I would love to hear your feedback on this. Remember, in all of our discussions and comments we treat people with dignity and respect. We don’t type words we wouldn’t say to someone’s face.
Do you think authenticity is the new morality? Why or why not?
Does she have a point when she asks why not switch chairs with the minister and question him about his sins? Why or why not?
0 Responses
I don’t think she has a point at all. He’s not identifying himself as a “Sinner”. He’s saying I’m a redeemed believer who sins and wants to stop. She’s only made the news because she has embraced sin, declared God doesn’t see it as sin, and this is not inconsistent with being in Christ. Speaking his sin makes no sense against that. Is she saying she is sinning or not?
Awww, not the authenticity/integrity argument again. Did she even use the word authenticity? How does this apply?
I have lots to say about this, and will be blogging about it sometime soon.
She does talk about her need to be genuine (CT, 3). She talks about her relying on a spirit in her that overrides any need for theology (CT, 3). She also mentions that she doesn’t know if Christians should have homosexuals in the church and says she is not able to debate very well whether or not sex with another female, whom she is not married to, is a sin (CT, 3). What does she mean that there is no other command she has found than to love her neighbor as her self? That is woefully misinformed and ignores so many verses. That being said, I have done the same thing myself at times…ignoring verses I am not comfortable with. But now I have at least grown to let those verses confront me if appropriate. I still don’t always get it straight but in my better moments I am not going to ignore them. It seems like those would be pretty important things for her to be thinking about. In her words, this is a social issue in the church (page 2 of her interview in CT).
So it seems to me, for her this is about following God in the most genuine way as possible. That, in and of itself, is a good thing we should all strive for. But that following has to be defined by and informed by scripture, even those verses that confront the choices we make to do wrong. I hope none of that sounds like an attack against her. It wasn’t meant to be.
I think Jenifer Knapp has a point about homosexuality (and for that matter any sexual sin) being singled out as being out-of-bounds with Christianity while we overlook other sin (greed, drunkeness, etc…) that clearly is out-of-bounds with Christianity if we take scripture seriously. However, her point can also be used to deflect, downplay, and even justify why this should not be such a big issue…when it is regardless of what she wants to think.
What concerns me most is her mentioning of “spiritual advisors” whom she has. What is a spiritual advisor and from what spirit are they getting their advise? There seems to be a growing trend of people surrounding themselves with so-called spiritual advisors who just somehow always happen to give the advise a person wants. That just seems to be one more way of carving out our own custom “spiritual” path.
-Rex
Rex,
Great points there. We cannot do to her or anyone else what we say she is doing when it comes to only looking for those things that confirm what you already want to believe. What I mean by that is, when she speaks the truth, we need to recognize it and learn from it. When you boil down what she is saying, we learn, like you said that the real solution is our taking all sins seriously and we need to treat all people with love. The first one was not really her point, but it is where we should land when it comes to really looking at her point about switching chairs. All sin is serious and we don’t treat one group as more evil than another. Sin is a big issue. Just because Christians have not treated other sins appropriately does not mean homosexuality is morally okay.
As far as her spiritual advisers, there are several Christian ministers (some quite prominent) who have come out in support of her lifestyle, so I am sure she wouldn’t have any trouble finding someone who would tell her what she so desperately wants to hear.
A blog post, (one, or more?) written by the pastor, is mentioned in the on-air discussion. Since I don’t know what the pastor said in the blog or much about the other parts of this story (and don’t really care to) I don’t know the history that’s behind this exchange.
The pastor’s claim that “I’m here out of love” sounds thin and hollow. His awkwardness points to the difficult task of the church within contemporary American culture: to not sound like hard-hearted numb skulls when making religious statements that have specific moral and ethical implications.
In the current atmosphere, Knapp’s responses resonate: Responses like (and I realize these aren’t exact quotes), “You don’t know me and my life” and “I have my own spiritual advisors who assure me that I’m good with the Lord” and “By the way, who the heck are you to tell me how to deal with my own feelings and relationships?” In a thought world where those kinds of statements weigh a lot, how should the church speak?
Frank,
Here is the link to the blog that was referenced – https://www.bobbotsford.com/2010/04/straight-to-the-truth-in-love%E2%80%A6/
In response to your last question, I don’t think we have to respond to that with our opinions. I think we present the relevant scriptures and let them deal with them.
We aren’t here to point fingers at people. We are here to point fingers at scripture and let people deal with and measure their lives up to the Word of God and not our opinions.
Putting aside the question of whether or not Jenifer Knapp’s decision is moral or not (sin or not), I wonder what the Apostle Paul might think about two people (Knapp and the Pastor) claiming to be Christians and airing this issue out on public television?
Grace and peace,
Rex
Well Paul preached in the Areopagus. It seems to me that Larry King is sort of a marketplace of ideas as it exists today. Not far off from Acts 17 in a way.
Or maybe I missed your point.
As an aside, I thought the minister tried his best, but there was one thing he could have easily done better. He could have realized that he was simply there to provide the dissenting opinion on Jennifer, but not to spar with Jennifer. The show was about Jennifer, and he often got in the way of that. It was off-putting when he tried to get as much face-time as she did. If I’d been in his place, at some point I would have said something like, “I’m here to provide a dissenting voice, but this hour is about Jennifer. I don’t want to impose on her moment here.”
Great thoughts Philip! I couldn’t agree with you more. He should have stuck with scripture in a loving way and tried to point out as much commonality as possible, while still holding to what scripture says on this matter. Something like,
“I didn’t come here to give the world what Pastor Bob believes about it, but to point to what scripture says about the issue. Here is what it says, I believe that. That doesn’t mean I love you any less. I don’t eat shell fish.”
Maybe leave out that last one.