A few days ago, Larry King devoted his entire program to Jennifer Knapp’s recent “coming out” journey. Though I wanted to see the show live, I was unable. However, today I found some time to tune in to the program online and I thought that I would share a few of my thoughts regarding the program and why I think it was both unfortunate and pointless in the discussion of homosexuality and the church.
Overall I thought Larry King’s only goal was to highlight homosexuality and spend the majority of the time showing his guest, Pastor Bob Botsford, how wrong he was. Larry King also brought Ted Haggard in to debate the topic, a benefit for the show but a total loss for defending the Kingdom and the inerrancy of scripture. Simply put, it was a sad and pathetic representation of the gospel.
The only person who got it right, IMHO (in my humble opinion), was Pastor Bob Botsford. Regardless of your thoughts on the Bible’s position on homosexuality, he was the only person who stood up and called out what he believes to be black and white. Ted Haggard blurred the lines and didn’t form one solid opinion but hopped back and forth on both sides of the arena. Even Jennifer Knapp, when directly asked by Larry King regarding the position of homosexuality as a sin, dodged the topic completely.
I understand that we all interpret the Bible differently. My pastor just this past Sunday made a great point. He said that someday he’ll stand next to the writers of the scripture and they’ll both stand back and say, “Man, we sure got that wrong.” God is complex and mysterious and loving and gracious all at the same time. But am I wrong when I say that in some areas in the scripture His opinions are black and white? Am I wrong when I say that sometimes we just need to call sin what it is?
For me, this interview was a complete waste of time. Jennifer Knapp is left struggling with her take on the scripture. Pastor Bob’s words fell on def ears. And Ted Haggard simply dropped the ball. But don’t just take my thoughts on it, watch it for yourself below.
Watch Online Here
Larry King Live with Jennifer Knapp – Part One
Larry King Live with Jennifer Knapp – Part Two
Larry King Live with Jennifer Knapp – Part Three
Larry King Live with Jennifer Knapp – Part Four
Hey, great thoughts. The interview was pointless, it was a great example of postmodern circular reasoning. It was refreshing to hear a voice of clarity though from Pastor Bob (it was the only time my head didn’t spin). I pray some real Jesus Followers will stand up and be firm on God’s absolutes…
I don't have time to watch the interview right now, but here's my take on your post…
To answer the question of your blog post: Yes, you can be Christian and gay. Just like you can be Christian and a liar. But that doesn't mean that God looks down on homosexuality (or lying) with favor.
We're saved by grace, not by works. If we've put our faith in Christ's work for our salvation, we're justified. Period. Once and for all.
Our sanctification is another story. God wants to be working in us throughout our lives, and our sin often gets in the way.
I understand the Bible to say that homosexuality is a sin. Does that disqualify a homosexual from being saved? No. Does it hinder God's ability to work in and through someone? I think so.
Vin basically states my understanding of Scripture perfectly… Justification is rooted entirely in the work of Christ on the cross and the power of His resurrection. Faith in Jesus alone is what clothes us in His righteousness, brings about new life, and one day ushers us into heaven. You can be a Christian and gay (See, I agree with Vin… probably didn't need to type this all out) if you have genuinely placed your hope of salvation in Jesus Christ.
With that said, the part that bothers me in this situation is that Jennifer Knapp is allowing herself to be a tool in the hands of the enemy. Not only has she elected to give into a difficult and challenging temptation, but now she is going on news broadcasts and promoting it. I believe Jennifer Knapp is a Christian because she confesses Jesus Christ as her Savior. However, If leadership can be defined as influence, Jennifer is a leader. The question is, is she leading people to the Prince of Peace or the Prince of Darkness?
I agree with you in theory and I think I know what you are saying. Yes, God loves gay people. Just like he loves liars, thieves, and self righteous people. God will accept those people and they have the opportunity to be saved from their sin.
However God makes it clear that once we are saved we are to no longer live the sinful life styles we once were accustomed to. That would be like a dog returning to it's vomit.
I feel like the big difference in Jennifer Knapp's story is that she is a practicing homosexual. She is basically saying "yes I'm gay and God is cool with it". That is absurd because we know God is not cool with it and he calls us to repent from our sins.
I'm not saying we don't all struggle with sin and that God's grace doesn't constantly cover us. But I am saying we can repent on a dime and start living the life Christ called us to.
* On a side note. It is my belief that sin is looked upon all the same in God's eyes but on earth different sins will have different consequences. To say your 3 year old telling you a lie is just the same as someone having a gay relationship is not true. Certain sins will have way more drastic consequences in this life… for instance you will run into a lot different side effect (or punishment) from being a glutton, than to being a serial killer.
My 2 cents.
It's important to make a distinction between orientation (a predisposition) and behavior.
Sexual sin is sexual sin, regardless whether it's heterosexual or homosexual. Adultery is no less a sin than homosexual sex.
When we decide to follow Christ and leave a lifestyle of sin, we're choosing to be married (between a man and a woman, let's not debate that here) or celibate. If you're predisposed to be gay in orientation, it doesn't mean you can't follow Jesus. It doesn't mean if you slip up and have a regrettable one-night stand that you're out of the Kingdom – damned – forever. We need to be people of the second chance.
What it does mean: leaving your wife and moving in your girlfriend or living with a same-sex partner in a – yes – committed relationship is outside the bounds. It's incompatible with a relationship with Christ. It's willful rebellion against God, like it or not.
Struggling with that? Is your church a place where people can wrestle with these issues without getting banned? I hope mine is.
The word "gay" implies embracing a lifestyle and a choice. It means you are identifying yourself with a particular tendency or orientation. So, in this sense, no I do not believe you can be "gay" and a Christian because you cannot both embrace sin and God wholly.
Are there believers that struggle with homosexual desires? Absolutely. It's pretty fair to say that a majority of people have struggled with some sexual sin in their lives, whether homosexual or heterosexual. However, simply because you struggle with it does not mean you identify yourself with it.
I struggled with pornography on and off throughout college. Did I define myself as a "pornographer"? No, because if we are saved we now embrace God's identity, not the identity of our sin. A friend of mine in college struggled with looking a naked guys on the internet. Did he identify himself as "gay"? Nope, because he chose not to be defined by his sin. He repented of his behavior and is now engaged to be married (to a girl).
To be honest, I'm sick and tired of people twisting Scripture to satisfy their own sinful desires. I have far more an abundance of tolerance and empathy for people struggling with homosexuality than I do for those who believe that both God and homosexuality can peacefully coexist in their lives.
I choose to follow Jesus. I choose not to live in any sinful lifestyle. I choose to repent. I will not be perfect. I will make mistakes. I will overcome by the blood of the Lamb !
This discussion saddens and disgusts me. Jesus is probably crying right now, watching how judgmental and unloving "His" people have become.
So, there is a whole lot of people willing to judge homosexuality and the homosexual based upon the Bible.
It is not circular reasoning to point out that the distinctions between "homosexual," "heterosexual," and the various shades of distinction between those end points were not defined until the 1800s. That doesn't mean that sexuality, as it is understood today, did not exist before the 1800s. What it means is that the Bible does not contain the term "homosexual"–or "heterosexual."
There are lots of words and terms the Bible does not contain: airplane, Louisiana, DNA, antidisestablishmentarianism, and any word or term that exclusively means "sexual intercourse."
The word "to know" is only used a few number of times to mean "to have intimate, carnal knowledge from sexual intercourse." The Bible uses such circumlocutions as "occupied" and "covering his feet" to cover excretory functions. In Isaiah 6, when it is said the angel covered his feet with two of his wings, it isn't a reference to what is at the far end of the angel's legs.
No matter how inerrant scripture is, when you lack the vocabulary in the received texts, the meaning today will be uncertain. After all, it is reasonable to define the two verses in Leviticus as a reference to worship in pagan temples. Canaanite worship involved what we would (incorrectly) call "temple prostitution" today: a man having sexual relations with another man to appease fertility gods.
That is a good thing. Otherwise the relationship between David and Jonathan would be problematic. When one heart is knit to another's heart, when the making of a covenant allows a shepherd boy to wear clothing of the royal household, when the two of them kiss in the darkness when they have to part, and when one person says the love of the other is better than the love of women, it is hard to deny the relationship that exists between the two.
Note that I did not say David and Jonathan had sexual relations. It isn't necessary for this to be a homosexual relationship. The love one had for the other is sufficient. At the same time, it would have not been unusual for this relationship to have been sexual in that day and time. We just don't have the words in scripture to know (no pun intended).
Haven't any of you wondered why David only showed lust towards Bathsheba and not love? Why David was more interested in the male heir? There was no love lost between David and Bathsheba, only David's lust.
So, we are left with the law as clearly defined by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Do you ever think someone is a fool? Do you ever lust in your heart?
A further comment here: Using the word "covenant" is interesting. When a couple married in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is described as a "covenant." Not all covenants are marriages, but all marriages are covenants. So, whether or not what existed between David and Jonathan was a marriage, it is a relationship between one of authority (Jonathan) over a subject (David) that is the same type of relationship as marriage. So, why do you say a gay couple should not have the same rights in their relationship as a married couple?
You are either twisting scripture or do not understand the meaning of it. Romans says "men stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds".
I don't take that passage of scripture to mean "oh, men had sex with men without getting married first … what a shame!". No – the foolish deed it speaks of in Romans is men having sex with men. Most translations interpret it as "exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature".
Homosexuality isn't from God. Its a shame & contrary to his purpose for sex.
Let's use an example where scholars feel they know the meaning of the words.
In Genesis 4.1, in English-language translations, Eve attributes the Lord to helping with the birth of Cain. "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord" (NASB).
In German-language translations, following Luther's translation, Eve is said to call her first born "the Lord," the one that was going to crush the Serpent's head. Luther's German translates to English as "I have the man, the Lord" (Concordia Self-Study Commentary, page 20).
Even when scholars know the words you can get very different meanings from the text.
That causes a problem for those who hold to scripture being inerrant. The original text can be as inerrant as can be, but our translations are not inerrant. That is, unless you think the Authorized (King James) Version is inerrant, even over Luther's translation from the German.
If you wish to read more on the subject of Paul, I would suggest you start with the chapter "Paul–And First Corinthians 6:9-10" in Tom Horner's _Jonathan Loved David_ (Westminster Press, Philadelphia. 1978). Horner starts with Galatians and Romans before getting to 1 Corinthians.
(I hope _Jonathan Loved David_ is still in print. Horner does a very good job of putting the various passages from the Hebrew and Christian scriptures into their original context. You may not agree with Horner, but you will see that Horner does not discount scripture or twists it around.)