Thursday, April 15, 2010

Christianity ‘Gay’ Today?

from  Christianity Today

In one of her first extensive interviews since announcing her comeback, Knapp, 36, talks to CT about why she quit music in the first place, her lifestyle choice, her rekindled passion for songwriting, her faith, her new album, and more.

[In the course of the interview we find the following exchanges.]

Have you been with the same partner for a long time?

Knapp: About eight years, but I don't want to get into that. For whatever reason the rumor mill [about me being gay] has persisted for so long, I wanted to acknowledge; I don't want to come off as somebody who's shirking the truth in my life. At the same time, I'm intensely private. Even if I were married to a man and had six children, it would be my personal choice to not get that kind of conversation rolling.

Have you ever felt like you had to choose between your faith or your gay feelings?

Knapp: Yes. Absolutely.

Because you felt they were incompatible?

Knapp: Well, everyone around me made it absolutely clear that this is not an option for me, to invest in this other person—and for me to choose to do so would be a denial of my faith.

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.

Kent comments:

I admit to never having heard of this Knapp person before.  I have little interest in ‘contemporary Christian music’ so-called.  But this interview is a bit disturbing on several levels.

First, the Knapp girl comes off as being an air-head.  Her response to what the Bible says about homosexuality is to refer to a couple of points of the Mosaic law.  Does she really expect anyone to take that seriously?  Does she have even a basic understanding of the Bible on this matter?

Second, Knapp perfectly illustrates a key problem in modern Christendom.  She says she is not capable of debating the matter of homosexuals within the church – I’m sure she is not, so at least that is honest.  But then her ‘response’ to that lack of argument is to say, “There’s a spirit that overrides that for me.”  There is the essence of much recent Christian ‘thought’ – I want what I want and if that is in conflict with the Christian faith, then I will just trump the faith while pretending that I’m still a part of it.

Third, Christianity Today does a great disservice to those of its readers who are still Christian by framing the interview the way they did.  The questioner’s use of homosexual PC words and phrases like ‘gay’ and ‘partner’ lend are air of legitimacy to something that does not deserve it, nor even need it in our corrupt culture.

Fourth, what exactly is the point of asking how long this homosexual relationship has been going on?  If it is wrong the first day, then it is wrong the first year, and the first decade.  The longer it has been, the ‘wronger’ is has been.

The Apostle Paul did not seem to have this uncertainty.  When a certain Corinthian was found to be shacking up with his stepmother, the Apostle made it clear that he would enjoy the left foot of fellowship until that practice was forsaken and denounced.  It doesn’t require much in the way of application to see that the Apostle would say the same thing about a young lady shacking up with a woman ‘partner.’

There was a time, not so long ago, that Christianity Today would not have glorified this sort of thing by printing a long, rambling interview with the perpetrator.  They might have reported that it had happened and expressed regrets.  Now CT expends several several pages of ink on this perversion.  I wonder what Carl F. H. Henry would say?  (CT’s first editor?)

But who cares?  After all, here in the twenty-first century, ‘gay’ is good, right?

No comments: