of research on this lately, and I wanted to be precise.

Looking at the bludgeon verses, they all apply to specific situations or circumstances. The Levitical ones are suspect anyway, being in context of other verses which we ignore (we don't stone our children at the gates, etc.) and so arguing points about gay marriage from them is extremely difficult. If there is going to be a condemnation of what Ms. Knapp is doing, to my mind it has to come from outside of those verses.

George Wallace

April 21st, 2010, 05:20 PM

We’ll (as usual) have to agre to disagree, because I think this:

"yeah, I know it's a sin, but I'm gonna do it anyway." …Is exactly what she is doing. Whether by word and action or just action it appears to me to be willful disobedience.

So until such time as she is convicted to acknowledge her homosexual activity as inherently sinful, I don't think we can say that she is willfully sinning

Again, I’m having trouble tracking with your logic here. (It could be my more broad definition of sin, but I think there is more to it than that.) Seems like you are saying all, or most behavior is fine as long as a person is not convicted that is sin.

Does sin become sin only when we realize it is sin?

James Johnson

April 21st, 2010, 05:23 PM

Can someone show me where God approves same sex sexual relationships? It is clear in the scripture that God approves man and woman, but never same sex.

Benjamin Burch

April 21st, 2010, 05:31 PM

Can someone show me where God approves same sex sexual relationships? It is clear in the scripture that God approves man and woman, but never same sex.

It's not really a matter of it showing God "approves" it. If everything Christians approved of must be found in the Bible, we'd be on a very short list and be in a LOT of trouble.

It really has a lot more to do with "is there good grounds on which to condemn the action, Biblically?"

Andy Mistak

April 21st, 2010, 07:08 PM

Does sin become sin only when we realize it is sin?

Yes. You can't hold anyone else accountable for your convictions.

Shea Zellweger

April 21st, 2010, 07:26 PM

We’ll (as usual) have to agre to disagree, because I think this:
…Is exactly what she is doing. Whether by word and action or just action it appears to me to be willful disobedience.

Again, I’m having trouble tracking with your logic here. (It could be my more broad definition of sin, but I think there is more to it than that.) Seems like you are saying all, or most behavior is fine as long as a person is not convicted that is sin.

Does sin become sin only when we realize it is sin?

Paul seemed to think so:

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Jim Chabot

April 21st, 2010, 07:34 PM

Yes.

I don't think so. Let's just pretend for a minute here that I do not have a reputation on this site for defending gay people, and that I fully agree with those of you who think living as an openly gay person in a homosexual relationship is sinful. Even then, I don't know that she is guilty of what you suggest here, because I don't see anywhere in her interviews where she acknowledges her lifestyle as sinful. Let's face it, there is no church which adheres to every command in Scripture, and most have taken the time to theologize away this or that command or statement. For the Church of the Nazarene, it's things like "women should remain silent in Church." For the hardcore Calvinist, it's denying that the author of Hebrews really believed it was possible to lose one's salvation. And for at least some within the Christian community, it's the 8 or so verses which appear to condemn homosexuality. Are they wrong? Perhaps, but are they willfully sinning? I don't think so. If you tell her that she is living in sin, and she says "I disagree," is she willfully sinning, or does she simply have a different understanding of those eight scriptures, perhaps informed by one of several individuals, both straight and gay, who have demonstrated how it's a hard sell to compare homosexual activity in Bible times to the sort of gay romance that occurs today? I don't know too many people who say "yeah, I know it's a sin, but I'm gonna do it anyway." I know plenty who disagree with me about something being a sin, and plenty more who agree about it being a sin, but have not yet found a way to be free from the addictive power of a given sin (the use of pornography, for example), and no, it's not always as easy as saying a tidy little prayer for deliverance and then letting God take it from there. So until such time as she is convicted to acknowledge her homosexual activity as inherently sinful, I don't think we can say that she is willfully sinning.

Shea, I have no problem forgetting that you have a propensity to defend gay people. And I can appreciate that you are commenting on the nature of sin in general here, and have introduced her situation into the general comment because that is the topic at hand. I can hear what you are saying, especially the part about how a tidy little prayer of deliverance is sometimes ineffective. I hear you as well when you speak to the blind spots that are common to man.

But.

Shea Zellweger

April 21st, 2010, 07:35 PM

Shea, I have no problem forgetting that you have a propensity to defend gay people. And I can appreciate that you are commenting on the nature of sin in general here, and have introduced her situation into the general comment because that is the topic at hand. I can hear what you are saying, especially the part about how a tidy little prayer of deliverance is sometimes ineffective. I hear you as well when you speak to the blind spots that are common to man.

But.

Did you really just end a post with "but."? Do you have any idea how much I am on the edge of my seat right now? :)

Jim Chabot

April 21st, 2010, 08:18 PM

Did you really just end a post with "but."? Do you have any idea how much I am on the edge of my seat right now? :)

:smilies0295::smilies0295: Um, yeah, I guess I did do that didn't I.:smilies0295::smilies0295:

I did have more, I meant to press the button to go to advance and add smiley faces and all that stuff, as it turns out the one that says "post reply" doesn't do that.:smilies1722:

And then I thought. Hmmm, it looks good that way. I like it!

But I can't leave you on the edge of your seat so here goes.

She knows full well that she is living in sin, she has tried (10 years) to deal with it and she has failed, she is tired of fighting and now she feels that maybe this will become mainstream.

Just a guess.

Shea Zellweger

April 21st, 2010, 08:39 PM

:smilies0295::smilies0295: Um, yeah, I guess I did do that didn't I.:smilies0295::smilies0295:

I did have more, I meant to press the button to go to advance and add smiley faces and all that stuff, as it turns out the one that says "post reply" doesn't do that.:smilies1722:

And then I thought. Hmmm, it looks good that way. I like it!

But I can't leave you on the edge of your seat so here goes.

She knows full well that she is living in sin, she has tried (10 years) to deal with it and she has failed, she is tired of fighting and now she feels that maybe this will become mainstream.

Just a guess.

That's one way of looking at it, and perhaps a valid one. The other is that person or people took her aside and said "Jennifer, we know you've been taught this is sin, but we'd like for you to look at it a different way."

The reason I believe this is possible is because it's happened to me in several areas. I've been taught at one point or another in my life that it was wrong for men to have long hair or women to have short, and shown Bible verses to "prove" it. (btw, anything I list here were not things my parents told me, but well-meaning Sunday School and other teachers). I've also been taught that women serving as pastors is a sin, with Bible verses to "prove" it. There are other things on the list of what I've been taught was sin, tried not to do because I believed it to be sin, and then eventually came into another way of thinking. Now, maybe my 30 inch hair was sin. Maybe the fact that I support women in ministry is sin, but I don't think so, even though I thought so in the past. There are more than a few people who were raised to believe that one drop of alcohol would send them straight to hell, and now drink in moderation even though they once believed it to be sin. Are me and all these other people living in sin? I don't think so, but maybe we are. I believe it's possible that Jennifer is in a similar situation, where she once believed her homosexuality to be a sin, but was led into a different way of thinking (albeit a way that she likely welcomed in order to put an end to a 10 year struggle). We can't say one way or the other, and looking at the interview, it appears she's not saying either, but I'm one to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe, just maybe, your problem is not really with her, but with her teacher.

Jim Chabot

April 21st, 2010, 09:03 PM

That's one way of looking at it, and perhaps a valid one. The other is that person or people took her aside and said "Jennifer, we know you've been taught this is sin, but we'd like for you to look at it a different way."

The reason I believe this is possible is because it's happened to me in several areas. I've been taught at one point or another in my life that it was wrong for men to have long hair or women to have short, and shown Bible verses to "prove" it. (btw, anything I list here were not things my parents told me, but well-meaning Sunday School and other teachers). I've also been taught that women serving as pastors is a sin, with Bible verses to "prove" it. There are other things on the list of what I've been taught was sin, tried not to do because I believed it to be sin, and then eventually came into another way of thinking. Now, maybe my 30 inch hair was sin. Maybe the fact that I support women in ministry is sin, but I don't think so, even though I thought so in the past. There are more than a few people who were raised to believe that one drop of alcohol would send them straight to hell, and now drink in moderation even though they once believed it to be sin. Are me and all these other people living in sin? I don't think so, but maybe we are. I believe it's possible that Jennifer is in a similar situation, where she once believed her homosexuality to be a sin, but was led into a different way of thinking (albeit a way that she likely welcomed in order to put an end to a 10 year struggle). We can't say one way or the other, and looking at the interview, it appears she's not saying either, but I'm one to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe, just maybe, your problem is not really with her, but with her teacher.

No doubt that peer pressure plays a part. And I for sure hear you when you talk about how we define and redefine sin as our own culture changes. I remember reading manuals that pointed out how reading a worldly newspaper on a Sunday was sinful, don't even think about going to the movies or the circus. Dancing, smoking, heaven forbid. But over time we realized that there was no biblical basis for some of these things, while gaining new appreciations for things that are sin, yet the older generation ignored. By cracky we were smarter and better than our elders, or so we thought. As I talk with older Christians, I hear similar stories from their day. So I can understand that we constantly challenge our beliefs, and we will never get them right. Now we look through a glass darkly, I'm convinced of that.

But homosexuality, I think takes us over the brink. I see this redefinition as part of the sexual revolution back in my day, as we have changed our view of marriage and divorce beyond what scripture would permit, and yes I'll bring that over to the other thread in the morning when I am awake. I think that we are perched on a slippery slope and I am worried about where we are going. I realize the tenacious grip that this has on it's victims, I believe that it is the most serious of addictions with almost no chance of escape. i don't believe for one minute that anyone is created this way, homosexuality comes by indoctrination, we need to be careful lest we find ourselves playing with fire.

Thirty inches! No doubt that was sinful, at least mine was only a little past shoulder length. I am so thankful that I was delivered out of that sinful hair to my present length of 3/16" on the sides and zero on top, partly my design and partly the Lords design to deliver me!

Shea Zellweger

April 21st, 2010, 09:22 PM

But homosexuality, I think takes us over the brink. I see this redefinition as part of the sexual revolution back in my day, as we have changed our view of marriage and divorce beyond what scripture would permit, and yes I'll bring that over to the other thread in the morning when I am awake. I think that we are perched on a slippery slope and I am worried about where we are going. I realize the tenacious grip that this has on it's victims, I believe that it is the most serious of addictions with almost no chance of escape. i don't believe for one minute that anyone is created this way, homosexuality comes by indoctrination, we need to be careful lest we find ourselves playing with fire.

Considering there are only 8 verses speaking to homosexuality, and at least as many that address how women should look and act in church, and we largely ignore the latter, I have difficulty seeing how homosexuality "takes us over the brink" of anything that women preachers in pants without hats doesn't in terms of violating biblical commands, and that's what I'm talking about here. We have redefined women's roles, not just in regard to ministry, but in regard to proper behavior and dress, as well as their "place" in the marital relationship. I just don't see how, from a purely biblical standpoint, we can insist that one is vital and not the other.

Now, as for being "created this way," I don't see why we would struggle with the idea that homosexuality could be genetic. Even if you see it as sin, that makes it no different from someone who is born with a propensity toward alcoholism, or any other number of genetic things that I sincerely doubt are from God. People are born with deadly congenital defects all the time. Several mental disorders have been shown to be hereditary... the list just goes on and on. If you believe people are "created that way" when it comes to all of those things, I once again fail to see how homosexuality is special.

Whether you've done so intentionally or not, you've kinda demonstrated with this post the attitude toward homosexuality that drives me crazy- that is to say, it is somehow in a class of its own. I simply cannot accept that. There are things that are far more harmful to society than a couple of men getting married. There are things those two men could do that would be far more harmful to themselves. There are matters which are addressed dozens of times as often as homosexuality in Scripture, and infinitely more in the teachings of Jesus. There is just no measure by which homosexual activity can outrank other sins other than by personal preference and social stigma, neither of which are a valid theological basis.

Mike McVey

April 21st, 2010, 09:35 PM

Shea, I think you bring up some valid points. The problems that come with cultural mores cause more sin than necessary. Time and geography do matter when we look at certain issues. There was a time when slavery was considered a part of God's master plan.

Jim, I think there was a time that going to the movies/circus was sinful according to the context.

At one time short hair for a man was sinful, another time it was encouraged; yet both are mentioned in the Bible.

I don't buy the slippery slope talk. If we truly believed that this issue was a slippery slope, then we would have called for James Dobson's head (and received it) during his porn commission days. And whether one can be a Christian and ________ kind of sinner was a slippery slope as soon as religion became a personal relationship.

As far as how one becomes a homosexual, I don't know. Some people I know have pursued the lifestyle because they like sex no matter the gender. Some have used it as way of trying to find their place in the world and feel that homosexuality gives them the best language to create that place (this is why Knapp's comments concerning church bother me most - she feels that a same-sex relationship is safer for her than the church in finding her identity). I do think that there have been some interesting studies done in genetics that show some people are more likely to act on homosexual inhibitions in the same way that an the progeny of an alcoholic is inclined to act on inhibitions concerning alcohol.

Jim Chabot

April 21st, 2010, 09:51 PM

Jim Chabot

April 21st, 2010, 09:56 PM

Considering there are only 8 verses speaking to homosexuality, and at least as many that address how women should look and act in church, and we largely ignore the latter, I have difficulty seeing how homosexuality "takes us over the brink" of anything that women preachers in pants without hats doesn't in terms of violating biblical commands, and that's what I'm talking about here. We have redefined women's roles, not just in regard to ministry, but in regard to proper behavior and dress, as well as their "place" in the marital relationship. I just don't see how, from a purely biblical standpoint, we can insist that one is vital and not the other.

Now, as for being "created this way," I don't see why we would struggle with the idea that homosexuality could be genetic. Even if you see it as sin, that makes it no different from someone who is born with a propensity toward alcoholism, or any other number of genetic things that I sincerely doubt are from God. People are born with deadly congenital defects all the time. Several mental disorders have been shown to be hereditary... the list just goes on and on. If you believe people are "created that way" when it comes to all of those things, I once again fail to see how homosexuality is special.

Whether you've done so intentionally or not, you've kinda demonstrated with this post the attitude toward homosexuality that drives me crazy- that is to say, it is somehow in a class of its own. I simply cannot accept that. There are things that are far more harmful to society than a couple of men getting married. There are things those two men could do that would be far more harmful to themselves. There are matters which are addressed dozens of times as often as homosexuality in Scripture, and infinitely more in the teachings of Jesus. There is just no measure by which homosexual activity can outrank other sins other than by personal preference and social stigma, neither of which are a valid theological basis.

Just a quick note before I go to bed. I hope that I haven't catered to the thought that gives homosexual sin a class of it's own. There is no way that homosexual sin outranks any other sexual sin. I think you have seen me write enough to know that I have the same regard to adultery, and that includes adultery that has been whitewashed by divorce and remarriage. No homosexuals aren't special in any way, and as you know I don't buy the genetic predisposition argument, that is one of the things that drive them into a special class. And make no mistake as a group their desire is to reach that status. Nurture, not nature!

Shea Zellweger

April 21st, 2010, 09:58 PM

Just a quick note before I go to bed. I hope that I haven't catered to the thought that gives homosexual sin a class of it's own. There is no way that homosexual sin outranks any other sexual sin. I think you have seen me write enough to know that I have the same regard to adultery, and that includes adultery that has been whitewashed by divorce and remarriage. No homosexuals aren't special in any way, and as you know I don't buy the genetic predisposition argument, that is one of the things that drive them into a special class. And make no mistake as a group their desire is to reach that status. Nurture, not nature!

I do know you well enough to know that you don't separate homosexuality, but your comments certainly pointed in that direction. I'm still trying to understand why a genetic predisposition would make homosexuality a "special class." Is alcoholism a special class?

Todd Erickson

April 21st, 2010, 10:49 PM

Shea Zellweger

April 21st, 2010, 10:51 PM

I think that what Jim is saying is that people use genetics to put them in a special class, but since homosexuality can't possibly be genetic, it isn't.

I know what Jim is saying, what I don't know is the why. Why would a sin that is also genetic be special? Why would something that is genetic have to be classified as not sinful?

Hans Deventer

April 22nd, 2010, 12:26 AM

She knows full well that she is living in sin, she has tried (10 years) to deal with it and she has failed, she is tired of fighting and now she feels that maybe this will become mainstream.

What if we changed this a little.

She knows full she has lesbian feelings. Has been struggling with them for 10 years. But no matter how much you pray to God, He's apparently not interested in changing you in this respect. Makes you wonder how sinful it is, for otherwise He would care, wouldn't He? So in the end you are left with the question, if this is who I am and God doesn't want to change it and I sure can't, may I be who I am in His sight? And finally you reach a yes, after a lot of prayer.

Just a slight change.

Benjamin Burch

April 22nd, 2010, 01:25 AM

What if we changed this a little.

She knows full she has lesbian feelings. Has been struggling with them for 10 years. But no matter how much you pray to God, He's apparently not interested in changing you in this respect. Makes you wonder how sinful it is, for otherwise He would care, wouldn't He? So in the end you are left with the question, if this is who I am and God doesn't want to change it and I sure can't, may I be who I am in His sight? And finally you reach a yes, after a lot of prayer.

Just a slight change.

THANK YOU HANS! Thank you SO much for this post.

Seriously, it is far too easy for us as those who are not homosexual to create this simple thing where you "pray" and "God changes you." The problem is, what if that doesn't happen? Do we automatically say it is the person's fault? Says who? How do you know?

it sounds like we're basing an entire system of our own analysis on 8 Biblical texts which don't necessarily say what we think they say! It all seems quite unfair and set up to favor those of us in the majority, who don't have homosexual orientations.

Hans Deventer

April 22nd, 2010, 01:40 AM

Seriously, it is far too easy for us as those who are not homosexual to create this simple thing where you "pray" and "God changes you." The problem is, what if that doesn't happen? Do we automatically say it is the person's fault? Says who? How do you know?

There are Christian homosexuals who have committed suicide over this. I don't think the word "lifestyle" does remotely justice to that situation.

Hans Deventer

April 22nd, 2010, 02:57 AM

Are we afraid of homosexuals?

I've wondered about that too. And I've noticed that emotionally I have a lot less problems with lesbians than with gays. I guess the concept of loving a woman makes more sense to me, being a heterosexual man. I have a big problem with imagining gay sex. Logically of course there is no difference between lesbian or gay. But emotions sometimes get in the way.

I'm not afraid of homosexual people more than of any heterosexual people.

Jim Chabot

April 22nd, 2010, 06:50 AM

I do know you well enough to know that you don't separate homosexuality, but your comments certainly pointed in that direction. I'm still trying to understand why a genetic predisposition would make homosexuality a "special class." Is alcoholism a special class?

Oh, I don't equate the genetic predisposition argument as equating them as a special class. However that is the arguments most often made by supporters of the gay agenda, and no I am not including you in that description. Most any discussion I hear revolves around this "predisposition", the argument always has this element. Common statements usually follow this pattern. "They don't want to be this way, they are born this way and there is no escape." to "Think about it, why would someone choose this lifestyle, one that is clearly masked with derision and ostracism." It seems that the disposition argument is the one most used for acceptance, my deep concern is that the argument was created as a solution rather than truth. I have made a few acquaintances over the years, and I can honestly say that in each case where I have known the person for a long enough time, I can point to something in their childhood that could have caused this change in them. I realize that I'm thinking of only a dozen or so, but I haven't seen the exception yet.

And if it is true that homosexuality is an indoctrination, and I believe that possibility is strongly possible, then we must take every action to protect our children. We must make every effort to stop the spread of this aberration of human sexuality. For one thing I have yet to see is a truly happy homosexual, in every case of which I have first hand experience, there is a darkness, an unrest, a deep seated anger. I don't hold animosity toward any, rather I mourn their condition, and I wonder deeply wonder if there was a way of prevention.

And no, I don't see alcoholism in a special class, not at all. Although I can see where there is commonality in one area, most alcoholics have extremely low self esteem. I see the same thing in people who go to excess with body art and piercings. Some it seems go to this excess in an attempt to stand out, to be special in some way, they see no value in themselves and they feel that perhaps a dramatic outward change might make them acceptable if only to a small crowd. I had a childhood friend who died from cirrhosis of the liver at the age of 42, he started drinking shortly after high school and never stopped until he entered the hospital. I was at his house maybe six months before he died, and he was describing how he had been throwing up blood, and that he would have to quit drinking. We talked for a while, and he ended up in tears sobbing uncontrollably because he was convinced that if he stopped drinking then no one would like him. This was a kid who grew up with a sign on his back that said "kick me" he was a kind sensitive kid, but he wasn't accepted. I should add that his father was a mean drunk. Over the years he tried different things, he started drinking, that helped or so he thought, he started smoking cigars, he started treating women badly, for a time he had a string of about a dozen women whom he lived with one or two at a time. Some of them were in as bad shape as he was, a few were there to try and fix him, but nothing worked. I was his friend from the age of ten until he died, I counseled him countless times, I shared the gospel with him on a few occasions, the result was always the same, he simply could not grasp the concept that he could be accepted as himself, he could not believe that God or anyone could love him. For years I was right there as someone who loved him just for who he was, but he couldn't see it.

I see similarities between my friend and the homosexuals that I have come to know. I have to wonder how many are trapped by themselves in this terrible plight. Han's mentions that Christian Homosexuals have taken their own lives over what I believe to be a self loathing. What can we do, and why does this happen? I don't think that we will have any clear answer to that question this side of the river, somehow it is not for us to know. But I do know this, I know that we have direction in this area as to how we are to act. I believe that we need to trust God, we need to trust his wisdom, we need to follow Jesus advice in Matthew 18, and Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 5. And I believe strongly that we must do so with love and with great sorrow. James Diggs, speaks often about how we must find solidarity with the poor and with the downtrodden, I feel that this advice is apt in this regard. Therefore when we reach the point we we must shun it is with a heart wrenching sorrow.

Jim Chabot

April 22nd, 2010, 07:03 AM

THANK YOU HANS! Thank you SO much for this post.

Seriously, it is far too easy for us as those who are not homosexual to create this simple thing where you "pray" and "God changes you." The problem is, what if that doesn't happen? Do we automatically say it is the person's fault? Says who? How do you know?

it sounds like we're basing an entire system of our own analysis on 8 Biblical texts which don't necessarily say what we think they say! It all seems quite unfair and set up to favor those of us in the majority, who don't have homosexual orientations.

The quick prayer of release solution, has come up a few times in this thread. And I every time it is mentioned I recoil. I know many christians who employ just that, I am ashamed. How crass, uncaring and unloving can we be to take such an approach. "You pray about it and god will release you, I'll be praying." and then they just walk away, their pithy bit of advice being sufficient in this situation. How can we say that it is this persons fault? I have had had and still have sin that will not go away, sure it's not on the "list" but that doesn't make it any better. I pray that I will someday find a complete and total release from it, yet I am reminded that Paul did not get a release from his thorn. I don't know the answers. But I do know that the bible is where they are to be found, and yes I believe that we need to follow it's advise even when we do not completely understand.

I should add that eight biblical texts on one subject is compelling. We have but one text that would instruct us to attend church, and there are many who can plainly show that we are under no compulsion to give. With enough thought we can disbelieve anything we want to. We need to guard against what our mind is capable at times.

David Troxler

April 22nd, 2010, 08:15 AM

That's one way of looking at it, and perhaps a valid one. The other is that person or people took her aside and said "Jennifer, we know you've been taught this is sin, but we'd like for you to look at it a different way."

...

I believe it's possible that Jennifer is in a similar situation, where she once believed her homosexuality to be a sin, but was led into a different way of thinking (albeit a way that she likely welcomed in order to put an end to a 10 year struggle). We can't say one way or the other, and looking at the interview, it appears she's not saying either, but I'm one to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe, just maybe, your problem is not really with her, but with her teacher.

Shea, in your first paragraph, you have identified the exact scenario we see with Eve and the serpent in the garden...
You were told this is sinful, but is it really? Why look at the delicious fruit! You would be wiser to taste of it and become closer to god, simply by the knowledge this brings.

Obviously we cannot be in a position to know who or what influences this young woman encountered during her 10 year or more struggle. However, that teaching to see something from a different angle has been around a very long time.

Jesus used that method; You have heard it said, ... but I say unto you...

The teacher has a great deal of influence and here are two examples of teachers who use the same method one resulting in bondage, the other in freedom from bondage.

Is there a problem with her teacher? I don't know. Still Jesus had this to say about those who teach sin...
"the one who teaches one of these little ones to sin should be millstoned and sunk."

With you I propose giving the benefit of the doubt, and grace. The jury remains out and our finite minds have a great deal of difficulty sorting this out.

James Johnson

April 22nd, 2010, 08:33 AM

There will be no excuses on judgement day, not for me, not for you and not for Jennifer Knapp. I worry when we as the church begin to make excuses for sin.

Benjamin Burch

April 22nd, 2010, 08:40 AM

There will be no excuses on judgement day, not for me, not for you and not for Jennifer Knapp. I worry when we as the church begin to make excuses for sin.

I haven't seen anyone offering excuses.

Hans Deventer

April 22nd, 2010, 08:41 AM

There will be no excuses on judgement day, not for me, not for you and not for Jennifer Knapp. I worry when we as the church begin to make excuses for sin.

As everyone does.

I sure hope we all have forgiven each and every one, no matter what they done to us. I hate how people make excuses for not doing that.......................

Benjamin Burch

April 22nd, 2010, 09:20 AM

There will be no excuses on judgement day, not for me, not for you and not for Jennifer Knapp. I worry when we as the church begin to make excuses for sin.

Also, I don't think Miss Knapp is very interested in excuses either. I don't think any of us hope to get by on excuses. I'm hoping a little grace and mercy will get me by, I'm willing to bet Miss Knapp feels the same way.

Cindi Hammons

April 22nd, 2010, 09:29 AM

Hans, I think it is just easier to accept women gays than men in general. Culturally, we are more used to seeing women be affectionate towards each other, while it has been a cultural taboo for men to do so. While living in Mexico City during college, it was nothing to grab the girl's hand next to you and dash across the street..okay, maybe it was live-saving to do so, but nobody blinked twice. Even though it is not common in the U.S., people wouldn't fall over in shock if this happened. However, what would people think if two MEN grabbed hands while running across the street?

Just some thoughts.

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 10:49 AM

Ryan Scott

April 22nd, 2010, 11:14 AM

I think there are two factors, one being the sheer physicality and the other being relational. I find it easier to understand the physicality of lesbians, perhaps, as Hans indicated, because as a heterosexual man, loving a woman makes sense. On the other hand, I find it easier to relate to gay couples than to lesbian couples, at least in personal interaction. Perhaps this has something to do with familiarity - I know fewer lesbians; perhaps it has to do with gender - it's easier for men to get along with men, no matter their sexuality.

These are all aspects of relationship that become more and more important for daily life.

Sarah Smith

April 22nd, 2010, 11:48 AM

Sometimes we just overthink stuff.

We have a son, adopted, with inherited and chemical damage issues. (Probably fragile x, certainly fetal alcohol, inherited mental illness, brain damage caused by severe malnutrition. He is not gay, but he does have genetic predisposition to substance abuse, violence, and stealing.

On his own, he simply cannot change. He has prayed to be delivered, but still has those strong temptations.

I'm going to trust what he tells me here: yes, God can and does deliver His children from wrong desires--sometimes. But sometimes He allows the desire to remain and strengthens us to resist instead. As long as he relies on God for strength our son overcomes. When and if he gets weary of the battle and decides to just accept who he is, he reoffends.

The difference between him and the gay movement is he doesn't have a whole subculture dedicated to getting us to legalize, destigmatize, accept, affirm, or in any other way encourage and support his habit of armed robbery.

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 11:53 AM

The difference between him and the gay movement is he doesn't have a whole subculture dedicated to getting us to legalize, destigmatize, accept, affirm, or in any other way encourage and support his habit of armed robbery.

well, that and the language of verses that speak against stealing, violence, etc. is much more clear than those about homosexuality. And then there's the fact that by committing those actions, your son is clearly causing harm to his neighbor, while a gay person is not. I will gladly keep your son in my prayers, but I disagree that his disposition toward harming others is the same as another person's attraction to the same gender.

Mike Wooldridge

April 22nd, 2010, 12:53 PM

A question which occured to me today...if a man and woman are married, and engaged in sexual relations with each other, but they do not look upon each other with Agape, but just personal satisfaction and need...is it sin? Or does the fact that their sex is "natural" excuse the intent of the act?
That's why I need to stay out of this Forum-the people here are all better Christians than I am. If you're married are you saying that you always look at your wife with pure agape and never with just a sexual need?

Hans Deventer

April 22nd, 2010, 12:58 PM

That's why I need to stay out of this Forum-the people here are all better Christians than I am. If you're married are you saying that you always look at your wife with pure agape and never with just a sexual need?

I like what Tom Oord writes about this. All the different types of love have a place in a good marriage: agape, philia and eros.

Mike McVey

April 22nd, 2010, 02:05 PM

I agree. :smilies0822:

Chuck Wilkes

April 22nd, 2010, 03:03 PM

I'm simply put in mind of the wheat and tares parable. My basic approach is that when someone claims the name of Christ, I am reluctant to accuse them of claiming so falsely since I don't have God's eyesight. I tend to be wary rather than judgmental.

On a side note...my experience is that far more damage has been done to the name of Christ by heterosexuals who commit sin and then try to explain it away than by homosexuals who commit sin and try to explain it away.

Jim Chabot

April 22nd, 2010, 03:39 PM

well, that and the language of verses that speak against stealing, violence, etc. is much more clear than those about homosexuality. And then there's the fact that by committing those actions, your son is clearly causing harm to his neighbor, while a gay person is not. I will gladly keep your son in my prayers, but I disagree that his disposition toward harming others is the same as another person's attraction to the same gender.

I would have to say that I am diametrically opposed to everything you have said in this post. There ia exactly the same ambiguity in the verses against stealing, violence etc. I would tend to think that all of the arguments toward ambiguity in the verses speaking against homosexuality can be applied to the verses against stealing violence or whatever. Ya, ok stealing is in the ten commandments so maybe it has a better standing. But violence? We could argue back and forth literally for weeks on that one. I would be arguing a point that I don't agree with, but it could be done. And yes indeed gay people cause harm to others, they cause harm to their own partners, just by supporting their sin emotionally. If they adopt children they cause harm to them emotionally and spiritually. I'm sorry, but I have said it before, homosexuality is not a special sin, it is garden variety, and not a whole lot different than what Linda describes.

Linda; I can't promise to remember, but I am praying for you family and you son. It takes a special person to adopt a child with problems, may God bless you!

Jim Chabot

April 22nd, 2010, 03:41 PM

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 03:52 PM

Has anyone questioned Ms. Knapps claim to Christ. I haven't seen it in this thread. I may have missed it?
Well, there was this (which you responded to):

Shea, I'm probably one of those you're talking about. I personaly do not believe you can be an alchoholic and a Christian (I couldn't) and I don't believe one can be living the homosexual lifestyle and be a Christian. But I am here to testify that God can, and will be bigger than your desires if called upon with an earnest heart.

Kinda hard to say "I don't believe one can be living the homosexual lifestyle and be a Christian," and then affirm Jennifer Knapp's Salvation.

And then this:

Maybe I am simple minded, but I think many posts here are mixing apples and oranges.

Isn’t there a huge difference between a believer struggling with sin, a pattern or previous pattern of sin in their life of; say greed, gambling or some sort of an addiction, homosexual activity….what have you - AND a person who claims to be a believer yet willfully refuses to give up a sin or pattern of sin?

Don’t Knapp’s comment place her in the later category?

I can't state fully what George's intent here was, but since he used the word "believer" when talking about the struggle, and "person who claims to be a believer" when talking about the refusal, I think it's fair to say he is at least in part questioning her salvation.

And again from Jim:

There will be no excuses on judgement day, not for me, not for you and not for Jennifer Knapp. I worry when we as the church begin to make excuses for sin.

Maybe my Judgment day theology is way off, but so far as I can tell, you're either in or you're out. There's no 30 lashes on the way through the gates to the new Jerusalem, so if there's no excuse, it sounds an awful lot like Hell to me.

Jim Chabot

April 22nd, 2010, 04:58 PM

Well, there was this (which you responded to):

Kinda hard to say "I don't believe one can be living the homosexual lifestyle and be a Christian," and then affirm Jennifer Knapp's Salvation.

And then this:

I can't state fully what George's intent here was, but since he used the word "believer" when talking about the struggle, and "person who claims to be a believer" when talking about the refusal, I think it's fair to say he is at least in part questioning her salvation.

And again from Jim:

Maybe my Judgment day theology is way off, but so far as I can tell, you're either in or you're out. There's no 30 lashes on the way through the gates to the new Jerusalem, so if there's no excuse, it sounds an awful lot like Hell to me.

Oh you are so correct sir. Somehow I missed that completely by. But.

Alright there is no but. Except that I have to head out for a bit. I'll agree with you more when I get back.

Jim Chabot

April 22nd, 2010, 06:03 PM

Maybe my Judgment day theology is way off, but so far as I can tell, you're either in or you're out. There's no 30 lashes on the way through the gates to the new Jerusalem, so if there's no excuse, it sounds an awful lot like Hell to me.

Rev 20:11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Looks to me that if you find yourself dead, you will eventually be before this white throne. Then it looks like everyone who has ended up dead will be judged according to thier works. I noticed that there is no mention of anyone being found innocent here. Looks like the homosexual, and the young preacher, and me for sure, all get found guilty. Then it appears that there is one who is able to secure a pardon for some. All who are found in the Lambs book of life are saved from the lake of fire.

So lets imagine a scene before this throne. A woman stands there, she has struggled with homosexuality all of her life, failing at every turn. She is found guilty and takes her place with the others. Yet during her life she trusted Jesus for her salvation, and her name is found in the Lambs book of life. She now stands with the guilty who are free, the lake of fire holds no threat for her!

Now while on earth, other Christians were instructed to confront her and possibly to refuse fellowship with her in an attempt at reconciliation. Yet at the throne, she is free, the city awaits!

Or at least that's my imperfect take on things.

Todd Erickson

April 22nd, 2010, 06:23 PM

That's why I need to stay out of this Forum-the people here are all better Christians than I am. If you're married are you saying that you always look at your wife with pure agape and never with just a sexual need?

I sort of had to train myself not to. And that turned into other things. It's really a difficult and painful subject for me, overall. *shrug* Part of the walk.

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 06:51 PM

Rev 20:11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Looks to me that if you find yourself dead, you will eventually be before this white throne. Then it looks like everyone who has ended up dead will be judged according to thier works. I noticed that there is no mention of anyone being found innocent here. Looks like the homosexual, and the young preacher, and me for sure, all get found guilty. Then it appears that there is one who is able to secure a pardon for some. All who are found in the Lambs book of life are saved from the lake of fire.

So lets imagine a scene before this throne. A woman stands there, she has struggled with homosexuality all of her life, failing at every turn. She is found guilty and takes her place with the others. Yet during her life she trusted Jesus for her salvation, and her name is found in the Lambs book of life. She now stands with the guilty who are free, the lake of fire holds no threat for her!

Now while on earth, other Christians were instructed to confront her and possibly to refuse fellowship with her in an attempt at reconciliation. Yet at the throne, she is free, the city awaits!

Or at least that's my imperfect take on things.

I know the passage. It's rather confusing IMHO. It SAYS judged according to their works, but according to 20:15, it's actually according to whoever was not written in "the book of life." Regardless, my point was that if a person's name is written in "the book of life" (something which we traditionally interpret as meaning they are "saved"), it's not as though that person must endure some sort of punishment before being admitted into the new kingdom, so although there will be a "judgment," that judgment will not come with discipline for those who are saved, ergo a statement like "there will be no excuse for her at the throne of judgment" seems to suggest that she will be punished, and I only read of one (eternal) punishment in this account. Do I interpret it as a future event?

Jim Chabot

April 22nd, 2010, 07:42 PM

I know the passage. It's rather confusing IMHO. It SAYS judged according to their works, but according to 20:15, it's actually according to whoever was not written in "the book of life." Regardless, my point was that if a person's name is written in "the book of life" (something which we traditionally interpret as meaning they are "saved"), it's not as though that person must endure some sort of punishment before being admitted into the new kingdom, so although there will be a "judgment," that judgment will not come with discipline for those who are saved, ergo a statement like "there will be no excuse for her at the throne of judgment" seems to suggest that she will be punished, and I only read of one (eternal) punishment in this account. Do I interpret it as a future event?

Well, it is true, there will be no excuse for her at the throne of judgment. No excuse for me either, I'm guilty of breaking part of the law and that makes me guilty of all. My take on the passage is that we are all guilty when judged by our works. The book of life contains pardons for those found guilty. I think that this passage is understandable, when you apply the concept of a pardon for a guilty person. Though found guilty there will be no punishment.

It must be the case because Gloria Gaither who is one of my favorite Nazarene theologians says this. "He lived and died to seal my pardon."

James Johnson

April 22nd, 2010, 07:51 PM

Well, it is true, there will be no excuse for her at the throne of judgment. No excuse for me either, I'm guilty of breaking part of the law and that makes me guilty of all. My take on the passage is that we are all guilty when judged by our works. The book of life contains pardons for those found guilty. I think that this passage is understandable, when you apply the concept of a pardon for a guilty person. Though found guilty there will be no punishment.

It must be the case because Gloria Gaither who is one of my favorite Nazarene theologians says this. "He lived and died to seal my pardon."

My point was, when standing before God, there will be no excuses! Where is this statement wrong?

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 07:54 PM

My point was, when standing before God, there will be no excuses! Where is this statement wrong?

Nobody said it was wrong. Jim asked if anyone had suggested Jennifer Knapp is not a Christian, I thought your post (grouped together with your statement that one cannot be both gay and a Christian) was one example. If I've misunderstood you, I apologize.

James Johnson

April 22nd, 2010, 08:00 PM

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 08:04 PM

Shea,I don't know her (until this thread I had never heard of her) or what she does behind closed doors, but I would think if you're living in sin than you're not a Christian. As far homosexuality goes, I thought you said in the past that the act of homosexuality is sin?

I have never given my personal opinion on homosexual actions on this site, and I will continue to not do so. I have provided links to the official Nazarene stance on things. I tend to be of the opinion that every Christian has lived in sin while still a Christian. You do not have to be perfect to be a Christian, particularly if your imperfections are things which you do not know to be sin, and Knapp's comments suggest that she has not been convicted that her homosexual activity is sin.

James Johnson

April 22nd, 2010, 08:25 PM

So the Bible is not clear enough on homosexuality in your opinion to state that it's sin?

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 08:27 PM

So the Bible is not clear enough on homosexuality in your opinion to state that it's sin?

Jim,
Do you not remember the 300+ post thread before the Crash in which I spent quite some time detailing the different views on what the verses on homosexual activity meant, and then stated that it was a much greyer area than most would like to admit? It took quite some time for me to compile all of that research, and I really don't want to rehash that whole conversation, but my statement about it being a grey area stands.

Benjamin Burch

April 22nd, 2010, 08:44 PM

So the Bible is not clear enough on homosexuality in your opinion to state that it's sin?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "Yes, the Bible is not clear enough on homosexuality in my opinion to state that it's sin."

When it's grouped with other things we throw out, when one instance may not be Paul's thought at all but his representation of a false teacher, when it is part of the same sexual ethic that promotes polygamy, when one of the references falsely attributes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to homosexual behavior... and when ultimately the law of Christ is summed up in "love God, and your neighbor as yourself"....

I'd say it's very hard to make a claim that the Bible is "clear." That's not to say it doesn't say something which might be easily (and faithfully) interpreted one way. I'm just saying that "clear" is not the word I would use.

George Wallace

April 22nd, 2010, 09:25 PM

Jim Chabot

April 22nd, 2010, 09:31 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "Yes, the Bible is not clear enough on homosexuality in my opinion to state that it's sin."

When it's grouped with other things we throw out, when one instance may not be Paul's thought at all but his representation of a false teacher, when it is part of the same sexual ethic that promotes polygamy, when one of the references falsely attributes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to homosexual behavior... and when ultimately the law of Christ is summed up in "love God, and your neighbor as yourself"....

I'd say it's very hard to make a claim that the Bible is "clear." That's not to say it doesn't say something which might be easily (and faithfully) interpreted one way. I'm just saying that "clear" is not the word I would use.

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

If that isn't clear, then the oceans are dry, there's no stars in the sky, and the sparrow can't fly.

1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Nope nothing there.

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Maybe it's just unlawful? Not really sin?

I don't know. I suppose arguments can be made to muddy the waters enough to say that the bible isn't clear. The problem is that in the absence of clever arguments, clarity exists.

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 09:33 PM

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it;...'"

Clear enough for me.

Nope, not good enough. For one, this is a blessing, not a commandment. For two, if you want to take this as a commandment, then anyone who is infertile, or chooses to remain single, or any married couple that elects to adopt rather than procreate, are all equally guilty of breaking the supposed command. You can't take a positive statement about one group, and make it an automatically negative statement about people outside that group, especially when it is so vague a statement as "be fruitful and multiply." Is God speaking specifically to Adam and Eve? Is God speaking to humanity in general? If it's the former, then so long as Adam and Eve weren't gay, we're good to go. If it's the latter, then it is a directive given to the race as a whole, not to every individual within that race.

Benjamin Burch

April 22nd, 2010, 09:36 PM

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

If that isn't clear, then the oceans are dry, there's no stars in the sky, and the sparrow can't fly.

1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Nope nothing there.

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Maybe it's just unlawful? Not really sin?

I don't know. I suppose arguments can be made to muddy the waters enough to say that the bible isn't clear. The problem is that in the absence of clever arguments, clarity exists.

"Effeminate" is really unfair to say it necessarily means homosexuality...

Romans 1:18-32 might not be Paul's thoughts at all, but instead might belong to the false teacher he's opposing....

Again, I think things are clear when we've been taught to see them....

Plus, as i've said multiple times - it's part of a sexual ethic in the Bible which endorses polygamy. Why are we so comfortable with saying "yea well, that was wrong in the OT and they finally got it right in the NT... but Homosexuality, they had that right all along."

It seems that the "clever arguments" are more like "honesty."

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 09:43 PM

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

If that isn't clear, then the oceans are dry, there's no stars in the sky, and the sparrow can't fly.

This would be the one that Ben denoted as possibly being "not Paul's thought at all."

1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Nope nothing there.

I could point you to more than a few sources from heterosexuals and homosexuals alike who would say (shockingly) the King James translators got the translation wrong here.

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

What does it really mean to "defile" yourself? Again, the translation has been called into question by several scholars.

Maybe it's just unlawful? Not really sin?

I don't know. I suppose arguments can be made to muddy the waters enough to say that the bible isn't clear. The problem is that in the absence of clever arguments, clarity exists.

I don't think it takes a clever argument to simply say Paul was speaking to a culture where homosexual acts were by nature always wrong, because they always took place outside the realm of marriage, and were generally adultery in their own right. The concept of a homosexual relationship was not acknowledged, so how on earth could they address the topic? We can make our best guesses, but chances are our best guesses will vary from person to person.

I'd also point out that other than the Romans 1 passage, the concept of Lesbianism was not in scripture (Augustine thought it was impossible), and something tells me that went hand in hand with the polygamous culture to which Paul was speaking...

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 09:45 PM

Plus, as i've said multiple times - it's part of a sexual ethic in the Bible which endorses polygamy. Why are we so comfortable with saying "yea well, that was wrong in the OT and they finally got it right in the NT... but Homosexuality, they had that right all along."

got it right in the NT? So only church leaders should be required to be monogamous? :D

Benjamin Burch

April 22nd, 2010, 09:58 PM

The concept of a homosexual relationship was not acknowledged, so how on earth could they address the topic?

I will have to brush up a bit, so I'll concede this for now (after all it helps my point!). However, in all fairness, if I'm correct, this concept is contained in the writings of Plato and a couple of other ancient sources. I will have to get back on this one. If I'm going to stress "honesty" on one side I'll hold myself (and you) to the same.

Overall, thank you for your post. I found it helpful.

Benjamin Burch

April 22nd, 2010, 09:59 PM

got it right in the NT? So only church leaders should be required to be monogamous? :D

No. But one could say that sin is sin and if it's wrong for the leader it's wrong for the congregant. Thus bridging that gap. Trying to give the benefit of the doubt here.

Jim Chabot

April 22nd, 2010, 10:11 PM

No. But one could say that sin is sin and if it's wrong for the leader it's wrong for the congregant. Thus bridging that gap. Trying to give the benefit of the doubt here.

Really? I've been in trouble for this before, so why not one more time. Polygamy is not problematic from a scriptural view, not in the OT nor in the NT, with the exception of the leaders. Oh except there may not be multiple husbands, only wives. It does lend an interesting dynamic to the conversation. I find it quite funny that there seems to be an effort afoot in our culture to legitimize homosexuality, yet polygamy is still scorned. I'm perfectly happy with one wife, and I wouldn't want another, but God has no problem with it. I don't know, just something funny about legalizing gay marriage and jailing Mormons.

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 10:21 PM

Really? I've been in trouble for this before, so why not one more time. Polygamy is not problematic from a scriptural view, not in the OT nor in the NT, with the exception of the leaders. Oh except there may not be multiple husbands, only wives. It does lend an interesting dynamic to the conversation. I find it quite funny that there seems to be an effort afoot in our culture to legitimize homosexuality, yet polygamy is still scorned. I'm perfectly happy with one wife, and I wouldn't want another, but God has no problem with it. I don't know, just something funny about legalizing gay marriage and jailing Mormons.

I would actually would have no problem with legalizing polygamy. It would have no impact on my life, since I'm clergy, and have no desire to have a second wife, but still, it wouldn't necessarily bother me. Still, I think Ben makes a valid point. You (Jim) may be willing to accept polygamy and reject homosexuality, but most Christians reject polygamy as unbiblical, which lends further credence to the idea that Christian culture has on more than one occasion redefined sin in ways that are not found in Scripture. Are we as a church rightly discerning the will of God, or are we perverting the Scriptures? that's something that will be debated until Jesus returns, but with the outlawing of Polygamy, ordination of women, failure of women to wear hats in church, and quite a few other "unbiblical" practices, it does lead one to wonder why homosexuality gets such special treatment when it comes to being "biblical."

Jim Chabot

April 22nd, 2010, 10:35 PM

I would actually would have no problem with legalizing polygamy. It would have no impact on my life, since I'm clergy, and have no desire to have a second wife, but still, it wouldn't necessarily bother me. Still, I think Ben makes a valid point. You (Jim) may be willing to accept polygamy and reject homosexuality, but most Christians reject polygamy as unbiblical, which lends further credence to the idea that Christian culture has on more than one occasion redefined sin in ways that are not found in Scripture. Are we as a church rightly discerning the will of God, or are we perverting the Scriptures? that's something that will be debated until Jesus returns, but with the outlawing of Polygamy, ordination of women, failure of women to wear hats in church, and quite a few other "unbiblical" practices, it does lead one to wonder why homosexuality gets such special treatment when it comes to being "biblical."

Ah yes, but can you see the irony here? I agree with you regarding how the "christian" culture has warped twisted and bent scripture into place to suit their own wants and desires, no doubt in my mind. I got myself near thrown out of a Sunday School class back in the late Seventies because I would not yield to those claiming that hats in church was merely a cultural stricture. They didn't find it humorous that I wanted to make my own list, or if I could not make my own list, could someone please give me the phone number of the bible culture police committee. Oh and can someone explain how we fit three days and three nights between Good Friday and Easter Sunday? Hey where did everybody go?

So I can see how you can paint many people with that brush, but I have never been one of them. Can I have a brush?

Ryan Scott

April 22nd, 2010, 10:40 PM

Polygamy is technically a crime on the books, but no one is ever prosecuted for it because the additional marriages are not legal ones. We do have effective polygamy here.

George Wallace

April 22nd, 2010, 10:41 PM

Nope, not good enough. For one, this is a blessing, not a commandment. For two, if you want to take this as a commandment, then anyone who is infertile, or chooses to remain single, or any married couple that elects to adopt rather than procreate, are all equally guilty of breaking the supposed command. You can't take a positive statement about one group, and make it an automatically negative statement about people outside that group, especially when it is so vague a statement as "be fruitful and multiply." Is God speaking specifically to Adam and Eve? Is God speaking to humanity in general? If it's the former, then so long as Adam and Eve weren't gay, we're good to go. If it's the latter, then it is a directive given to the race as a whole, not to every individual within that race.

Like I said; clear enough for me. Without procreation there is no Abraham, no Issac, no Jacob, nor David, no Jesus ultimately no Promise and no salvation.

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 10:44 PM

Like I said; clear enough for me. Without procreation there is no Abraham, no Issac, no Jacob, nor David, no Jesus ultimately no Promise and no salvation.

could you point me to the individuals in that line who were closeted homosexuals? I agree that God encouraged procreation. I just don't see any evidence suggesting that absolutely everyone is supposed to procreate.

Jim Chabot

April 22nd, 2010, 10:45 PM

"Effeminate" is really unfair to say it necessarily means homosexuality...

Romans 1:18-32 might not be Paul's thoughts at all, but instead might belong to the false teacher he's opposing....

Again, I think things are clear when we've been taught to see them....

Plus, as i've said multiple times - it's part of a sexual ethic in the Bible which endorses polygamy. Why are we so comfortable with saying "yea well, that was wrong in the OT and they finally got it right in the NT... but Homosexuality, they had that right all along."

It seems that the "clever arguments" are more like "honesty."

I would agree that "effeminate" is not conclusive, I don't think that it does refer to homosexuality. "Abusers of themselves with mankind" That's the one that does it for me. It is only one word in the greek and most translation render it as sodomites or homosexuals. There are some scholars who claim that the etymology of the word is uncertain because Paul just made it up from whole cloth. My suggestion to the scholars who have such trouble with this is to get themselves on a translation committee somewhere. Lead, follow or get out of the way!

I haven't heard that particular argument about that section. It's worth looking into, bet there is enough evidence elsewhere to make the case without it.

Jim Chabot

April 22nd, 2010, 10:50 PM

Polygamy is technically a crime on the books, but no one is ever prosecuted for it because the additional marriages are not legal ones. We do have effective polygamy here.

I don't know about that.

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy

Granted that many of these cases have extenuating circumstance.

Ryan Scott

April 22nd, 2010, 10:53 PM

I don't know about that.

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy

Granted that many of these cases have extenuating circumstance.

Those are basically related to underage marriage. Unless someone's trying to get a second marriage certificate or sleeping with a minor, our government doesn't do anything about it.

George Wallace

April 22nd, 2010, 10:59 PM

I agree that God encouraged procreation.

God encouraged? Sorry, for me this doesn't compute.

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 11:02 PM

God encouraged? Sorry, for me this doesn't compute.

Of course it doesn't, but you're no longer arguing homosexuality, you're arguing a literalistic interpretation of Genesis coupled with a Calvinist approach to reading the Scriptures.

Mike McVey

April 22nd, 2010, 11:15 PM

could you point me to the individuals in that line who were closeted homosexuals? I agree that God encouraged procreation. I just don't see any evidence suggesting that absolutely everyone is supposed to procreate.

Well... I have heard it argued that both David was bisexual and Jesus was homosexual. I do not personally endorse or recommend those arguments. But both have been made. In David's case it was his friendship with Jonathan; concerning Jesus, it was the disciple whom Jesus loved - even to the point of allowing the disciple to lay his head on Jesus' lap in the presence of company.

One thing that causes us so much trouble is that how we view homosexual actions today is different than 1st Century Palestine and before. There are some possibilities that some (not all) of the homosexual acts were committed by those on the higher end of society as a status symbol. This is particularly helpful in the cases of the emperors Claudius and Caligula where I think the latter scheduled orgies to show that he had absolute power in controlling people.

Shea Zellweger

April 22nd, 2010, 11:18 PM

Well... I have heard it argued that both David was bisexual and Jesus was homosexual. I do not personally endorse or recommend those arguments. But both have been made. In David's case it was his friendship with Jonathan;

Not to mention Saul pretty much called them Gay :p. But given that David's only recorded sin was begottten by lust for the woman who would eventually be the other half of his link in the chain of Jesus' ancestry, I don't think we need to worry about it.

George Wallace

April 22nd, 2010, 11:19 PM

Of course it doesn't, but you're no longer arguing homosexuality, you're arguing a literalistic interpretation of Genesis coupled with a Calvinist approach to reading the Scriptures.

Like I said for me

For me, without a real 1st Adam the idea of a real 2nd Adam is nonsense.

Mike McVey

April 22nd, 2010, 11:21 PM

Not to mention Saul pretty much called them Gay :p. But given that David's only recorded sin was begottten by lust for the woman who would eventually be the other half of his link in the chain of Jesus' ancestry, I don't think we need to worry about it.

To be a little crass, maybe Jesus' relationship with the disciple is fleshed out when we call David a man after God's own heart? Yeah, I know... I'm bad.

Hans Deventer

April 23rd, 2010, 12:24 AM

Like I said for me

For me, without a real 1st Adam the idea of a real 2nd Adam is nonsense.

Well, not to me. And I also completely disagree with your statement about Adam.

George Wallace

April 23rd, 2010, 12:38 AM

Well, not to me. And I also completely disagree with your statement about Adam.

It really is a world full of diversity.

Cynthia Prentice

April 23rd, 2010, 12:42 AM

Derek Webb's been mostly shut out of the CCM scene for exactly the reasons I listed. He's still on a "Christian" label basically because he's proven he can still make them money. He's also the one who's given Jennifer Knapp a platform to tour and re-enter the music scene.

Again I'm a bit biased because of anecdotal evidence, but CCM always put me off as a bit too manufactured and fake, then hearing stories from people deeply involved in songwriting, recording, and producing who say that most of the people they met in the industry could care less about the Church or the gospel - it really only justifies my preconceived notions.

I've yet to find evidence to change my views - and believe me I'd love to do so.

I wanted to hear how someone in the industry might respond to this so I ran it by Brian Wilson. He gave me permission to post his response. Here it is in its entirety.

Cynthia: Hi Brian, I am involved in an online group and there is a discussion going on right now involving the Christian Music Industry. I'd really like your opinion.

Here is a quote off one of the threads...do you see this as accurate...inaccurate...??? I'm looking more at the part about CCM than about Derek or Jennifer.

quote: "Derek Webb's been mostly shut out of the CCM scene for exactly the reasons I listed. He's still on a "Christian" label basically because he's proven he can still make them money. He's also the one who's given Jennifer Knapp a platform to tour and re-enter the music scene.

Again I'm a bit biased because of anecdotal evidence, but CCM always put me off as a bit too manufactured and fake, then hearing stories from people deeply involved in songwriting, recording, and producing who say that most of the people they met in the industry could care less about the Church or the gospel - it really only justifies my preconceived notions.

I've yet to find evidence to change my views - and believe me I'd love to do so."

Brian: I'll try to fill you in on as much as I can... but this might take more time than I have right now.

I don't want to fall into a situation of discussing cross-denominational differences on human sexuality... this has been an ongoing issue since the beginning of our tour last Fall. Researching homosexuality in the church has become a confusing side project of mine and I always come back to the same conclusion. I'm not gay, of course, but I hold strong views about what I think it means to be 'gay in the church body'.

First of all, try to imagine the 'stickiness' of mixing Jesus with business.. and all of the skepticism that comes with that odd pairing. I have witnessed it for 7 years now (professionally) and about 13 more on the 'minor league' level. Opinions are heavy for almost everyone involved.. and those who aren't.

Let me start with Derek. We actually were in a rehearsal space next to his touring band before our Fall tour September. Nice guy... short though. Derek is a lot like Todd. Both have been a bit 'blacklisted' because of their vocal content and teaching. Both use words like 'whore' and 'slut' in their songs, which can't possibly occur in the realm of the 'christian mind', right? Derek is on the same label/distribution that we are/have been on... INO. It is a part of the Integrity/Provident organization. If Derek is on a "christian" label it is because he chooses to do so. It isn't because he is selling his soul to make money. He may not like the 'machine' of the industry, but he realizes it is a necessary part of getting your music and message out there successfully.

If Jennifer Knapp is out there touring again, it too is because she chose to do so. Finding an inlet back into a 'religious' industry is difficult not only for a lesbian musician... but for the adulterer, thief, liar, etc. Heck.. not even pastors or church staffers can make mistakes without feeling the swift hammer of the body of believers.

There is one rule about our industry... you don't get in it to make money. Period. VERY FEW of the artists that we work with actually make money from their records. Most hope to recoup the costs of the actual recording and distribution process just to get out from under the advance (or, debt) that the record label puts out there to produce the record. I would estimate that most artists, except for the heavy hitters, have a budget of between $50,000 and $200,000 dollars per record. Do the math on the sales that it takes to do so... but be sure to include the % to booking, mgmt, business mgmt, label, distribution, etc. Todd actually did that on his first record. The others were a little more difficult. Bottom line, Derek isn't making much money at this. He is certainly getting by, and I'm glad he continues to do so.

CCM is to the Christian industry what pop music is to the mainstream... a necessary business component. The truth is that radio truly drives the vehicle of our industry. Most people complain that christian radio is the same 12 songs (most from 10 years ago) over and over. But they do nothing about it. Radio plays what people want to hear... and the people who call in or write letters are directing the playlist of the christian radio industry.

I had strong opinions about 'message' when I first came into the industry with Todd. I came from a background of worship, so there was no doubt about why we were there doing what we do. Others, however, do not present themselves as much more than a rock band. There were many out there who didn't often utter the name of Jesus in their music. I took that as either weakness or watered down message. BUT, I soon learned from traveling with a few of these that God will use whatever he chooses to say whatever he pleases. There is music out there that I wouldn't listen to for more than 5 seconds... there is bubble gum pop and there is black metal that sounds like it was belched from hell... but there are people who like that... and if there is an alternative from the mainstream that offers someone a chance to hear the gospel, then play that horrible music for the glory of God. There are hurting kids who wouldn't go near a church because of the way that they look, but God wrestles them to submission at a Disciple or Demon Hunter concert. Now, to the 'meat' of your question or perception.

PROS- This industry is packed full of people who love the Lord and who love people. We have toured with BarlowGirl, Big Daddy Weave, Building 429, Starfield, Audio Adrenaline, Relient K, Newsong, Tait, Warren Barfield, Rebecca St James, Newsboys, Jonah 33, and many others. Almost all of the people that we do shows or festivals with are top notch... great people... down to earth people... very human and approachable. They work hard at what they do. They teach. They team with organizations like Compassion and World Vision. They meet people and go out of their way to make 'ebenezer' moments at their shows or events. I would stick up for any of them, and for many more that I don't know as well but have done shows with... Phil Wickham, Vicky Beeching, Shaun McDonald, etc.
Is it easy to get caught up in it all? Yes. Luckily we never really did. I still look out for us and do my best to make us 'normal' and avoid the elevated treatment that goes with major recognition.

CONS - there are some, indeed, who don't have much business professing the name of God in their present circumstances. I won't name names, but there are some. But my experience shows that there is much more good than 'bad' in the industry. However, some of the bad may be beyond my scope and lie in the 'business side'... management, labels, etc. But most of the artists truly detest dealing with that side of things.. they just want to make music and fellowship with others.

I only know what I have seen... and there is much good being done out there by really great people... believers first, musicians second.

But those who aren't 'good' may have a reason behind their story.. we just have to dig a little to find out what it is, and perhaps help them get back on track and be the support that we are called to be.

You can include whatever you choose to. Todd has never been one for the 'establishment'... he doesn't write radio-friendly songs, therefore he doesn't really get on the radio. It definitely shows in our 'income department', but the people who follow or support us are very loyal.

They can suppose all they want to, but until they are in the industry, they can't truly speak about the heart of the musician or worship leader. Perhaps we can say that we are 'soiled against the seminary intellectual types... all head knowledge and no outreach?' I wouldn't dare, because I know many who have completed seminary and march straight out to continue the great commission. I just wish that those who pigeon-hole me and my brothers and sisters could see past their own perceptions and realize the actualities about our ministries.

Hope this helps a little.... I could go on and on....

BW

George Wallace

April 23rd, 2010, 01:15 AM

I can't state fully what George's intent here was, but since he used the word "believer" when talking about the struggle, and "person who claims to be a believer" when talking about the refusal, I think it's fair to say he is at least in part questioning her salvation.

Maybe "person who claims" wasn't the best phrasing. It was just part of my attempt to differentiate between someone who says, "this is hard Lord, I know what I am supposed to do and I keep yielding to temptation, even though I know it is sin. Please help." And the person that says "this feels right, I am going to do it." I have no clue whether Knapp is a believer or unbeliever, sheep or Goat? If her name is written in the Lambs Book of Life, then she is a believer. If she is, then right now IMO she is in rebellion. I am a firm believer in Romans 10:13 (Also Joel Chapter 2 also if memory serves.) I ain't in the business of saying who is and is not saved. If we snapshoted David during the whole Bathsheba - Uriah incident what would we say about him?

She ain't dead. I believe she is willfully sinning but as long as Christ tarries there is repentance.

There are times when I could say with certainty that someone has been deceived, and does not know the true Gospel. As a believer I would feel it my duty to share the Gospel with them in hopes that they repent and believe. This is not one of those times. I can't discern that from one written interview.

Hans Deventer

April 23rd, 2010, 01:21 AM

I ain't in the business of saying who is and is not saved. [...]

There are times when I could say with certainty that someone has been deceived, and does not know the true Gospel. As a believer I would feel it my duty to share the Gospel with them in hopes that they repent and believe. This is not one of those times. I can't discern that from one written interview.

Now that is something I CAN agree with.

George Wallace

April 23rd, 2010, 01:34 AM

Of course it doesn't, but you're no longer arguing homosexuality, you're arguing a literalistic interpretation of Genesis coupled with a Calvinist approach to reading the Scriptures.

No actually I believe I am still arguing homosexuality; I am just arguing it using Genesis from a literal Calvinist reading of the scriptures.

Hans Deventer

April 23rd, 2010, 01:39 AM

No actually I believe I am still arguing homosexuality; I am just arguing it using Genesis from a literal Calvinist reading of the scriptures.

That being the case, and considering your avatar, I've changed my avatar too, reminding us of John Wesley's "Arminian Magazine". And of course in honour of my fellow Dutchman, Jakob Harmenszoon (aka James Arminius).

Mike McVey

April 23rd, 2010, 01:40 AM

I'm sticking with my goofy hat. :p

George Wallace

April 23rd, 2010, 01:45 AM

I'm sticking with my goofy hat. :p

You look maaaahrvelous!

Mike McVey

April 23rd, 2010, 02:03 AM

I wanted to hear how someone in the industry might respond to this so I ran it by Brian Wilson. He gave me permission to post his response. Here it is in its entirety.

Is this Brian C. Wilson? R&B guy? I'll have to admit, I thought you were originally referring to the Beach Boy of the same name.

Anyways...

I don't think much of what Brian says contradicts what Ryan said. The only thing that rubs is from those who those he heard "stories from people deeply involved in songwriting, recording, and producing who say that most of the people they met in the industry could care less about the Church or the gospel". Having played a role in the Christian music industry for a few years, albeit a small role, I know of few Christian artists who care less about the Church or the gospel. But the companies themselves - the ones who sign the artists - are probably the ones that are being targeted in Ryan's response. But this is my reading, and I do not speak for Ryan.

Brian is definitely right that the radio play is a major issue. But even more so, it is the advertisers... er... the announcing of companies' - who are donating - products that direct the radio. Those who buy advertising space/donate the most generally want positive, encouraging music to identify their product/services of the like. There are very few alternative 'Christian' music stations. Most of them have a financer who is paying for a bulk of it. The others have almost completely secular advertising. FWIW, K-Love seems to be where most of the stereotypes come from concerning CCM. The magazine named CCM used to be the print version of K-Love concerning music (I think I remember there being a real connection between the two) but I haven't looked at a CCM mag in a decade. K-Love plays a lot more edgy stuff compared to 10 years ago, so that is an improvement, but it is quite small.

To bring this back in light to the topic,
I just wish that those who pigeon-hole me and my brothers and sisters could see past their own perceptions and realize the actualities about our ministries. If indeed the recording artists are doing ministry, there is relatively low accountability by the industry. Their function is not too different than travelling evangelists and though a spark may happen through an event or concert, their is hardly any follow-up with the one being ministered to. I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I would love to realize the actualities about their ministries. I feel like I know some of them and I stick to my above statement about travelling evangelists. This has less to do with being from seminary or being an intellectual and being concerned that we are receiving a toy with no batteries on Christmas day when the stores are closed. It's exciting to get the toy, but it is useless without the batteries. One difference is evangelists do have a credentialing process... Christian artists do not. Seminarians go through the education as part of their credentialing. Christian musicians write words and notes down (if we are lucky) and share it with others. Nothing wrong with that, but the churches have to deal with the errant messages contained in the theology. As a songwriter, I understand that it is difficult for most to bring out better theology in our words. At the same time theology and ministry are intertwined. When you do one you do the other and vice versa.

Was what Knapp was doing ministry? She says what she is doing now is not. But her telling of the pressures of the industry in the article are not unique to her. How do the actualities of her 'previous' ministry affect those today who were ministered to? Does it taint the Christian witness because we are not able to separate what she did from who she is doing? What parts of the theology are kept and what is thrown out? When pastors get divorced, come out of the closet (or have personal massages), have an affair, etc. it completely devastates a local church community. Several who were served under that pastor have to come to grips with what happened, but they do have a community to help them move past. Most in Christian music do not connect people to local churches and when Grant or Knapp or Patty or Ray Boltz do their indiscretion there is no one to fall back on, to help them through.

This is not contradicting to what Brian has said, but to say those that are criticizing the Christian music industry are just pigeon-holing and not seeing past their own perceptions is a gross overstatement. If anything, there are more than a few kernels of truth in the criticisms. There is a reason that more and more 'Christian' artists are choosing the the secular music industry to pursue their art... and it isn't just the money.

Hans Deventer

April 23rd, 2010, 02:20 AM

You know, after 200+ posts, I wonder if we ever can convince people to choose a different lifestyle (presuming that is the issue and we're talking about a matter of choice here. Considering the option of celibacy, I guess we must) unless we show a lifestyle that is worth living and choosing as an alternative. Reading Acts 2, surely there is a link between the Christians enjoying the favour of all the people (besides other issues) and the fact that the Lord added to their number.
If I'm gay or lesbian, does the community of the saints, living with Christ and his people, offer an alternative that is worth considering over a lesbian or gay lover?

Let's get a little closer to home: is your local church community and your faith a good alternative to your spouse, if such was necessary?

Mike McVey

April 23rd, 2010, 02:47 AM

If I'm gay or lesbian, does the community of the saints, living with Christ and his people, offer an alternative that is worth considering over a lesbian or gay lover?

Let's get a little closer to home: is your local church community and your faith a good alternative to your spouse, if such was necessary?

Great questions.

To the first, I would like to say yes. But the second questions is trickier and makes me want to hold back on my first answer. Paul kind of hits this on the head when he says that if we choose to marry that the spouse takes on a role that is as important as the church. But if we are married to an unbeliever we are not to abandon them for the church. So how is the alternative to play a role exactly? Would I give up my wife for my faith and the church? What kind of situations would make that necessary? I feel like if my marriage is under God, then what situation other than death would be necessary to leave her?

Of course, that may be your point. Is there a necessary reason for a person engaged with a gay/lesbian lover to abandon them for Christ? Is there a necessary reason for a spouse to abandon their other for Christ?

Now I want to answer no but also yes. For me to answer yes to the former, I think I would need a yes to the latter. For me, saying that the former is sinful is not enough for me to just follow... at least not currently.

Jim Chabot

April 23rd, 2010, 06:12 AM

Great questions.

To the first, I would like to say yes. But the second questions is trickier and makes me want to hold back on my first answer. Paul kind of hits this on the head when he says that if we choose to marry that the spouse takes on a role that is as important as the church. But if we are married to an unbeliever we are not to abandon them for the church. So how is the alternative to play a role exactly? Would I give up my wife for my faith and the church? What kind of situations would make that necessary? I feel like if my marriage is under God, then what situation other than death would be necessary to leave her?

Of course, that may be your point. Is there a necessary reason for a person engaged with a gay/lesbian lover to abandon them for Christ? Is there a necessary reason for a spouse to abandon their other for Christ?

Now I want to answer no but also yes. For me to answer yes to the former, I think I would need a yes to the latter. For me, saying that the former is sinful is not enough for me to just follow... at least not currently.

Really is something to think about. I can't honestly answer the first question because I need first to admit that I can't fully comprehend the pressures contained in such a relationship. I think that there is another dynamic as well. There is also a community, a support group if you will, this also exerts pressure against this choice. I would hope that I would make the choice of life over death, and I would hope that the Christian community makes that clear to me.

Now if I turn that around and look at the question from our side, that is to say the community of saints. Then the answer would be a resounding yes. Are we perfect? No of course not. We offer life, both here and in the hereafter, while they offer death, and a good chance for an early one right here on earth. We offer acceptance (not perfectly, I admit.) While they offer ostracisation from society as a whole. (I realize that is not a word, I made it up for Ben to illustrate that even if Paul made up the word translated homosexual, there is no reason to believe that it wasn't easily understood.)

On the second question, this is not so easy. There is no simple answer, because on it's face, no choice will ever be necessary at least in the sense where we would make that choice. Our faith calls us to a life long commitment, which I believe we cannot break for any reason beyond consummation. Therefore this isn't something that I would normally contemplate. But you asked and I believe that it is a fair question.

I suppose the way that this choice could come about would be in the case where one's spouse is an unbeliever and wishes to leave for that reason. I am hesitant to say that because I have seen cases where this was claimed while the real reason was the the husband was a believing, yet controlling jerk who wouldn't ever let his wife up for air. Sad to say, I think that happens quite a bit, such a one should never grace a pulpit. Okay sorry about the rant, back to the task at hand. Now I suppose one could make claim that in order to keep his or her spouse a decision to leave the community of faith would be necessary. I don't see that as anything other than a remote possibility here in our culture, but I could see it as possible in parts of the world where religious intollerance runs high, so I think we need to consider it.

So after thinking it through, I will answer yes. Yes, I would always consider myself married and would seek reconciliation forever, even if only in my heart. But yes, I choose life, I choose faith in one who will one day make all things right. And Yes my particular faith community offers that alternative in the case of something that I would rather not imagine. Yes, yes and yes, thank you for making me think and making me realize what a wonderful community I belong to!

Strange how a seemingly dark question can actually brighten the start of someones day. Thank you!

Cynthia Prentice

April 23rd, 2010, 07:40 AM

Is this Brian C. Wilson? R&B guy? I'll have to admit, I thought you were originally referring to the Beach Boy of the same name.

Anyways...

I don't think much of what Brian says contradicts what Ryan said. The only thing that rubs is from those who those he heard "stories from people deeply involved in songwriting, recording, and producing who say that most of the people they met in the industry could care less about the Church or the gospel". Having played a role in the Christian music industry for a few years, albeit a small role, I know of few Christian artists who care less about the Church or the gospel. But the companies themselves - the ones who sign the artists - are probably the ones that are being targeted in Ryan's response. But this is my reading, and I do not speak for Ryan.

Brian is definitely right that the radio play is a major issue. But even more so, it is the advertisers... er... the announcing of companies' - who are donating - products that direct the radio. Those who buy advertising space/donate the most generally want positive, encouraging music to identify their product/services of the like. There are very few alternative 'Christian' music stations. Most of them have a financer who is paying for a bulk of it. The others have almost completely secular advertising. FWIW, K-Love seems to be where most of the stereotypes come from concerning CCM. The magazine named CCM used to be the print version of K-Love concerning music (I think I remember there being a real connection between the two) but I haven't looked at a CCM mag in a decade. K-Love plays a lot more edgy stuff compared to 10 years ago, so that is an improvement, but it is quite small.

To bring this back in light to the topic, If indeed the recording artists are doing ministry, there is relatively low accountability by the industry. Their function is not too different than travelling evangelists and though a spark may happen through an event or concert, their is hardly any follow-up with the one being ministered to. I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I would love to realize the actualities about their ministries. I feel like I know some of them and I stick to my above statement about travelling evangelists. This has less to do with being from seminary or being an intellectual and being concerned that we are receiving a toy with no batteries on Christmas day when the stores are closed. It's exciting to get the toy, but it is useless without the batteries. One difference is evangelists do have a credentialing process... Christian artists do not. Seminarians go through the education as part of their credentialing. Christian musicians write words and notes down (if we are lucky) and share it with others. Nothing wrong with that, but the churches have to deal with the errant messages contained in the theology. As a songwriter, I understand that it is difficult for most to bring out better theology in our words. At the same time theology and ministry are intertwined. When you do one you do the other and vice versa.

Was what Knapp was doing ministry? She says what she is doing now is not. But her telling of the pressures of the industry in the article are not unique to her. How do the actualities of her 'previous' ministry affect those today who were ministered to? Does it taint the Christian witness because we are not able to separate what she did from who she is doing? What parts of the theology are kept and what is thrown out? When pastors get divorced, come out of the closet (or have personal massages), have an affair, etc. it completely devastates a local church community. Several who were served under that pastor have to come to grips with what happened, but they do have a community to help them move past. Most in Christian music do not connect people to local churches and when Grant or Knapp or Patty or Ray Boltz do their indiscretion there is no one to fall back on, to help them through.

This is not contradicting to what Brian has said, but to say those that are criticizing the Christian music industry are just pigeon-holing and not seeing past their own perceptions is a gross overstatement. If anything, there are more than a few kernels of truth in the criticisms. There is a reason that more and more 'Christian' artists are choosing the the secular music industry to pursue their art... and it isn't just the money.

Brian Wilson is the drummer for Todd Agnew...and also my cousin. He is a man of integrity, he's in the industry and I appreciate him taking the time to contribute to this conversation. Of course you are always free to disagree and I respect that.

Ryan Scott

April 23rd, 2010, 08:15 AM

Just to answers - yes, mostly the management side is where I've heard some rough stories, also the corporate songwriters who are hired by the companies to write songs for people. Just because someone can write lyrics that Christians enjoy doesn't mean there's any care or theology behind them. I don't know much about Christian artists themselves, other than the many of the artists I most admire and respect have left CCM labels for many of the same reasons I refuse to support it.

On top of that, I do have pretty strong ideological feelings that we shouldn't be compartmentalizing anything (let alone art) into categories of "Christian" and "Secular." CCM (along withe Christian publishing) is one of the more egregious examples of this. There are lots of well meaning Christians who participate in things that are detrimental to the world - I happen to believe this is one of them.

Todd Erickson

April 23rd, 2010, 08:26 AM

Jim Chabot

April 23rd, 2010, 08:40 AM

The general answer to this is "no".

Even as a straight married person, church brings me endless frustration, pain, and anger. I go because I should, not because I get any enjoyment or community out of it.

If I was gay, I would stay as far away from the church as I possibly could, most likely. But then, being educated in the middle of AR sometimes approaches the same level of pressure.

Church (edited). But we have to go.

No we do not have to go!, at least we do not have to go where we receive endless frustration pain and anger. There is a place where you will feel kinship, and community, but you need to actively seek it.

I too have been in churches where it (edited), to add pressure, those churches were the ones where my wife felt comfortable and didn't want to leave. We struggled immensely during those years, it strained our marriage very, very close to the braking point. But we got past it. Hey it was only about twenty years of anguish so no big deal. Cling to your faith, remain steadfast and make a laser beam focused commitment to excellence in your marriage, excellence in church and true faith. There is a congregation somewhere, where you will long to return week after week. You are a good man Todd, I can sense in your posts that you seek truth diligently, there is a place!

Benjamin Burch

April 23rd, 2010, 09:12 AM

Oh except there may not be multiple husbands, only wives.... but God has no problem with it.

I just don't see how that has any relation to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God has no problem with an practice which clearly favors one gender's sex desires over the others, and objectifies women?

The fact that it's "only multiple wives" should be a HUGE clue that God does in fact have a problem with it. Maybe it's just me.

Cindi Hammons

April 23rd, 2010, 09:29 AM

Mike, this isn't to slam anything you said about KLOVE, but just my own experience with the radio station. :)

I live in an extremely rural community in Southern Ohio. A few years ago, the only Christian music one could hear on the radio was the type that ended up at the National Quartet Convention...along with all the huffing and puffing preachers one could bear to hear. Our only outlet for hearing new CCM music was to bet on purchasing the WOW cd's at our local Christian book store (in a small nook buried behind all the quartet music). One day I accidently hit "search" on my radio....Lo and behold, I heard a song by a group on one of our WOW cd's!!! I was shocked to hear that KLOVE had come to our corner of rural Ohio! Suddenly the people in our area were aware of CCM music. The Christian book store put up a larger display of CCM music on their shelves. Some churches started to change their worship style. My kids stopped listening (on their own) to secular radio.

People may think that KLOVE is vanilla pudding, but I see it as a life raft that was tossed our way in rural Ohio. It may also be easy to dislike what KLOVE plays, and I admit that I think some of it gets pretty repititious, but when one thinks about the HUGE variety of communities that KLOVE must fit into, it is easy to see how they must find a common denominator and not be so cutting edge. Isn't that what Air-1 is all about?

The main negative thing I see about KLOVE or other mega-stations is that it must make it so much harder for new groups to break into radio air-time.

Again, not meant to slam anything you were saying Mike, just my experience with mega CCM radio.

Ryan Scott

April 23rd, 2010, 09:44 AM

For me it's more an issue of what's in the music. Most CCM stuff teaches shallow faith and pop theology. I have some issue with the business model and the false dichotomy of Christian/secular, but its just as much about the music for me. I really believe one's world view is developed more, often unconsciously, through music and pop culture than they ever do through preaching or teaching. I think I'd rather have people learning thing that need to be challenged without the false impression that it's a Christian way of viewing the world.

Todd Erickson

April 23rd, 2010, 09:50 AM

The Target audience of KLOVE is house wives and school kids. And it does pretty well for them. The folks who aren't happy with it? You're not their target audience, so that's okay.

Jon Twitchell

April 23rd, 2010, 09:57 AM

Has anyone in this thread yet mentioned the use of the acronym JPM in the Christian Music Industry?

Do you know what JPM means? It's an actual acronym that I've heard used by radio professionals who've been to Gospel Music Association seminars.

JPM = Jesus per Minute.

The theory is that much of your target audience expects a high JPM in their music.

Mike McVey

April 23rd, 2010, 11:13 AM

Brian Wilson is the drummer for Todd Agnew...and also my cousin. He is a man of integrity, he's in the industry and I appreciate him taking the time to contribute to this conversation. Of course you are always free to disagree and I respect that.

Cynthia, I mean no disrespect. I have no doubt that he is a man of integrity and I do appreciate his thoughts. I will say that it was because of Christian radio that I came to know Agnew and co. That was in 2002 or 2003.

Mike, this isn't to slam anything you said about KLOVE, but just my own experience with the radio station. :)

The main negative thing I see about KLOVE or other mega-stations is that it must make it so much harder for new groups to break into radio air-time...

Again, not meant to slam anything you were saying Mike, just my experience with mega CCM radio.

Cindi, I don't consider what you wrote slamming anything I was saying. If anything, it furthers my point. I have a particularly long, unpleasant history with KLOVE. Back in 98 or 99, some from my church wanted to hear a song on their top 10 voted of the week. They told us to call in and vote. We had several hundred calls and were told it did not matter how many votes we had because they did not play "that kind of music." I understand the presence that KLOVE gives and have mixed feelings concerning it. I actually prefer secular radio over most Christian radio. I am very selective when it comes to buying/listening to Christian music. I want to hear how people are doing things with music not the voice range of people (why I can't stand American Idol).

For me it's more an issue of what's in the music. Most CCM stuff teaches shallow faith and pop theology. I have some issue with the business model and the false dichotomy of Christian/secular, but its just as much about the music for me. I really believe one's world view is developed more, often unconsciously, through music and pop culture than they ever do through preaching or teaching. I think I'd rather have people learning thing that need to be challenged without the false impression that it's a Christian way of viewing the world.

Very well said. I remember when SCC (Steven Curtis Chapman) came out with his What about the change? song. It immediately became a hit even though it was a purposely awkwardly written song. It was the third time I remember CCM making a song that was speaking against the industry a hit through the industry. The other two were All Star United's Smash Hit and Grover Levy's If You Want to Lead Me to Jesus.

Has anyone in this thread yet mentioned the use of the acronym JPM in the Christian Music Industry?
....
JPM = Jesus per Minute.
The theory is that much of your target audience expects a high JPM in their music.

No one has mentioned it yet, Jon. But that reminds me that when Caedmon's Call first came on the recording scene that even KLOVE wouldn't play anything from their first album because Jesus and God were not mentioned even once. They finally agreed to record Rich Mullin's Hope to Carry On and that became the first hit of CC. Had they not recorded that song, it would have taken another decade before they might have made it big - if ever. I am thankful because Webb's Mockingbird album might possibly be my favorite ever.

George Wallace

April 23rd, 2010, 12:17 PM

That being the case, and considering your avatar, I've changed my avatar too, reminding us of John Wesley's "Arminian Magazine". And of course in honour of my fellow Dutchman, Jakob Harmenszoon (aka James Arminius).

The new Avatar is a little somber for you. I like your smiling mug. Maybe the Satire of the last two new Avatars I tried doesn't play well across the pond. The first on had an Obama-ized version of Calvin but instead of "Change" it read "Unconditional Change" I thought it was hilarious. Then I switched to the ""John Calvin Goes to Berkeley" Avatar. Again, major satire, but probably only plays well in the States.

So, I have now found another new one. This should make Mike happy too; how about John Calvin in a goofy hat?

Cynthia Prentice

April 23rd, 2010, 01:09 PM

Cynthia, I mean no disrespect. I have no doubt that he is a man of integrity and I do appreciate his thoughts. I will say that it was because of Christian radio that I came to know Agnew and co. That was in 2002 or 2003.

Cindi, I don't consider what you wrote slamming anything I was saying. If anything, it furthers my point. I have a particularly long, unpleasant history with KLOVE. Back in 98 or 99, some from my church wanted to hear a song on their top 10 voted of the week. They told us to call in and vote. We had several hundred calls and were told it did not matter how many votes we had because they did not play "that kind of music." I understand the presence that KLOVE gives and have mixed feelings concerning it. I actually prefer secular radio over most Christian radio. I am very selective when it comes to buying/listening to Christian music. I want to hear how people are doing things with music not the voice range of people (why I can't stand American Idol).

Very well said. I remember when SCC (Steven Curtis Chapman) came out with his What about the change? song. It immediately became a hit even though it was a purposely awkwardly written song. It was the third time I remember CCM making a song that was speaking against the industry a hit through the industry. The other two were All Star United's Smash Hit and Grover Levy's If You Want to Lead Me to Jesus.

No one has mentioned it yet, Jon. But that reminds me that when Caedmon's Call first came on the recording scene that even KLOVE wouldn't play anything from their first album because Jesus and God were not mentioned even once. They finally agreed to record Rich Mullin's Hope to Carry On and that became the first hit of CC. Had they not recorded that song, it would have taken another decade before they might have made it big - if ever. I am thankful because Webb's Mockingbird album might possibly be my favorite ever.

Not a problem at all Mike. I stated it because there are artists who are not people of integrity...just like there are pastors without integrity. There are however more checks and balances for pastors. Much has changed since CCM came about and I agree (as does Brian) that the business end of it is awful. In this age of information more and more options are available to get your music out there. But think back to the infancy of CCM...during the Keith Green days there were not many options at all. Because of the changes in technology it is possible Christian labels will become obsolete...who knows. Maybe it will go the way of the player piano. During the period of 1920-1930 the player piano was THE way to disseminate and listen to current/popular/new music. More than half the pianos manufactured contained a player unit. It was the dominate force in the industry. Then along came radio and the amplification of records...the player piano became obsolete.

The business end of Christian music is predominantly secular...the challenge for any musician has always been how to get their music to the people they want to hear it. If someone is morally opposed to a Christian label...that is fine with me. To each his own. The image that stays with me is that of a woman named R***. She was abused as a child...raised in CPS system...men were in and out of her life and bed...all of her children have different fathers...but as she became a follower of Jesus she began listening to a Christian Music station. On the night one of the men returned and tried to secretly contact her daughter at school I met with her. She was devestated at the reality of what her choices had done to her children. She was lower than lower than low. I knelt before her and shared my story and told her I loved her and that she was not alone...she had her brothers and sisters in Christ and she had the very presence of God to help her with her incredible shame and fear (of the man abducting her child). She went out for a smoke and came back in with tears in her eyes. She shared with me that while listening to radio she heard a song that she had never heard before...I'll Praise You In the Storm. She said to me...I know God is with me and regardless of whatever storm I am in I will not go back to my old way of life and I will not stop following Jesus. To be candid, R*** didn't care what label/company/machine produced the song she heard. She knows nothing of the industry or dare I say even the artists singing it. All she knows is that there is a place she can go on the radio to hear a message she wasn't hearing before...and it made a difference for her. She is a "nursing" baby follower of Jesus and this "milk" helped her.

I'm not saying this is your view...but I can respect the views of purists who boycott Christian music because of their deep held convictions. But in that moment it made a difference for a woman who has survived a very hard life. I guess my approach could be summed up like this..."Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice." Phil 1:15

edited to add: I am heading out to Conroe..the open road...no computer and a little R & R...blessings to you and your family. Cynthia

Bob Hunter

April 23rd, 2010, 01:57 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "Yes, the Bible is not clear enough on homosexuality in my opinion to state that it's sin."

When it's grouped with other things we throw out, when one instance may not be Paul's thought at all but his representation of a false teacher, when it is part of the same sexual ethic that promotes polygamy, when one of the references falsely attributes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to homosexual behavior... and when ultimately the law of Christ is summed up in "love God, and your neighbor as yourself"....

I'd say it's very hard to make a claim that the Bible is "clear." That's not to say it doesn't say something which might be easily (and faithfully) interpreted one way. I'm just saying that "clear" is not the word I would use.

I came to this a little bit late. But let me just add a thought or two that might be helpful. As I read this thread, I was a little uncomfortable with what appeared to be an attempt to make a clear statement about homosexuality from 7-8verses of scripture. Then of course, debate and discussion followed. I personally was hoping that we would appeal to the larger narrative framework of scripture. I was thinking about the creation and ordinance of marriage and the presentation of the first couple in Gen. 1(Adam & Eve). And of course there is Song of Songs (a whole book devoted to male/female romance). We might also appeal to the Bride/Bridegroom metaphor (The Church as the Bride of Christ). Additionally, there are large narratives devoted to male/female relations such as Abraham and Sarah, Hosea and Gomer, etc. The list goes on... I just don't see where scripture puts same sex relations in very positive light. We could assume a lot from that. It appears God's heart and passion for humankind is carried out and delivered in the context of heterosexual relationships.

That said, I also recognize that sometimes aberrant Heterosexual behavior is condemned. And I am absolutely convinced from Paul's writings that single people can be an elite force for God in His Kingdom. This means that people who struggle with same sex attractions such as Jennifer Knapp can have a vital role in ministry assuming they are single and celibate. And don't rule out the fact that some who act upon their desire for the same sex relations will stay in those relationships indefinitely. Literally, thousands in the homosexual community make an attempt to leave it at some point.

Perhaps stating my opinion here puts me in the "Clear" camp. Admittedly, I do see a clear message in scripture, but I'm not just looking at individual verses. I'm looking at the larger framework of scripture and taking into account God's overall design for humanity.

I would just add in closing (as I have before), that I have had first hand exposure to this issue for 25 years, I have a close family member who is gay. I want nothing more than for this person to be loved, accepted and regarded as God's child. So there is always a degree of uneasiness expressing my views, but somehow God has helped our family over the years to stay true to our beliefs and maintain our relationships with one another.

Mike McVey

April 23rd, 2010, 02:47 PM

I came to this a little bit late. But let me just add a thought or two that might be helpful. As I read this thread, I was a little uncomfortable with what appeared to be an attempt to make a clear statement about homosexuality from 7-8verses of scripture. Then of course, debate and discussion followed. I personally was hoping that we would appeal to the larger narrative framework of scripture. I was thinking about the creation and ordinance of marriage and the presentation of the first couple in Gen. 1(Adam & Eve). And of course there is Song of Songs (a whole book devoted to male/female romance). We might also appeal to the Bride/Bridegroom metaphor (The Church as the Bride of Christ). Additionally, there are large narratives devoted to male/female relations such as Abraham and Sarah, Hosea and Gomer, etc. The list goes on... I just don't see where scripture puts same sex relations in very positive light. We could assume a lot from that. It appears God's heart and passion for humankind is carried out and delivered in the context of heterosexual relationships.

I don't really disagree here. I think we need to keep in mind that homosexuality was a luxury that couldn't be afforded when the people were nomadic. Life is to important and cannot get wasted because of the actions of a few. And maybe that is where the crux of the issue is today. When the church was undergoing deathly persecution, such squabbles over these issues would have led to more problems. It wasn't until Christendom (or Jerusalem) started to become established that secondary issues such as these were hashed out. Now, it seems that Christendom's temple is being burned by the prevailing culture and it hasn't yet reached its Masada.

Perhaps stating my opinion here puts me in the "Clear" camp. Admittedly, I do see a clear message in scripture, but I'm not just looking at individual verses. I'm looking at the larger framework of scripture and taking into account God's overall design for humanity.

Well, the good news of being in the 'clear' camp is that you have a connecting point with the concerned nazarenes. ;) :p

Jim Chabot

April 23rd, 2010, 02:58 PM

I just don't see how that has any relation to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God has no problem with an practice which clearly favors one gender's sex desires over the others, and objectifies women?

The fact that it's "only multiple wives" should be a HUGE clue that God does in fact have a problem with it. Maybe it's just me.

I have wondered about this for some time now, and what I am wondering is if it is our different approaches that cause us to come to differing conclusions. I tend to look at things in a technical sense first, then I try to understand the thoughts of the writer. What I hear many times makes me thing that many actually hone in on the thoughts first, then decide what nagging details must be discarded. I hope that I haven't misstated how you look at things, I am not trying to argue, rather I am trying to understand how this works.

But yes, the text indicates that multiple wives were commonplace in the OT, and I see no prohibition in the NT with the exception of those in ministry. In fact I believe that Revelation speaks of a situation where women will ask to be added to a family for protection. Do I wish somewhere deep in my subconscious, that I could have multiple wives? Not in even my wildest dreams, that sounds like far more than I could handle. Do I wish that they would legalize it. No, we have enough family unit problems in our society as is, I don;t think this would help. But the text indicates that God has no problem with this.

Interestingly enough, if we were to extrapolate some of the thought process involved in the homosexual textual criticisms. We might be inclined to believe that Paul was a celibate eccentric and he spoke from that perspective. Therefore we could disregard what he said about celibacy being superior, and we could also discard the husband of one wife thing. But to move in opposite directions from the same authors thoughts is quite curious. So I guess that I am going to continue to look at the technical details in order to gain an understanding of our creator. He is quite complex to say the least.

Mike McVey

April 23rd, 2010, 03:14 PM

If I'm gay or lesbian, does the community of the saints, living with Christ and his people, offer an alternative that is worth considering over a lesbian or gay lover?

Let's get a little closer to home: is your local church community and your faith a good alternative to your spouse, if such was necessary?

I am still stuck on the 'necessary' component. If it was necessary (though to convince me it was necessary would be necessary ;)) than I would have to say yes, my faith would be the only alternative to justify leaving my spouse. I hesitate on the local church community because right now my wife makes up 20% of my local church. I feel like the question is a plot line for a movie:

In the midst of a crazed world where everyone indulged themselves in selfish desires, one man followed the voice of God. He left his wife because she was not in God's plan.

I think if I was a habitual sinning in any particular area, I would like to think that yes, the church community would offer a good alternative to that sin. I have the current advantage of saying that my marriage was ordained by God and recognized by the church as not being sin. Regardless what the state says, my marriage is valid in the church's eyes. If we say that living in a homosexual relationship is sin, then yes, the church does offer a good alternative if the person(s) involved plan on denying themselves to follow Christ. As the statement the BoGS sent out a couple years ago, I agree with what they had to say. If I remember correctly, we do consider homosexual actions are sin and so I would have to say that the faith and church community offer a good alternative.

Shea Zellweger

April 23rd, 2010, 03:18 PM

I have wondered about this for some time now, and what I am wondering is if it is our different approaches that cause us to come to differing conclusions. I tend to look at things in a technical sense first, then I try to understand the thoughts of the writer. What I hear many times makes me thing that many actually hone in on the thoughts first, then decide what nagging details must be discarded. I hope that I haven't misstated how you look at things, I am not trying to argue, rather I am trying to understand how this works.

But yes, the text indicates that multiple wives were commonplace in the OT, and I see no prohibition in the NT with the exception of those in ministry. In fact I believe that Revelation speaks of a situation where women will ask to be added to a family for protection. Do I wish somewhere deep in my subconscious, that I could have multiple wives? Not in even my wildest dreams, that sounds like far more than I could handle. Do I wish that they would legalize it. No, we have enough family unit problems in our society as is, I don;t think this would help. But the text indicates that God has no problem with this.

Interestingly enough, if we were to extrapolate some of the thought process involved in the homosexual textual criticisms. We might be inclined to believe that Paul was a celibate eccentric and he spoke from that perspective. Therefore we could disregard what he said about celibacy being superior, and we could also discard the husband of one wife thing. But to move in opposite directions from the same authors thoughts is quite curious. So I guess that I am going to continue to look at the technical details in order to gain an understanding of our creator. He is quite complex to say the least.

There's really no biblical condemnation of Polyandry (multiple husbands), it just wasn't the cultural norm at the time. In some cultures, it's quite common for brothers to share a wife, and I don't recall any verse that explicitly says that's wrong. Why any woman would want two husbands is beyond me, but I don't see it as being forbidden...

Benjamin Burch

April 23rd, 2010, 03:23 PM

But the text indicates that God has no problem with this.

Or the text indicates that it was written by a male-dominant, nomadic culture where having offspring to preserve the blood line was of the utmost importance and therefore it was considered a good thing to marry multiple women. I don't think it says anything about God at all.

Shea Zellweger

April 23rd, 2010, 03:42 PM

Or the text indicates that it was written by a male-dominant, nomadic culture where having offspring to preserve the blood line was of the utmost importance and therefore it was considered a good thing to marry multiple women. I don't think it says anything about God at all.

If we're going to start arguing from the Biblical narrative, can we really come to any conclusion other than that polygyny is a bad thing?
Abraham slept with his wife's handmaiden, and their offspring was ostracized.
Jacob married sisters, then the slaves of those sisters, and the jealousy that ran amok in that family effectively brought about centuries of slavery for Abraham's lineage.
David murdered someone so he could have yet another wife.
Solomon was led astray by his foreign wives.
I've always had a feeling something happened with some elder of the early church and his wives, leading Paul to say only monogamous men could be church leaders.

Can you point to an instance in Scripture where a story of multiple wives ended up actually being a good thing? And I'm not talking about God growing roses in a pile of manure, I'm talking about an instance where polygyny was a genuinely positive thing without any sort of repercussions.

James Johnson

April 23rd, 2010, 03:49 PM

And while you're looking, can you point to an instance in scripture where homosexuality is looked at as a good thing?

Mike McVey

April 23rd, 2010, 03:53 PM

And while you're looking, can you point to an instance in scripture where homosexuality is looked at as a good thing?

Well, I think their are some interpretations of scripture (which is what we are all doing) that show David's special friendship with Jonathan and Jesus' special disciple that there may be specific times where homosexuality is considered a good thing. As I said before, I do not agree or endorse those positions, but they are there.

Shea Zellweger

April 23rd, 2010, 04:05 PM

And while you're looking, can you point to an instance in scripture where homosexuality is looked at as a good thing?

Actually, Jim, my point was that we need to be careful in going to far when it comes to the biblical narrative. Polygamy was clearly allowed in Scripture, despite the fact that it never seemed to work out. Slavery was also permitted, and that was also a generally negative experience. Bacon, on the other hand, was forbidden. Just because something worked in a positive or negative manner in some biblical story does not mean that thing is required or forbidden.

Bob Hunter

April 23rd, 2010, 04:11 PM

There's really no biblical condemnation of Polyandry (multiple husbands), it just wasn't the cultural norm at the time. In some cultures, it's quite common for brothers to share a wife, and I don't recall any verse that explicitly says that's wrong. Why any woman would want two husbands is beyond me, but I don't see it as being forbidden...

I think it is fair to say a lot of things are not forbidden in scripture, but we can reasonably assume from scripture as a whole that certain practices and lifestyles are not advisable and do not encourage healthy Christian living. I fear a conversation such as this one can too easily get bogged with individual verses and prohibitions when the larger discussion on sexual ethics looms.

I don't know how this sounds but if I may share an observation about homosexuality. There is something inherently missing in a same sex relationship when a person seeks another like him or herself. In God's grand design our lives are enriched by people who are different than us. Hence the beauty, romance and attraction of a man and a women. Even today, we are beginning to see diversity re-emerge in urban Churches, I think this is good for the body of Christ. In any event, I have always found it interesting that gay couples tend to play a game of role reversal in the relationship. One or the other will take on certain female or male mannerisms, characteristics and responsibilities. I have always wondered what drives this behavior. I can't say I have the answer, but I do find it intriguing. I suppose even some heterosexual couples practice non-traditional roles. Nonetheless, it is quite noticeable and common among lesbian couples for one or the other to dress and act in manner that is more masculine. Could this be a ill-fated attempt to somehow recapture the beauty of what God originally intended when he created two completely different sexes? Could it be a subconscious attempt to balance out the relationship? Anyway, I'm just wondering....

James Johnson

April 23rd, 2010, 04:12 PM

Shea, I understand your point and I think it's a fair one. I also think my question is fair.

Shea Zellweger

April 23rd, 2010, 04:19 PM

Well, I think their are some interpretations of scripture (which is what we are all doing) that show David's special friendship with Jonathan and Jesus' special disciple that there may be specific times where homosexuality is considered a good thing. As I said before, I do not agree or endorse those positions, but they are there.

1 Samuel 20:30, 2 Samuel 1:26... you can understand why they would think that.
the King James uses the past tense for "cleave" in Ruth 1:14, which some scholars have used to suggest Ruth and Naomi were somehow intimate, citing the use of the word "cleave" to refer to a husband and wife coming together. I don't know Hebrew, so I don't know if this has any validity
Daniel 11:37 has been taken to mean the "beast" will be gay... that's a fun one :D
Rev. 14:1-4 talks about the 144,000 who did not defile themselves with women. I've heard some more radical individuals suggest these people are gay, but I think it's more likely they're virgins.

One interesting passage of note in this discussion is Jude 7-8, where Jude asserts the people of Sodom and Gomorrah went after "strange flesh," yet the words of God in Ezekiel 16 offer no such explanation, which makes one wonder where Jude got that idea.

Shea Zellweger

April 23rd, 2010, 04:39 PM

Shea, I understand your point and I think it's a fair one. I also think my question is fair.

Your question is not unfair, but I don't think it proves anything. There are so many things about which Scripture is Silent. To say that "the Bible doesn't mention it, therefore it must be wrong," is in my opinion far too closed-minded a view.

I think it is fair to say a lot of things are not forbidden in scripture, but we can reasonably assume from scripture as a whole that certain practices and lifestyles are not advisable and do not encourage healthy Christian living. I fear a conversation such as this one can too easily get bogged with individual verses and prohibitions when the larger discussion on sexual ethics looms.

I don't necessarily disagree with you here, but I fear we can sometimes try to put a good thing in Scripture. For example, I fully believe that owning a slave is sinful. Should I try and draw an example from a Bible which offers no clear condemnation of slavery to make my point, or should I just be open to the idea that God's revelation to humanity did not end at the canonization of the Bible? this is precisely why I find Sola Scriptura to be a dangerous doctrine, as we limit the voice of God to be only that which was said hundreds of years ago. Polygamy is probably a bad idea. Slavery is definitely a bad idea. Bacon is clearly a gift from God. I cannot demonstrate any of these things using Scripture, but I still firmly believe them.

I don't know how this sounds but if I may share an observation about homosexuality. There is something inherently missing in a same sex relationship when a person seeks another like him or herself. In God's grand design our lives are enriched by people who are different than us. Hence the beauty, romance and attraction of a man and a women. Even today, we are beginning to see diversity re-emerge in urban Churches, I think this is good for the body of Christ. In any event, I have always found it interesting that gay couples tend to play a game of role reversal in the relationship. One or the other will take on certain female or male mannerisms, characteristics and responsibilities. I have always wondered what drives this behavior. I can't say I have the answer, but I do find it intriguing.

Well, I don't know that this is really any big mystery. Homosexuals are generally attracted to the physiological traits of the same sex. A gay man does not meet another gay man, fall in love with him, and then ask him to get a sex change, because he is attracted to that man's body as it is. But gay men, just like straight men, are still going to seek out partners who, to some extent, complement them. We might simplify this to "husband" and "wife" roles, but I think that's just so we can try to understand them. I had a friend in college who was straight, but wanted desperately to find a woman who would, in his own words, "wear the pants" in their marriage, and he wanted to be a "househusband." That's just the way this guy was wired, if I may use that term without getting into an in-depth discussion of genetics. As he dated various women over the course of the 3 years I knew him, they all fit the bill of what he was seeking, so it must not have been a very rare thing. I've known gay couples who both seemed pretty darn masculine. I've known gay couples in which both partners seemed really feminine. And yes, I've known a few gay couples where one of the men appeared to be "the man" and the other appeared to be "the woman." The one thing all of these couples had in common was that they were all looking for someone of the same gender who filled something they felt was missing in their lives, which is an awful lot like what I hear from most of my straight friends who are seeking spouses.

I suppose even some heterosexual couples practice non-traditional roles. Nonetheless, it is quite noticeable and common among lesbian couples for one or the other to dress and act in manner that is more masculine. Could this be a ill-fated attempt to somehow recapture the beauty of what God originally intended when he created two completely different sexes? Could it be a subconscious attempt to balance out the relationship? Anyway, I'm just wondering....

Again, I think it's more a matter of seeking a certain psychological profile within a given physiological subset. I don't know that this is somehow an ill-fated attempt. None of my gay friends have been serious enough with their boyfriends (yeah, I have no lesbian friends...) that they've made any motions toward marriage or civil union, so it's not for me to say whether that will ever happen. But then, I've got lots of straight friends who want desperately to find that special someone to spend their lives with, and for several of them it certainly seems "ill-fated."

James Johnson

April 23rd, 2010, 04:47 PM

So I guess Pedifilia is not sin either?

Mike McVey

April 23rd, 2010, 04:54 PM

So I guess Pedifilia is not sin either?

Yeah, that's the same area completely.

Benjamin Burch

April 23rd, 2010, 04:59 PM

I think it is fair to say a lot of things are not forbidden in scripture, but we can reasonably assume from scripture as a whole that certain practices and lifestyles are not advisable and do not encourage healthy Christian living. I fear a conversation such as this one can too easily get bogged with individual verses and prohibitions when the larger discussion on sexual ethics looms.

I also think we can pay attention to the narrative of Scripture with no regard for the culture that produced it. When heterosexual unions were the acceptable norm, of course the Bible is going to use "marriage" metaphors for God's relationship with Israel and the Church, and to talk about the relationships between humans. I agree that the larger discussion on sexual ethics looms, and I think it has a controlling verse: Luke 10:27.

I don't know how this sounds but if I may share an observation about homosexuality. There is something inherently missing in a same sex relationship when a person seeks another like him or herself. In God's grand design our lives are enriched by people who are different than us. Hence the beauty, romance and attraction of a man and a women. Even today, we are beginning to see diversity re-emerge in urban Churches, I think this is good for the body of Christ. In any event, I have always found it interesting that gay couples tend to play a game of role reversal in the relationship.

I feel like there are some faulty assumptions at work here.

(1) That there's something inherently more "different" about a mand and a woman than there is between two men - other than their bodies. However, if gender studies are beginning to show us anything it is that male and female are extremely blurry lines and gender roles are largely a social construct - not anything inherent to genders. I have met plenty of females who are infinitely more similar to me than many men. There doesn't seem to be anything actually inherently more different about a man and a woman than there is about a man and a man.

(2) That the same beauty, romance, and attraction cannot be had by a man for a man or a woman for a woman. I know many people who would strongly disagree with you and say that they've found that same romans, attraction, and beauty in their same-sex partner.

(3) That these "roles" are assumed as a biproduct of the relationship and the attraction. However, every homosexual I know (gay or lesbian), would strongly reject this idea. Usually their "role" is that which comes natural to them and how they think of themselves. It is usually the attraction to the same sex that is wrapped up in this psychological understanding of one's self.

One or the other will take on certain female or male mannerisms, characteristics and responsibilities. I have always wondered what drives this behavior. I can't say I have the answer, but I do find it intriguing. I suppose even some heterosexual couples practice non-traditional roles. Nonetheless, it is quite noticeable and common among lesbian couples for one or the other to dress and act in manner that is more masculine. Could this be a ill-fated attempt to somehow recapture the beauty of what God originally intended when he created two completely different sexes? Could it be a subconscious attempt to balance out the relationship?

I would answer this question with, "No, I don't think it is." Instead I think it's a natural outflow of who the person is, how they understand themselves, and how they relate to the world and other people. I don't think they're trying to "balance" anything or even "recapture" anything. I think they're simply living.

Benjamin Burch

April 23rd, 2010, 05:00 PM

So I guess Pedifilia is not sin either?

No one has said that, and I'm not sure what would lead to that conclusion. Can you tell me what makes you ask that question, Jim? If I understood the basis for the question, I could probably better interact with those thoughts and sentiments than with this question.

Shea Zellweger

April 23rd, 2010, 05:01 PM

So I guess Pedifilia is not sin either?

Well Jim, that's an excellent question. Let's start by determining what Pedophilia is.
Is pedophilia an attraction to minors regardless of whether you act on it? If so, then I would have difficulty saying Pedophilia is a sin
Is a 21 year old romantically pursuing a 16 year old pedophilia? the law seems to think it is, but I would tend to disagree.
When we talk about Pedophilia, there are so many going definitions, it's really hard to say whether your personal definition is one I could say is definitely sin. What I can say certainly is sin is child molestation, as is rape. Rape's clearly forbidden in Scripture, and is a clear violation of another person's privacy. Child Molestation is sinful because a child isn't truly capable of giving his or her consent (and I'm very grateful that our legislators have recognized this fact). We can also go a step further and say child porn, or fantasizing about children, are both wrong, because they are a decision to give in to lust, which is also clearly wrong.

So, is it the Pedophile's fault if he or she is attracted to young children? I don't think so. But since those young children cannot possibly return that attraction, or give consent for the pedophile to act on that attraction, for the pedophile to act on his or her attractions would certainly be wrong.

Benjamin Burch

April 23rd, 2010, 05:04 PM

Well Jim, that's an excellent question. Let's start by determining what Pedophilia is.
Is pedophilia an attraction to minors regardless of whether you act on it? If so, then I would have difficulty saying Pedophilia is a sin
Is a 21 year old romantically pursuing a 16 year old pedophilia? the law seems to think it is, but I would tend to disagree.
When we talk about Pedophilia, there are so many going definitions, it's really hard to say whether your personal definition is one I could say is definitely sin. What I can say certainly is sin is child molestation, as is rape. Rape's clearly forbidden in Scripture, and is a clear violation of another person's privacy. Child Molestation is sinful because a child isn't truly capable of giving his or her consent (and I'm very grateful that our legislators have recognized this fact). We can also go a step further and say child porn, or fantasizing about children, are both wrong, because they are a decision to give in to lust, which is also clearly wrong.

So, is it the Pedophile's fault if he or she is attracted to young children? I don't think so. But since those young children cannot possibly return that attraction, or give consent for the pedophile to act on that attraction, for the pedophile to act on his or her attractions would certainly be wrong.

Very well put.

Bob Hunter

April 23rd, 2010, 06:24 PM

(2) That the same beauty, romance, and attraction cannot be had by a man for a man or a woman for a woman. I know many people who would strongly disagree with you and say that they've found that same romans, attraction, and beauty in their same-sex partner.

I totally disagree with this notion. Only marriage has been blessed by God Ben, while a same sex couple may experience attraction, love and loyalty, I think it pales in comparison to what a husband and wife share in terms of intimacy and beauty (Song of Songs is about a husband and wife). There is something about the God of the Bible I have come to know that delights in the union of a man and women, and it is blessed in a very special way. I don't think same sex unions experience that same blessing. Nor can they experience the bliss of bringing a child into this world.

This may sound old fashioned and traditionalist, and that is okay with me. But I don't appreciate early comparison's that tagged those in the "Clear" camp as thinking like the CNs. That was rather insulting to be quite honest with you. And I might add that the position of the Church of the Nazarene is pretty darn "Clear" if you ask me.

Paul DeBaufer

April 23rd, 2010, 07:10 PM

Jesus found solidarity with humanity even though it was broken in order to restore that humanity. As the church we have not "fellowshiped in his suffering" nearly enough as we share in the suffering of others. Christians should have been the first in line to help those with Aids, to stand up against hate crimes, and to fight for basic human rights against those being discriminated against in employment or for hospital visits.

If we had done this, our stand against gay marriage might be believed as one where we are taking a stand against what we believe as sin and not the sinner. (I shared in an earlier post what I thought a good solution is for the marriage issue, but it isn't the point now.) The point is that I do not believe that we have found solidarity in the basic humanity of homosexuals despite that fact that we think they represent fallen and broken humanity in their homosexuality.

We have not met them in their suffering in a way that says 'we see how injustice has robbed you of your humanity as you are treated sometimes as somehow less then human by others and we want to stand with you against these things and restore you.'

Not only is this simply the right thing for Christians to do, it gives us credibility when we speak of love and begins a relationship where we might explore with them how homosexuality may be robbing them of their humanity too. But in the meantime we show how we are going to do all we can on our end to restore, respect, and love them as the human beings made in God's image that they are.

I believe that as a Christian culture our failure to engage homosexuals by appropriately seeking solidarity with them by standing WITH THEM in the ways they are unjustly treated as human beings is a huge log in our eye which obstructs our view of really being able to see and help them remove that which is in their own eye.

Yes there is tension in all these things- but not tension that worries about being taken advantage of. We stepped all over Jesus for our redemption. If people need to step on us, or take advantage of us because we treat them with human dignity then that is a risk we will have to take.

I really like what you are saying here, James. We, Christians, have a long history of being against people in the name of being against sin. We have given hate in the name of love. We have tried to hide from the world instead of following and obeying by being IN the world (although I think that today we are oft "of the world".

Let us change and look for this solidarity with all people by joining in their suffering as you say.

Paul DeBaufer

April 23rd, 2010, 07:28 PM

My story is different. I never knew that my church didn't accept me until right before I moved for a job. I did not even know that I was to blame the church. Then I had the opportunity to serve in quite a few churches where I was accepted, but those who visited that were different, were not. I have been told by people only a couple years older than me (I'm 31) that God doesn't love people who ride motorcycles and/or listens to heavy metal. I have been a part of a church that was extremely prejudiced against blacks, hispanics, and poor people. One church I worked at as an associate treated me as if I was a rock star while all but ignoring my wife. Oh, and all of these churches 'loved' everyone who came through the doors. They were friendly churches.

I'm glad God has done something in your life where you were blaming the wrong area. That does not mean that anyone else has no good reason to blame the church.

I faced a similar situation in the church i came to Christ in, as well as begun answering His call to full-time ministry. I found that I was always an outsider there, a project-the atheist ex-convict that found Christ. But even while the board granted a local license I was and still am considered a babe in Christ and am still an outsider.

Cindi Hammons

April 23rd, 2010, 09:37 PM

Those of us without sin should cast the first stone, right? Ooops, it looks like some rocks have already been flying.

Mike McVey

April 23rd, 2010, 10:29 PM

This may sound old fashioned and traditionalist, and that is okay with me. But I don't appreciate early comparison's that tagged those in the "Clear" camp as thinking like the CNs. That was rather insulting to be quite honest with you. And I might add that the position of the Church of the Nazarene is pretty darn "Clear" if you ask me.

Okay, Bob, since you replied to Ben's quote, I looked over it to make sure... I was the one who said that being in the 'clear' camp you had a connecting point with the CNs, not Ben. Unless a post got deleted, I am the only one.

I never said you thought like them, I said you had a connecting point and that is still true. They would have agreed with what you said absolutely. I said it in as fun of a way as possible but I am sorry that you took it as an insult. Can we move my insulting joke together?

No one questioned the position of the CotN's stance on homosexuality. I think most of us would agree that the stance is clear. We asked whether the Bible was clear. From the answers given, it does not appear to me that it is as clear as I was taught growing up.

Mike McVey

April 23rd, 2010, 10:30 PM

I faced a similar situation in the church i came to Christ in, as well as begun answering His call to full-time ministry. I found that I was always an outsider there, a project-the atheist ex-convict that found Christ. But even while the board granted a local license I was and still am considered a babe in Christ and am still an outsider.

Welcome to the club! :)

Benjamin Burch

April 23rd, 2010, 10:47 PM

I totally disagree with this notion. Only marriage has been blessed by God Ben, while a same sex couple may experience attraction, love and loyalty, I think it pales in comparison to what a husband and wife share in terms of intimacy and beauty (Song of Songs is about a husband and wife). There is something about the God of the Bible I have come to know that delights in the union of a man and women, and it is blessed in a very special way. I don't think same sex unions experience that same blessing.

Does God bless all male-female marriage this way? Maybe we'd do best to talk about the Sacrament of Marriage within the Church in this way, and not heterosexual marriages or attraction in general...?

Nor can they experience the bliss of bringing a child into this world.

So, are you saying that barren couples can't experience the same love, romance, and attraction? This would seem to be the implication. If not, can you tell me exactly what you are saying? Thanks, Bob. I'm just trying to make sure I understand you clearly.

This may sound old fashioned and traditionalist, and that is okay with me. But I don't appreciate early comparison's that tagged those in the "Clear" camp as thinking like the CNs. That was rather insulting to be quite honest with you. And I might add that the position of the Church of the Nazarene is pretty darn "Clear" if you ask me.

I just want to be clear that I did not make that comparison at all, in any way. I'm sorry that someone did, and I'm sorry that it offended you. The only one that I saw was someone making a joke to say that you might actually win some points with them on this issue instead of their constant labeling of you as a heretic.

I also agree that the position of the Church of the Nazarene is quite clear on the issue. I've also not said that I disagree with the conclusion. I've also not said that I find any fault with anyone agreeing with that conclusion. In fact I said that someone could easily come to that conclusion, and do so faithfully. My only problem was the use of the word "clear" which supposes that anyone who disagrees is simply blinded.