Tag Archives: homosexuality

October 16, 2011

Church kids need to stop being so gay

By paperthinhymn

There is a microcosm of our popular culture today that is spread and spewed on a daily basis by many members of the Body of Christ, and this is the fact that “gay jokes” are socially and spiritually accepted within the Church. That is  tragic, disturbing, and damaging. Most Christians know that you shouldn’t tell dirty or sexual jokes and if you confronted a man telling a coarse joke, more often than not he’ll become embarrassed, self-conscious, and acknowledge that he probably shouldn’t be saying them. There is no such stigma for “gay jokes.”

Congregation members, especially teens and young men, have made this a part of their daily repertoire of insults and wit, specifically using the term “gay” as a disparaging epitaph. Innuendos and insinuations of effeminacy and queerness come naturally and quick. They do this based on perceived character defects, personal mannerisms,  speech patterns, clothing style, affectations, interests and oftentimes for no reason whatsoever. It doesn’t really matter what the impetus is, if there is an opportunity to burn another soul [usually in jest]  it’s rare that someone would think twice before saying  “that’s pretty gay” in order to frame them as a homosexual and demean and marginalize them. That’s part of it. The other part is when people  thoughtlessly define “gay”  and make it a synonym for stupid, lame, week and boring.  They might say “that restaurant was pretty gay” or that band is so gay”. Its very, very common, and Church kids love saying it.

Church kids are being bombarded by one of the worst dimensions of  Christian culture which says it’s either alright to make fun of homosexuals, or as is far more prominent and is usually the case, that they don’t care when you make fun of homosexuals. It doesn’t register. They are lethargic and apathetic, and they need to be woken. It is  inexcusable. It is an immature, uncaring and unloving practice. Our culture does it all the time, and instead of making this a dividing line where we draw a distinction between the hateful rhetoric of our culture and the loving, welcoming, nurturing character of the Church’s soul towards homosexuals, our young men have joined the party and have become indistinguishable in this regard.  The pastors and leaders need to take them to task and correct them when they say things like that. They need to be told that what they are doing is a sin and that it has no place in that community of faith. The pastors need to rebuke, shame and discipline them. Call them out on it and take them aside and help them develop it as an issue of personal sanctification.

It is a shame in every sense of the word, and it needs to be seriously dealt with.  It’s not funny and it demeans the name of Christ when they are being allowed to profligate it with impunity through careless and crass words.  Their joking may not all be overt, but they implicitly bleed superiority and condescension when they  take a facet of a person spirit  that they’ve wept  and trembled over and use it as a dismissive disparagement- when they reduce such an important, raw part of gay person’s identity to a punchline to score points.

A while ago I was in discussions with some people about what I would say if I were apologizing on behalf of the Church for how they’ve treated the homosexual community. I think what I wrote then has some relevance to the topic at hand and I figured would share part of it to close out the post;

“I would not apologize for the theology, but rather how we have presented it. I would apologize that we haven’t been more accepting of homosexuals in the congregation and have not aggressively been evangelizing them. I would apologize that we have related to them as lepers, instead of as image bearers needing Christ- and that we are less “leprous” than they. I would apologize that we have not denounced the young men in our congregations who have made a habit of telling “gay-jokes” and other shameful humor. I would apologize that we have been ambivalent and have not paid attention to the men and women in our congregation who have been struggling with same sex attraction. I would apologize for not ministering to them enough, and for not supporting them enough in their desire to be free from this. I would apologize for the tactlessness that certain ministers have exhibited in public forums and for the lack of loving tone with outsiders and unbelievers. Last of all, I would apologize that we have not been clear, intellectual, concise and consistent in our theology of marriage. We have let people who have no theology of marriage hijack the conversation and speak for us. We have let ignorant people with loveless rhetoric and billboards saying “Adam and eve, not Adam and Steve” represent us, instead of thoughtful, wise and well spoken men and women of God who are  able to intelligently lay out a loving, clear presentation of why and what we believe marriage and sexuality to be and how that relates to the homosexual and heterosexual.”

*note. the title of this blog point is deliberately provocative and ironically tongue-in-cheek. When contrasted with the content and thesis, I believe it serves its purpose well.

4 comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , mga church, | posted in church, fort mcmurray churches, lame christian culture, sexuality, theology

June 28, 2011

Ask Me Anything. Answers II

By paperthinhymn

 

1. Why did Jesus say buy swords at the last supper and when they said we have two he said “that’s enough?”

Luke 22:35-38. “And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

Lets look at this in context. The last supper has ended and the scene is going down mere hours before the betrayal in the garden. It would appear that prior to this, throughout the whole of Jesus’ ministry, the disciples had not armed themselves with swords. We see no records in the book of Acts or anywhere else in the epistles or church history of the apostles wielding swords. In fact, some 12 verses later, we see Jesus rebuking Peter for swinging the same swords that he told them to buy. I think this would suggest that despite Jesus told them to purchase them, he didn’t intend them to use them in the way they imagined they ought to be used.

Immediately after telling his disciples to buy swords, Jesus says, “For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment” . The reason Jesus wanted his disciples to possess swords was not to use them, but to fulfill prophecy. The pretext for this is prophetic, and purchasing swords was a way for Him to appear to be a law breaker to the Jewish authorities. The prophecy Jesus quoting in this case is Isaiah 53:12. This was an example of Christ, even at the end, fulfilling prophecies that were about him.

This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “That is enough.” Obviously, if Jesus ever intended the disciples to actually use swords in self defense, two wouldn’t be nearly enough. They would have had at least 12- one each. But it was enough to fulfill the prophecy and justify the Jewish authorities accusing him of being a rebel or a criminal- and enough vindication in the minds of the Jews and the Romans for him to be numbered with the transgressors.

2. Why are yuo so homophobic? bpeople can go to church and love Jesus and read the bible and still be gay. God looks at the heart. The bible also says dont eat shellfish in the same sentance as what youre saying, so does that stil apply today? You’re not going to hell for being gay or eating shrimp so don’t be the judge of everybody. F*** off and geta life

In terms of this multi-part question, there are a few answers. To keep it short,

1. I am not homophobic even in the least. I think that more often than not, labelling someone with the title homophobic because they believe that homosexuality is a sin is a less-than-clever and convenient way to quench discussion. It is a slur, an epitaph, and its whole purpose is to misdirect people towards a different issue and category, when that is not the case. My experiences with gay people and the gay community have been overwhelmingly positive, through friendships, coworkers, acquaintances, employees and so forth. I find many of their personalities and worldviews to be attractive and addictive. For this reason, I can’t think of any reason why a person’s sexual orientation would affect how I would love and care for them as a person or as a friend.

2. I believe that people can go to church and love Jesus and love the bible and still be gay- or at least, still recognize in themselves that they are powerfully and magnetically attracted to the same sex. Are people born gay? Maybe. It’s possible. But that reality is essentially irrelevant in relation to whether or not homosexuality is a sin.  Having ones sexual orientation inclined towards the same sex is a weighty, weighty burden. In light of this, I would suggest that the biblical command for anyone who is struggling with same sex attraction has two prerogatives. The first is to take this to Christ in prayer, asking that God would redeem their sexuality so that Christ might help them become “reoriented,”so that they would be counted in the “and such were some of you” category in 1 Corinthians 6. If the Lord in his sovereign mercy does not make this a reality, then I believe a life of celibacy would be the final call, all the while praying for the first. It is a painful cross to bear. It is lonely and frustrating and at times bleak. But in the whole process God will be slowly refining you in the slow burn of sanctification, and his pleasures and promises are better.

So that would be a distinction. I know several good men who would say of themselves “I have never been attracted to women. I have always been powerfully attracted to other men” and yet whom are loving Jesus and being active in the Church. I think this is a good thing. If my pastor was “gay” and daily warred against that, and remained chaste in his celibacy, I would consider that a good thing. I would love him and sit under his teaching and would support him in every way possible. But that is different than someone who is openly gay and is unrepentantly homosexual. I don’t believe someone that someone who is unrepentantly homosexual can be a Christian, or that they love the biblical Jesus, or that they can read their bible with any sense of emotional, intellectual, or theological honesty.

3. I’ll leave the shellfish question for later, as I have a post I am planning regarding it. I will close though with the thought that I don’t consider myself the judge of everybody. The idea that homosexuality is a sin is not some clever idea that I concocted out of the recess of my mind. Rather, it is a clear, biblical reality, and no amount of liberal revisionism of the biblical text can change that. Its not my idea, but rather is God’s idea. For that reason I don’t stand in judgment of anyone, in the way that you think. I don’t set myself as some self-proclaimed kingmaker who stands over everybody. I judge what the bible tells me to judge, and I try as careful as I can not to extend past that.

What do you think of women pastors? I noticed that you won’t attend a bible study from a church that is, as you put it, pastrix-led. Can you explain that?

Sure. I am a complementarian.  What that essentially means is that that I believe that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family, and in the church. Because I believe the biblical texts when it comes to women’s role in the church are not relegated to cultural remnants- vestigial theological practices, but rather still binding and normative for believers, I don’t believe the role of pastor or elder is appropriate for a woman to assume in church. I think there are many roles and responsibilities for them in the church; ones that are important and central in the body of believers, but that  some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men. Stated plainly, women should not hold church leadership roles that involve teaching or authority over men.

For that reason, I consider female pastors to be a strange animal, and don’t believe that what they are doing is legit. I don’t have a problem visiting a church where one of the pastors is a woman-say an associate pastor or youth pastor. That is to say, I could attend for the day and worship there and enjoy fellowship with other believers. But I wouldn’t make that Church my home church, and I wouldn’t become a member there. I’m not suggesting that a Church with a woman in some pastoral role is necessarily bad or dishonest, or that the people who attend there are culpable by association. I think there are some female pastors that teach their congregations quite well, and probably better than a lot of their male counterparts. There are good churches in this city that have women on the leadership staff. That is not the issue.  Competency is not the issue, but rather it is one of submission, and whether or not people are willing to submit to the scriptures and what they say regarding this practice.

The reason I would not attend a bible study from a church that is pastrix-led is because I don’t know that I could trust them and their view of scripture to teach me the bible in the fullest, deepest way. I think the distortions, eisegesis and the biblical mindgames that you would have to engage in to validate women holding those offices are immense. It suggests a lack of discernment and biblical fidelity, at least in this one area, to the extent that I find it intolerable. It says to me that the means, methods and modes that they interpret scripture are deficient in some way, and so if they can explain away this aspect of scripture, and get this thing so wrong, what other things are they getting wrong? What other things are being seen through these lens and filters? So that’s pretty much the short version of this answer. If you are interested, perhaps one day I can write a post to elaborate.

 

Leave a comment   |  tags: churches, female pastors, Fort McMurray, , Jesus says buy swords, Luke 22:35-38, pastrix, swords | posted in bad theology, church, fort mcmurray, mild heresies, sexuality, social justice, theology

September 14, 2010

Reconciliation and Homosexuality

By paperthinhymn

I’ve been in ongoing discussions about the Christian Church and how reconciliation with the homosexual community would look like. Many people have made the claim that we are nothing but nasty towards them. Others have said that the Christian Church ought to fall on our knees and beg for forgiveness for the way we have treated that community for our hateful, judgemental, homophobic attitudes. I’m not sure though that such an action is particularly helpful though, in the way they want us to, and I have a few reasons for it.

If the Church is to be consistent in its beliefs that poverty, rape, thievery, abuse, idolatry and homosexuality are sins, then that would mean that the Church should be allowed to speak against all of them in some way, and not have that to be taken as hateful. We don’t apologize to the rapists for preaching against his sin, nor to we apologize to the thief for preaching against his sin. In like manner, I don’t see why we would apologize to the homosexual for preaching against his sin. These actions of course are labelled as hateful- that is, when I speak against the sin of homosexuals,  I am hating them, and am being hateful by virtue of the message I speak,. Many would hold that I need to apologize to the gay community for that.

Now, if we are talking about legitimately hateful acts, then that is another matter. I don’t think such acts are compatible with biblical Christianity- and I abhor the thought of that and would rightly condemn them. But we need to distinguish between these things. I don’t want to give the false impression about what I consider hateful actions towards homosexuals to be. There are implicit and explicit dangers there, as broad and borderless caveats are easy to misconstrue can lead to disastrous results. I don’t think the Church ought to hate homosexuals. In fact, I think more than anyone else, the Church should be loving towards them. But here is where we differ- I would say that it’s loving to walk with the homosexual and give him the gospel, and once he grasps that to call him to repentance and faith in Christ, so that he might understand God’s plan for sexuality and how marriage is supposed to be a picture of Christ and his bride, with the woman [bride] being the Church and the man [Christ] being the groom. I think that is the loving thing to do.

I think the Church ought to call all men to repentance and the forgiveness of sins- as an act of charity and love, and if anything, I would say that the Christians and so-called Christians who refuse to do this are the ones who hate  homosexuals. I mean that. More than the people protesting funerals, or people throwing rocks through windshields, or the people beating up gays walking down the street- as bad as that stuff is, that pales in comparison to the real hate that believers exhibit when they fail to call homosexuals to repentance. These opinions come across as kind, when in reality they are cruel. When believers and so-called believers have no problem with homosexuality and endorse it, they are promoting a lifestyle which thousands of years of historical and biblical Judaeo-Christian orthodoxy says is an abomination and is profoundly evil. They are encouraging them to live in and become hardened to a lifestyle of unrepentant sin, which in the end will result in these men and women being damned and  losing Christ forever. And so if anyone is going to apologize for the hatred towards homosexuals, and their personal complicity in the true hate of gays- I think it ought to be the ones who stay silent, or who take this brand new pro-homosexuality stance and advance that the loving position

As far as what I would apologize for, if I were apologizing on behalf of the Church- I would not apologize for the theology, but rather how we have presented it. I would apologize that we haven’t been more accepting of homosexuals in the congregation and have not aggressively been evangelizing them. I would apologize that we have related to them as lepers, instead of human beings needing Christ. I would apologize that we have not denounced the young men in our congregations who have made a habit of telling “gay-jokes” and other shameful humor. I would apologize that we have been ambivalent and have not paid attention to the men and women in our congregation who have been struggling with same sex attraction. I would apologize for not ministering to them enough, and for not supporting them enough in their desire to be free from this. I would apologize for the tactlessness that certain ministers have exhibited in public forums and for the lack of loving tone with outsiders and unbelievers. Last of all, I would apologize that we have not been clear and intelligent and concise and consistent in our theology of marriage. We have let people who have no theology of marriage hijack the conversation and speak for us. We have let people with billboards saying “Adam and eve, not Adam and Steve” represent us, instead of thoughtful, wise and well spoken men and women of god being able to intelligently lay out a wonderful, clear presentation of why and what we believe marriage and sexuality to be.

4 comments   |  tags: bible, | posted in sexuality, theology, Uncategorized

April 22, 2010

Jennifer Knapp Comes Out

By paperthinhymn

“Seven years ago, while at the top of her game, Jennifer Knapp announced what seemed to many a sudden decision: She was stepping away from Christian music, taking an indefinite hiatus. Rumors began to swirl—she was burned out, she needed a rest, she was upset about something, she was gay. Turns out that all the rumors were true,..”

And thus begins a long, rambling, and very honest interview with Christianity Today. In the interview Jennifer Knapp reveals several startling revelations, most of which have to do with her sexuality. Specifically, she shares that she has been living together with her lesbian partner for almost 8 years now and  is very happy and content with her life. This is quite the revelation, though I suspect there will not be that many people who are disappointed by it. Surprised, perhaps, but I think most people will applaud her for her honesty and for being herself and finding a way to articulate her situation and feelings in a manner that is refreshing and genuine.

My concern though, is the theology of the situation. Indeed, what we have is a trainwreck. Jennifer Knapp has found a few ways to justify actions which are, according to scriptures, shameful abominations. She has attempted to in one hand, hold unto the hand of Christ, and with the other hold unto what is clearly unrepentant sin. This is tragic because it will ultimately it will bring her ruin and destruction. And so I want to examine what she has to say about this, and make a few observations.

At one point she writes

“…if you remove the social problem that homosexuality brings to the church—and the debate as to whether or not it should be called a “struggle,” because there are proponents on both sides—you remove the notion that I am living my life with a great deal of joy. It never occurred to me that I was in something that should be labeled as a “struggle.” The struggle I’ve had has been with the church, acknowledging me as a human being, trying to live the spiritual life that I’ve been called to, in whatever ramshackled, broken, frustrated way that I’ve always approached my faith. I still consider my hope to be a whole human being, to be a person of love and grace. So it’s difficult for me to say that I’ve struggled within myself, because I haven’t. I’ve struggled with other people. I’ve struggled with what that means in my own faith. I have struggled with how that perception of me will affect the way I feel about myself.

And

“…I’m the happiest I’ve ever been. But now that I’m back in the U.S., I’m contending with the culture shock of moving back here. There’s some extremely volatile language and debate—on all sides—that just breaks my heart. Frankly, if it were up to me, I wouldn’t be making any kind of public statement at all. But there are people I care about within the church community who would seek to throw me out simply because of who I’ve chosen to spend my life with.

First of all, I think it’s terrible that the Church has not acknowledged her as a human being and that they have been cruel to her, That’s not what the Church ought to do. We ought to uphold and support as much as we can any brother or sister who is either struggling with sin or caught up in sin, and seek to bring them to repentance. We in the Church ought to love and edify and connect with anyone who is struggling with sexual sin, especially that of a same-sex nature. These people aren’t second class citizens, nor is their sin grotesquely repulsive compared to our own. Not at all! All sin is dirty and distasteful, and I’m crazy if I think I can say something like “yeah, but they’re gay“.  Ridiculous!

On the flip side, it’s clear that she does not understand the purpose and use and legitimacy of Church discipline.  We see this by her line  “there are people I care about within the church community who would seek to throw me out simply because of who I’ve chosen to spend my life with.” What she has done is she has minimized her sin and then played the victim when someone seeks to magnify it in order to place it  into its proper context. Does the woman engaged in premarital sex while living common law with her boyfriend have the right to say the same thing? To act indignant and disbelieving and hurt when she’s confronted by it? How about the man who is committing adultery and has spent years in a relationship with another woman?  In 1 Corinthians 5, do we say that it was unfair for Paul to throw out of the church the man who was sleeping with his fathers wife? Should we have instead opposed him, because after all, Paul was going to throw him out simply because of who he chosen to spend his life with”? I don’t think so. What she is doing is a big deal. It’s not something than can be overlooked, but rather must be dealt with for the health of the Body of believers.

“I’m in no way capable of leading a charge for some kind of activist movement. I’m just a normal human being who’s dealing with normal everyday life scenarios. As a Christian, I’m doing that as best as I can. The heartbreaking thing to me is that we’re all hopelessly deceived if we don’t think that there are people within our churches, within our communities, who want to hold on to the person they love, whatever sex that may be, and hold on to their faith. It’s a hard notion. It will be a struggle for those who are in a spot that they have to choose between one or the other. The struggle I’ve been through—and I don’t know if I will ever be fully out of it—is feeling like I have to justify my faith or the decisions that I’ve made to choose to love who I choose to love.”

…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.

This is where much confusion comes in. Most people aren’t oblivious to the fact that there may be people in Church and especially in our communities who are dealing with same-sex attraction. We know they’re there.  But here’s the thing- God’s law is clear. His intentions are clear. His desires for mankind within creation are clear. And part of that clarity, as revealed in the sacred scriptures- the revelation of God, is that he hates the sin of homosexuality. You cannot bridge this gap. You cannot say on one hand  ”I love you, Lord, and I want to be obedient to you and rest in the grace of your son’s blood and death on the cross” and yet on the other say “that having been said, I don’t care that you consider this an abomination. I don’t think it is, and I don’t have to justify everything to you. I will live how I please and refuse to give up these actions. I won’t be clobbered by your word. I don’t have to justify whom I love and how I express that love. ” There is a huge disconnect there. This is wilful, arrogant, purposeful defiance and unrepentant disobedience. Don’t accept her games where she tries to confuse Old Testament dietary laws with New Testament revelation of morality. We read in Romans 1 that Homosexuality is a consequence of mankind’s abandonment of the truth, a just punishment for exchanging the truth for a lie (1:24) and thus a revelation of the wrath of God upon unrighteousness (1:18). The context reveals homosexuality as a further manifestation of the “ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”(1:18). You can’t get clearer than that.

It is difficult to understand how one can read Romans 1 and not conclude that homosexual behavior is wrong and antithetical to the divine order. Paul, like Moses in Leviticus, clearly uses terms and expressions w which leave no doubt as to what he means. He states that God has given the Gentile world over “in the lusts of their hearts to impurity” (1:24). In this he identifies both lesbianism and the gay lifestyle. The list of expressions used for these vile affections clearly condemns homosexuality: “dishonored among them” (1:24) “degrading passions” (1:26) “exchange the natural function” (1:26) “unnatural” (1:26) “burned in their desire” (1:27) “indecent acts” (1:27) “penalty of their error” (1:27) “worthy of death” (1:32). As such, I have heard no hermeneutical gymnastics clever enough to convince me that God has revealed in the Bible any other plan for families than one man loving one woman for life as a clear picture of the love of Christ for the church.

It comes down to the simple fact that her experiences and senses tell her that her relationship is enjoyable and pleasing to her, and so she disagrees with the Word under the guise of humility. It comes off as if she’s struggling and searching and initially I read this interview and felt bad for her. I really did. Because she didn’t try to make excuses for herself or justify her homosexuality, or try to find some clever hermeneutic to absolve her of guilt. She didn’t say “Back then the sin of homosexuality was that of forced rape, or was only temple prostitution, and therefore…..” and went that route.  I found that refreshing to a point. But then I read more and more, and I think what she has done is actually something much worse. The people who argue those verses, they are least recognize that they are a problem and that they have to do SOMETHING with them. But not Jennifer.  She way of rationalizing involves simply bypassing them altogether. To wit- her heart isn’t soft, but rather it is hardened. 8 years of unrepentant sin and abuse of God’s grace will do that to a person. I don’t want to belabour the point, but it’s not just lesbian sex that is the sin, but pre-marital sex as well. And if she justifies it by saying they’re married in their hearts, then they have a illegitimate, sinful marriage in God’s eyes- one which again defies his intent for creation and for humanity, as the Lord’s purposes for marriage are the oneflesh union of a man and woman.

…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.”

Scripture makes it clear that they will know we are Christians by our love for others, and by our fruits.  Jesus says if we love him, then we will obey his commandments. The whole arc of Scripture shows that we were dead in our sins, but once we are born again we are new creatures in Christ, we have a new nature, are no longer enslaved to sin, and now have the power and ability to be sanctified into Christ’s likeness.  We read in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,  nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”. That’s the thing. They WERE  those things. There were some people who were homosexuals and who probably felt exactly as Jennifer Knapp does regarding their emotions and feelings and attraction. But then we see that though there were deeply engaged in those sins, that they were washed, sanctified and justified by Christ, and are no longer those things. “You used to be a homosexual, BUT NOW you’re sanctified and saved, and that’s not what or who you are anymore”

Lastly, Jennifer does two interesting things in that last paragraph, The first is that she twists the scripture. In Matthew 22, Jesus is being tested by a man. Regarding the greatest commandment, he says “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” That’s the summary of the law. Two things. The first is that she says she has found no law to command her other than this one, when the apostles Paul and Peter and Jude, as well as James give some clear laws that Christians ought to follow. The second is that love  is the law.  This vague, esoteric, amorphous and all-purpose love is not what Jesus was talking about, but rather the first commandment is love for the Father. Jennifer is deceived if she thinks that she is indeed fulfilling the law and loving God with her whole heart and mind and soul when she is engaged in open rebellion and defying the Lord’s plans for human sexuality by living in an open, unapologetic homosexual relationship. That’s a a problem. She wants to hold unto it as a belief and a banner- she just doesn’t want to be open or responsible for the implications of what is required of her. The last issue is her comment about how she can’t, and shouldn’t have to theologically justify every move that she makes. That’s not good enough. Again, we don’t let the adulterer say “God can’t expect me to theologically justify every move that I make. If i want to have sex with another woman’s husband-I shouldn’t have to justify that. ” The word of the Lord is our canon, and we must accept that and honor it as such.

Let me unpack it one last time- I know this seems honest and genuine and real- this interview where she lays it out. Perhaps on a level it is, but at the same time it’s incredibly arrogant and defiant. It’s like she’s saying “I don’t think it’s a sin, you do, let’s move on from that.”  She’s not dealing with the Scriptures or the implications of Scripture or what God says and has revealed- she just knows that God is a God of love and that she’s happy and how could this be wrong? Because of this, it is defiance under the veneer of honesty- flagrant disregard for scriptures existing under the guise of personal piety. It’s reminiscent of the humble hermeneutic  employed by the emergents, except Jennifer is not interested in what God really said, but rather what her heart really tells her. She’s not speaking from a tender heart, but rather as one whose foolish heart has been darkened and hardened.

Lastly, I hope people who read this blog know I’m careful enough to differentiate between someone who has homosexual thoughts and inclinations and struggles to resist acting on them, and someone who is unrepentantly homosexual. Because I do, and this post is not talking about the former at all. What Jennifer needs to see though is that God does in fact have sexual standards, and they’re  based on His creative intent which is made clear in both the Old and New Testament. He did not put forth this standard to enslave us but rather to free us. When God prohibits something He always has something better for us. All of us are inclined to trust our own instincts and desires more than the revealed will of God. Whatever our desires may be and however right and/or powerful they may seem, God’s desires for us must always take precedence. That may not bring immediate gratification, but it will bring the slow burn of sanctification and a genuinely beautiful walk and relationship with Christ.

5 comments   |  tags: bible, , , Jennifer knapp, , truth | posted in Uncategorized

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Powered by WordPress.com