The Myth of Tolerance; or A Nation of Children

When was the last time you heard anyone on TV hollering about “tolerance”?  You do not hear many calls for “tolerance” for this sort of person or that sort of person anymore, do you?  To the contrary, the 1990s and early 2000s are over and there is a new political narrative in this country to talk about.  Let’s go over some events of the past twelve months:

1) December 2013: Duck Dynasty Controversy (with commentary)

2) April 2014: Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire | Reuters

Someone from the SFist blog reported on the matter at http://sfist.com/2014/04/03/mozillas_anti-gay_ceo_brendan_eich.php partly as follows:

Brendan Eich, Mozilla's anti-gay CEO, made the right decision to step down today. He will resign as CEO of the for-profit Mozilla Corporation as well as a board member of the nonprofit Mozilla foundation.

A comment on this last piece: undoubtedly its author, Brock Keeling, has the well-being of Mozilla in mind when he speaks of the “right decision.”  OkCupid’s opposition to Mozilla’s erswhile CEO obviously would have led to job layoffs at Mozilla and in turn led to a condition of hundreds of miserable, starving children of unemployed former employees of Mozilla if Brendan Eich had not stepped down.

3) April 2014: Magic Johnson on Donald Sterling: "He Shouldn't Have a Team Anymore" | Mother Jones:

“There’s no place in our society for it, and there’s no place in our league. We all get along. We all play with different races of people when you're in sports. That's what makes sports so beautiful. He’s put his own team in a tough situation. So I believe that once Commissioner Silver...does all his due diligence, gets all the information gathered, he’s got to come down hard. He shouldn’t own a team anymore. And he should stand up and say, ‘I don’t want to own a team anymore.’ Especially when you have African Americans renting his apartments, coming to the games, playing for him, coaching for him. This is bad for everybody. This is bad for America.

(...)

He's got to give up the team. If he doesn't like African Americans and you're in a league that is over 75% African Americans...When you've got the president of the United States saying that this is bad. You've got fans around the country—different races of people—saying it's bad, it is time for him to exit.”

“No place in our society”?  Even if your White next-door neighbor and his wife have regular, private discussions among themselves about how they think your new Black neighbors down the street have brought down property values in your neighborhood, how is that per se affecting (to say nothing of harming) Magic Johnson or any other Black person?  Meanwhile, Sterling is right about one thing in life: government has no legal right (except in extraordinary circumstances) to force anyone to sell his or her property.  Contrary to Magic Johnson’s assessment of the matter, Sterling does not have to give up anything, unless “got to give up the team” means I want Donald Sterling to give up the team.

4) May 2014: More recently the news broke concerning HGTV’s decision to render the Benham Brothers relatively jobless: CP | Believers Rally After HGTV Cancels Reality Show Starring Christian Twin Brothers Who Oppose Abortion, Homosexuality, Divorce.  This continuation of a trend, as it turns out, was only the first chapter of a larger story: SunTrust Banks recently broke financial ties with the Benham brothers, before quickly reversing their decision in a manner much like that of the Duck Dynasty incident:  CP | SunTrust Banks Reverses Decision to Drop Benham Brothers Following Strong Backlash From Conservative Customers.

5) May 2014: This last one dawned on me after Thursday, May 15 when for various reasons I had to sit and endure the audio of the Katie Couric Show.  “The Week That Was” was a guest-panel segment that ran on Thursday instead of Friday this time around, and one of the life lessons to be learned of the segment is that “sensitivity training” for Don Jones is a good thing: Michael Sam Kiss Cam & Donald Sterling Controversy – Katie Couric.  The background story is here: Miami Dolphins Fine, Suspend Safety Don Jones for Tweet Against Same-Sex Kiss | Christian News Network.

Never forget that training and education are two different things.  Training is what you do to your muscles and muscle groups.  Training is what you do to ensure that your brain recalls certain actions in a proper sequence.  Training is what you do to force certain results of different systems of the human body.  Education, on the other hand, is what you offer to intelligent beings such that they should make an informed decision on what course of action to take, whether right or wrong.  So if anyone thinks that “brainwashing” is a bad thing, then he should know that sensitivity training is no different and know that there are people in the Western World who approve of brainwashing.

---

Even before all this there was the whole matter of the Chick-Fil-A boycott of 2012, not to mention the continued trend of pseudo-obligatory apologies in national American politics.  What all of this suggests is the sum of two possibilities.  On the one hand, it could be that all the people who rhetorically and by propaganda used to beat people over the head to make them “tolerant” of Arabs, or non-Whites, or homosexuals as such were never interested in global tolerance but only particular tolerance--you know, the kind of Tolerance® that they want people to have or, in other words, tolerance for me but not for thee.  On the other hand, it could be that many of today’s liberals are simply hypocrites or children who forget that tolerance in general means exactly that: that people who believe in general tolerance are not exempt from the requirement to put up with people, deeds and beliefs that they do not like.

And let no one attempt to redefine what these people earlier meant in the use of the word “tolerance.”  For it is clear that in yesteryear “tolerance” meant more than simply restraining an urge to beat gay passers-by with baseball bat, but rather precluded various actions such as demands that certain people be punished with a lack of employment.  Despite whatever the word “tolerance” once meant from the mouths of liberals and the Gay Lobby, what it is now is something that should be considered in the light of both Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm.  Orwell’s cautionary tales were not written for people who live on a planet other than Earth and they were not written precisely for people who already exist within a societies like communist Cuba or the Soviet Union; they were written because of the innate ability within each of us to morph into that which we used to hate and abhor.

Beyond the crude facts of homosexuality

This more or less dovetails a post that DB recently pasted; I’ve only now managed to organize my thoughts enough to post them, plus I have a new perspective on them.

---

I don’t often divulge details of my personal life, but I’ll be painfully candid in this case for illustrative purposes.  For a host of reasons that I cannot get into, I do not like most people.  (Notice that I did not say that I dislike most people, but rather that I do not like most people, at least not as much as most people like other people.)  Now, there is a girl at work whom I do like, perhaps both platonically and otherwise; this person is also physically well-endowed, flaunts it, flirts...and already has a BF.  So, faced with the choice of either leading a tortured existence every day at work or making the problem go away, what’s a guy to do?  Whether figuratively or literally, the easiest thing to do is to just hurry up, get a hotel room and be done with it; or the easiest thing is to attempt to just push the other guy completely out of the picture in a way that brings about unnecessary strife or rifts between the boyfriend and this girl who still likes him anyhow.  However, what I know of Christ’s teachings on sexuality (cf. John 14.25-26, John 16.12-15, 2 Peter 3.15-16, 1 Corinthians 7.8-9, Mark 7.20-23) and what I know of the Golden Rule both have an impact on my decision-making processes: thus I choose the tortured existence.

Where there is fuel there is fire, which is why a day at work can be miserable in ways to which I already alluded.  But where there is not fuel there is also trouble.  In the absence of this person, or of a significant other in general, I am left to realize my solitary existence and what a solitary existence means.  I’m not a part of one of these happy couples that you see at the restaurant, theater, park, club, or whatever.  Instead, whenever I see these couples I am sadly made aware of that which I do not have but others do have.  (Sadness of this kind is only intensified in those cases where one realizes that his odds at finding someone with whom they have chemistry and a shot at becoming part of a lasting couple are one in a billion; because those who are not easy on the eyes or are unlikable are by definition unattrative.  With that said, there is also a word that denotes what is experienced when he or she deals with such a thing, and that word is “grief.”)

As if it were not enough to have sadness and grief piled upon pain of other sorts, let’s also throw loneliness into the mix.  If someone is used to a solitary existence then they can, in God’s grace, adapt or otherwise erstwhile have the fortitude to flourish to some degree in their solitary existence.  However, if one is forced to taste of what life is like for most people on this earth, but later has that respite from solitude taken away, one must now deal with a new problem and a new sorrow: loneliness.

So there it is: a continual, daily, or weekly grind of loneliness piled upon grief piled upon sadness piled upon the experience of being teased.  Sounds great, right?  But this is exactly the sort of thing that Christians who hold fast to biblical teachings expect of gays and lesbians who either profess or do not profess to be disciples of Christ, is it not?  Of course, I do not criticize Christians on this matter, because they rightly acknowledge the fact that the Creator himself expects all people to be on the winning side of the war between the will of God vs. the desires of fallen, post-Edenic human nature (cf. 1 Peter 2.11); nonetheless, I think that people would do well to consider some of the pastoral and existential implications of contemporary culture wars as they pertain to homosexuality.  Why do I think that people should consider such things?  This is because if we as Christians counsel sinners with the words “Go and sin no more” or “Take up your cross daily and follow,” then both parties should know what they are getting themselves into in the entire process.

Unregenerate man, in large part, hasn’t the will or the interest to follow the exhortation “Take up your cross daily and follow.”  In fact, unless the meaning of the phrase and the means by which the phrase can be obeyed are explained, the person who attempts to counsel others with these words runs the serious risk of appearing to have no grip on reality or on what kinds of issues people actually deal with in life.  So I claim that such a would-be counselor should carefully consider and analyze his actions in advance, because Christianity ought not be more offensive than it already is, as one can glean from Titus 2.9-10, 1 Timothy 6.1-2, and 1 Peter 2.12.

Likewise, the phrase “Go and sin no more” does not strike me, for one, as a comforting set of words or the sort of things that good pep talks are made of: simple words and advice probably won’t be very useful to those people who are called upon to leave their same-sex significant others along with their incorrect sexual desires.  Keep in mind that in daily struggles against the flesh sometimes even the best of us apparently just give up and decide to stop fighting, which not too long ago seemed to be the case with Amy Grant and Gary Chapman (http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/1999/12_8/pages/grant.html) vis-à-vis the Difficult Teachings of Matthew 5, 19 and 1 Corinthians 7.  So I claim that any would-be biblical counselor should carefully consider and analyze his actions in advance and act accordingly, because sheer head knowledge of moral rights and wrongs is no guarantee that any of us will do the right thing and continue to do the right thing.

So any believer who is ready to stand up and begin to push back against the contemporary social forces that are encouraging everyone and every institution to sanction homosexuality should consider the pastoral and existential implications of their own deeds in advance; they should consider them and act accordingly for moral reasons and reasons of practicality.  Meanwhile, of course, I state the above not merely as a matter of brute facts and logic but also as a matter of someone who to some degree can begin to relate to what others might be going through.  With that said, I would urge any would-be counselor on this issue to choose his words wisely according to the time, place, person and circumstance.  For example, I think that Christ proves himself worldly-wise with regard to his words about eunuchs and the Difficult Teaching in Matthew 19 and I also find concepts and biblical teaching about theodical character-building to be somewhat comforting: these are the sorts of things that I would like to hear, somewhat, if someone were exhorting me not to choose the easy/evil solution to my own problems.  Of course, other people may respond differently to such words on an emotional or rational level, so other appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos may be helpful with other people.

But just as one’s own heterosexual affects and emotions are not activated and deactivated as easily as the flick of switch, so it is with gays and lesbians who need to leave behind whatever sin they need to leave behind but, yes, may still have to lead their lives in the meantime amid the same temptations and same strong urges, desires and drives of the flesh which they had before, because struggles in life do not necessarily go away when someone repents.  Let everyone remember this.

This is a couple months old, but Jesse Johnson offers some good pastoral thoughts on how to deal with the challenge of homosexuality, from a more relational perspective. He suggests some things we can do to help us stand for the truth and be loving toward those who are homosexual. DB

Remember the gospel, which is another way of saying the over-riding issue is that homosexuality is a sin, and that all sin is against God. Yet God is also eager to forgive any sin that is confessed in faith, and repented of. The reason this issue is difficult is because the Christian has the desire to see his friends and co-workers come to faith, and we know that salvation is really impossible if a person refuses to recognize their sin.

Homosexuality: six ways to love the sinner, hate the sin

by Jesse Johnson

Monday’s announcement by Jason Collins that he is gay is the latest example of the homosexual “issue” being elevated into the secular marketplace. The new normal is for homosexuals to announce their sexual identity, and then receive affirmation for their bravery, boldness, and honesty from their co-workers and clients (or, in the case of Collins, journalists).

This puts Christians with secular jobs in a predicament. Most believers understand perfectly well the concept of hate the sin and love the sinner. But that concept is more and more being seen as inadequate simply because homosexuals often perceive their sexual orientation as their identity, thus rendering any attempt to love the sinner while hating the sin as contradictory.

The difficulty is compounded for believers who work with, for, or around those who are openly homosexual. How should Christians respond to those in the work place who are homosexual? If you manage a company with homosexual employees, or if you have homosexual co-workers, how do you find the balance between hating the sin and loving the sinner? Here are six suggestions:

1) Remember the gospel, which is another way of saying the over-riding issue is that homosexuality is a sin, and that all sin is against God. Yet God is also eager to forgive any sin that is confessed in faith, and repented of. The reason this issue is difficult is because the Christian has the desire to see his friends and co-workers come to faith, and we know that salvation is really impossible if a person refuses to recognize their sin.

2) Don’t approve of homosexuality. There is no positive aspect of homosexuality in the Bible. Every mention of homosexuality in scripture is negative, and it is both an act and a lifestyle condemned by God. In all your interactions with homosexuals, remember that their identity is rooted in a practice that God calls sin, and that (like all sin) leads to destruction. This issue is complicated because unlike many other sins, the homosexual is often in search of approval for his/her actions, which is something that the believer simply cannot give.

In our culture it is not even the sin itself that is the issue, as much as it is the push for affirmation of the sin (Romans 1:32). The goal is to have others give their acceptance of their sin ( “the opinion of America is changing”), and that is the one thing that you cannot do. I can’t think of another group that has strived to justify their sin as much as this group, and to a large part they have been successful. As you strive to find the balance of loving the sinner and hating the sin, remember that there is a red-line you cannot cross; you cannot do anything that would give the impression of approval for a homosexual lifestyle.

3) Have compassion on homosexuals because Satan is a hater and a destroyer. A person shackled to a gay lifestyle is a person who experiences profound pain, rejection, and isolation to an extent that most people don’t understand. It’s hard to imagine the damage that is caused to someone when they question their own sexual identity. It strikes at the very core of their being. That pain and insecurity is masked by coming out, but it is not taken away. Instead, it leads to a perpetual search for acceptance, and ultimately it is a life that leads to misery. Remember, Satan hates people, and those who are ensnared in sin should be the object of Christian compassion.

4) Demonstrate love to homosexuals—the same love that God showed us when we were separated from Him. Develop relationships with co-workers who are homosexual. Get to know them, pray for them, and don’t shrink back from sharing the gospel with them. Refuse to say anything negative about them, and show them a loyalty and friendship from a heart that is filled with concern for them. Remember that at the end of the day, we “don’t owe anybody anything except love” (Romans 13:8).

5) Don’t tolerate any divisive or hate speech. If you manage a secular company, and you have employees that can’t work alongside someone who is gay without being divisive or unprofessional, you have to deal with that divisive and unprofessional employee. Your employees need to work together, and ensuring that this is the case is not tantamount to showing acceptance for homosexuality, but rather is a mark of professionalism, and a sign of Christian maturity.

6) Be honest with a homosexual co-worker by letting him know that you have the desire to love and care for him, without in any way giving him the impression that you approve of his sinful actions. Tell him that this is the same tension you have with all non-Christians, but that it is even more pronounced with him, and ask for help in trying to find that balance. Explain that it is your desire to see him come to faith, and in the meantime it is your desire to get to know him and pray for him, but that you don’t want him confused about your understanding of sin.

Are these suggestions helpful? What would you add?

Re: Jesus and Same Sex Marriage | Joe Dallas Online

For anyone who missed this clever post from Joe Dallas: Jesus and Same Sex Marriage | Joe Dallas Online.

Citation corrections are provided over at Triablogue: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/06/jesuss-teachings-on-marriage-in-light.html.

When Vague is in Vogue- Joe Dallas

Joe Dallas offers some thoughts of how being vague when discussing with homosexuals and about homosexuality is not usually helpful and sometimes not a robust Christian response of being loving while being clear about what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. D.B.

“If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself?”
(1 Corinthians 14:8)

 Let me take some drastic liberties with the parable of the Good Samaritan. A homosexual man sat by the side of the road wondering what, if anything, he should do about his tendencies and behavior. A priest approached him, and when the man explained his situation, the reverend said, “It’s a sin. Repent.”

“OK,” said the homosexual, “but why is it a sin? What do I do when I’m tempted by it? And if I do repent, will I ever be attracted to women and have a normal life?”

“Haven’t a clue,” the priest replied. “They never talked about this in seminary, and I’ve never dealt with someone like you. But you need to repent, so let me know when you’re ready.”

And off he went.

An evangelist walking by later was more direct. “God hates what you do,” he thundered, “and it’s a dangerous sin that’s ruining this country!”

“Ruining it more than adultery, pornography, or unmarried people shacking up?” the homosexual retorted. “Aren’t heterosexual sins serious, too?”

“Yes, but at least they’re normal,” the preacher huffed before stomping away.

Within minutes, another pastor noticed the man, heard his story, and said, “I’m so sick of the way preachers condemn you! So I never talk about right or wrong. I’d rather talk about how much God loves you.”

“Yes,” the man said, “but is this a sin or isn’t it? If God loves me, does that mean He approves of anything I do? And what do you make of the Bible verses that seem to condemn homosexuality?”

“Dunno,” the cleric shrugged. “Everyone has to decide that on his own. I just want a good relationship with you, so visit our church sometime. You’ll be loved no matter what.”

Three approaches—one uninformed, the second unloving, but the third, while lovingly respectful, was unclear. One minister had told him what to do without offering any guidance as to how. The second was long on standards but absent grace. And in reaction to the first two, the third oozed compassion, while offering few specific standards or direction.

The first and second approaches, sadly, have appeared among theological and social conservatives over the years. But the third is growing in popularity within those same circles, perhaps out of weariness with the prior two.

Accordingly, noted evangelical leaders, authors, and pastors are adopting and promoting a revision of our response to homosexual people by shifting away from clarity and toward vagueness. Like the minister cited above, they call on us to love in a new and improved way through approaches featuring ambiguity, affirmation, or accommodation, each of which bears examining. And while a number of well-known Christian figures endorse this shift—among them pastor Rob Bell,¹ musicians Reba Rambo and her husband Donny McGuire,² artist Cynthia Clawson,³ author Phillip Yancey,⁴ and entertainer Dolly Parton,⁵ to name a few—for clarity we’ll focus on three of the most prominent articulators of the ambiguous, the affirmative, and the accommodative approaches in hopes of better understanding this trend and developing a biblically based response.

AMBIGUITY: ANDREW MARIN

An ambiguous approach is one that refuses to clarify whether or not homosexuality falls short of God’s design. It deflects from the foundational issue of the rightness or wrongness of it, opting instead to focus on communication, love, and bridge building. In fact, this approach looks askance at black and white answers, claiming that relations between the gay community and the conservative church are so strained that repairing those relations is the first order of business if gays are ever to be reached for Christ. This, in turn, requires that we abstain from condemning homosexuality on biblical grounds, and instead find common relational ground to enhance mutual trust and respect.

It’s not an utterly new tack. Best-selling author Phillip Yancey, for example, in his award-winning 1997 book, What’s So Amazing about Grace? made a specific and unapologetic point of refusing to state his position on homosexuality, though an entire chapter of Grace? was devoted to examining his longstanding friendship with a gay activist.⁶ Other Christian figures such as the late Tammy Faye Bakker and singer Debby Boone⁷ have followed suit, but author and speaker Andrew Marin, founder of the Marin Foundation who wrote the popular Love Is an Orientation⁸ seems currently to be this approach’s most vocal and recognized champion.

Marin’s self-described journey took him from being a “Bible banging homophobe”⁹ to a believer who loves homosexuals, counts numbers of them as friends, and wants to see the conversation between the church and the gay population elevated. His traditional conservative upbringing left him without much understanding of the issue; indeed, he describes growing up with a notable disdain for homosexuals.¹⁰But during his freshman year of college three separate friends, within a three-month period, disclosed to him that they were gay or lesbian. At that point in his young life, he determined he would find better ways to relate to them, and set out to understand the emotional and spiritual journeys of gays and lesbians.¹¹

To that end he moved into a part of Chicago known as “Boystown” because of its large gay population. Feeling a specific calling to learn firsthand from homosexuals themselves what their lives were like, he immersed himself in their subculture, regularly visiting gay bars and other hangouts, establishing numerous friendships, and thus providing opportunity for evangelism and dialogue.¹² Out of those opportunities he developed a new approach based on listening, empathy, and respect, all operating under the umbrella of what he calls “bridge building.” This approach is critical of traditional point/counterpoint debates over what the Bible says about homosexuality. Elevating the conversation, he argues, means moving on to broader issues and finding common ground.

It’s impossible to read Marin’s work without appreciating his commitment to relational ministry, his concern for the people he wants to reach, and his willingness to stretch beyond his comfort zone when building productive relations with gays and lesbians. The tone of graciousness in his writing matches the one I found him to exhibit personally, and while co-speaking with him at a Christian event, I was impressed with the points he raised and the freshness of some of his ideas, which have captured the imagination and support of gay activists and conservative Christians alike, including radio host Frank Pastore, Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network, Moody Radio, and Inter Varsity Press, to name a few.

Concerns are raised, though, not just over what Marin says but over what he avoids saying, and his rationale for that avoidance. Although he is specific and traditional when explaining doctrinal issues such as salvation and sanctification, he becomes ambiguous when asked if he believes homosexual behavior is sinful, claiming such statements only increase division.¹³ When a gay blogger, for example, asked for a simple answer to the “right or wrong” question, Marin replied:

I’ve come to the conclusion that both sides ask those same yes or no questions at the beginning so they can then label you and place you on their side, or the opponent’s side. Therefore, is homosexuality a sin? I have three clear answers:

            1. Romans 3:23—we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God

            2. James 2:10—in God’s eyes, if you have committed one sin you have committed them all

            3. Matthew 7:1-2—the measure you use to judge others will also be used to judge you¹⁴

A simple question—Is this a sin?—is responded to with vague reminders that we all sin. When advising Christian university students, Marin endorses similar ambiguity. According to a positive review of one of his lectures at Belmont University in Nashville:

Instead of answering with a yes or no answer, Marin says, Jesus “elevated the conversation.” He did not answer yes or no. Marin now points to the “Kingdom Job Description,” as he calls it, where:

• The Holy Spirit will convict

• God will judge

• My job is to love.¹⁵

So while Marin’s book, blog writings, and public addresses rightly call for Christians to love their homosexual neighbor, the prescribed form of love refuses to address the rightness or wrongness of same-sex eroticism under any circumstances, even when the person practicing it asks for a plain answer. Though Jesus was full of both grace and truth (John 1:14), Marin seems to endorse a redistribution of the two, advising we be filled with one and reticent with the other.

AFFIRMATION: CHUCK SMITH, JR.

Contrasting Marin’s reluctance to make clear statements on the ethics of homosexuality, Chuck Smith, Jr., (son of well-known pastor and Bible teacher Chuck Smith, leader of the Calvary Chapel movement and host of the popular Word for Today radio program) has adopted a solidly gay-affirmative posture, claiming he hopes to “pry open the minds of evangelicals”¹⁶ after learning “what homosexuality is all about” from a young gay man in his congregation. Having been raised equating homosexuality with pedophilia¹⁷ and other negative traits, his stereotypes about homosexuals crumbled as his friendship with the gay congregant and his male partner grew, to the point where Smith acknowledged he eventually “knew Jesus lived in their hearts.”¹⁸ Subsequently he adjusted his beliefs to match what he was experiencing, claiming he now approaches homosexuality from a pastoral rather than a theological perspective.¹⁹

While Smith’s position on the matter is not vague, his reasons for adopting it seem to be. His earlier traditional reading of Scripture was morphing by the time he wrote his book Frequently Avoided Questions (Baker Books, 2005), in which he wondered whether there could be one “right” answer on so difficult a topic.²⁰ Later he admitted needing to “revisit” his theological stance on homosexuality,²¹ the revisiting eventually bringing him to the conviction that homosexuality is not an unnatural condition and homosexual behavior is not necessarily a sin.²² On those points Smith is clear.

What remains unclear is how he adjusted certain Bible verses to match his newfound perspective on homosexuals, and how the good character of a person practicing a behavior thereby legitimizes the behavior itself. On these points he may remain comfortably inconclusive, having openly stated that “even when I speak, some of what I say is opinion and confusion and error. I’m more in a place of learning than I am in a place of certainty.”²³ Yet despite his openly pro-gay views, he is still featured (as of this writing) as a guest on his father’s Pastor’s Perspective radio show, at times even co-hosting with Chuck Smith, Sr., who clearly does not endorse homosexuality, despite giving his son a platform on the Calvary Chapel network.²⁴

ACCOMMODATION: TONY CAMPOLO

Sociologist Tony Campolo remains a dominant figure in modern evangelicalism, despite a number of controversies attached to his style and statements over the years.²⁵ A prolific author, popular speaker, university professor, and former spiritual mentor to President Bill Clinton, Campolo has admirably championed the push for more respectful treatment of homosexuals, while just as admirably maintaining an unapologetically traditional biblical viewpoint on the matter. Clearly stating he believes homosexual practices are incompatible with Scripture and church tradition,²⁶ he is nonetheless a welcomed guest at pro-gay events, during which he decries errors committed by Christians and calls the church to repent of its attitude toward gays.²⁷

There is nothing ambiguous about Campolo’s beliefs on the matter, nor are they affirming of homosexual acts. Rather, he seems to call on the church to accommodate practicing homosexuals (as opposed to those who wrestle with the desire but do not act on it), thus relegating homosexuality to a secondary issue that needn’t disrupt church life and fellow ship.²⁸ The vagueness in his approach, then, lies not in his position but in how that position should be practiced. For example:

When the Pacific Southwest region of the American Baptist Convention (ABC) voted on May 11, 2006, to withdraw from the parent denomination over the issue of homosexuality, Tony

Campolo criticized them. The 300 churches in California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Arizona withdraw because of the denomination’s acceptance of churches with lax policies on homosexuality.… Campolo criticized the withdrawal decision, saying that it “runs counter to the prayer of Christ that we might all be one people.”²⁹

Campolo’s form of accommodation would suggest that homosexual behavior, while not compatible with Scripture, is not a serious violation of it, either—at least not serious enough to warrant official church positioning and discipline. Thus the matter becomes secondary, like Calvinist vs. Arminian debates, or charismatic vs. non-charismatic views—significant, but not worth breaking fellowship over.

A BETTER WAY

While Marin, Smith, and Campolo advocate positions that must be challenged, we should first note, then applaud, the attitudes influencing the positions. Would that all Christians were as concerned as these three about our response to homosexuals as people first; then homosexuals second, third, or even fiftieth down the list of defining characteristics. Their writings and speeches challenge us to reconsider, if not our stance, then the manner in which we take and express it. For this we should be grateful. Their approaches, though, bear examining in light of Scripture.

Marin’s ambiguity, for example, falls shorter of Christ’s example then he seems to realize. Despite his assertions that Jesus seldom answered yes/no questions,³⁰ He did in fact answer plainly when asked about taxes (Matt. 22:17), divorce (Matt. 19:3), how often to forgive (Matt. 18:22), what the greatest commandment was (Luke 10:27), how to be born again (John 3:4), whether ceremonial washing was necessary (Matt. 15:12), the role of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:10), and who one’s neighbor was (Matt. 10:36), to name just a few controversial topics He addressed with clarity. While in some cases He refused to give a direct answer, these typically were occasions when His enemies were looking for grounds on which to incriminate Him. His usual teaching style was hardly vague; He showed no reticence to answer plainly despite the controversies a clear answer might incite. In this area He showed less concern about building bridges and more about truth, recognizing, no doubt, that bridges built on anything less were faulty indeed.

The assertion that our job is to love and God’s is to convict is also misleading. Love is indeed our command, but not our only one. We’re also commanded to rebuke the brother who sins against us and, if needed, take him before the church (Luke 17:3, Matt. 18: 15, 17). We’re to correct wrong behaviors within the church (1 Cor. 6:5) and express God’s attitude toward them (Eph. 5:11), imposing discipline within our own walls and deferring judgment to God only when dealing with those on the outside (1 Cor. 5:12). All of these call for proper judgment; all involve clear answers and approaches. True, God does not need man to point out sin, any more than He needs man to preach the gospel, provide for the poor, or give weekly sermons. He could do all of these without us, but His choice was to make us part of His work, a work we can hardly shun simply because it’s been done poorly by some in the past.

Likewise, Smith’s affirmative approach, guided by his recognition that homosexual people can be Christian and have fine qualities, overlooks the reality that the rightness or wrongness of a behavior is never determined, in Scripture, by the character of the person practicing it, but by the thing itself. His description of the stereotype of homosexuals he once believed but later rejected—that they were promiscuous pedophiles who chose their orientation and cannot possibly know God—suggests an either/or paradigm that’s neither useful nor realistic. The fact one doesn’t molest children hardly justifies one’s adult-to-adult sexual behavior, and while a person may exhibit admirable qualities in thirty areas of life, the one area outside God’s will remains outside God’s will despite the other thirty. When Jesus condemned adultery and lust, He made no general statements about the kind of people guilty of these sins precisely because their general character was not at issue; the specific actions were.

And while Campolo’s call for unity is sound, his concept of it seems to elevate unity above obedience. Here theologian Robert Gagnon, commenting on pro-gay trends within the church, offers important points: “When Paul encountered the case of the incestuous man at Corinth he did not say, ‘Let’s stop the fighting over what Scripture says about incest and try to find eternal principles that will help us bridge our differences.’ That may have been the position of the Corinthian ‘strong’ who prided themselves (were ‘puffed up’ or ‘inflated’) in their ability to tolerate such behavior in their midst (1 Cor. 5:2); but it was not Paul’s position.”³¹

Nor, we might add, is it a position supported by any other biblical authors, and there’s the crux of the issue: The vague approach growing in vogue elevates the emotional above the rational; the feeling above the true. The emotional can hardly be denied, as we would prefer to get along. But when relating exacts the cost of hedging inconvenient truth, then the price of the bridge being built has skyrocketed beyond reasonable rates. Here Charles Spurgeon eloquently reminds us: “My firm old fashioned belief is that some doctrines are true, and that statements which are diametrically opposite to them are not true—that when No is the fact, Yes is out of court, and that when Yes can be justified No must be abandoned. We have to deal with God, whose servants we are, and He will not be honored by our delivering falsehoods.”³²

Joe Dallas is the program director of Genesis Counseling in Tustin, California, a Christian counseling service to men dealing with sexual addiction, homosexuality, and other sexual/relational problems. He is a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors and is the author of five books on human sexuality, including Desires in Conflict (Harvest House, 1991) and A Strong Delusion (Harvest House, 1996).
 

---

 

NOTES

1         “Rob Bell hits Lexington” http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/rob-bell-hits-lexington-and-packed-out.html?m=1.

2         http:// www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=275.

3         http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2008/05/14cynthia-clawson.

4         http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?13.

5         http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/CCM/dolly_parton-exposed.htm.

6         http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?13.

7         “Debby Boone defies Expectations,” available at http://www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?sec=article&article_id=4236.

8         http://www.themarinfoundation.org/.

9         http://globalcomment.com/2010/the-marin-foundation-still-banging/.

10     Andrew Marin, Love Is an Orientation (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2009), 16.

11     Ibid., 17–20.

12     Ibid.

13     http://americansfortruth.com/2009/09/24/dr-michael-brown-corrects-andrew-marin-and-newevangelicals-on-their-celebration-of-ambiguity-on-homosexuality/.

14     Ibid.

15     http://faithoncampus.com/andrew-marin-answering-the-hard-questions-about-sexual-identity/.

16     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3ISp9h9tFk.

17     Ibid.

18     Ibid.

19     Ibid.

20     Chuck Smith, Jr., Frequently Avoided Questions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 212.

21     “Q and A with Chuck Smith Jr.,” Dallas Morning News, December 10, 2005. http://www.religionnewsblog.com/14301/qa-with-chuck-smith-jr.

22     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3ISp9h9tFk.

23     http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/02/local/me-smiths2.

24     http://news4themasses.wordpress.com/.

25     http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/08/Evangelical-Christianity-Has-Been-Hijacked-An-Interview-With-Tony-Campolo.aspx?p=3#ixzz1ivBb5mzl.

26     http://www.gaychristian.net/conference/openletter.php.

27     Ibid.

28     http://www.wayoflife.org/files/ea774c89d9ae85db323e0073c6039913-141.html.

29     Ibid.

30     http://faithoncampus.com/andrew-marin-answering-the-hard-questions-about-sexual-identity/.

31     Robert A. J. Gagnon, “Truncated Love: A Response to Andrew Marin’s Love Is an Orientation.” http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexMarinLoveIsOrientation.pdf.

32     Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954), 220.

Another reason that we lose

Originally I was wanting to post something entirely different yet related to the Southern Baptist Convention just the same.  Chores and fatigue have prevented this for a long time now, but I will make an effort to say the following, however: Christians and social conservatives are not that bright.

We’re not that bright: first in terms of intellect, but now also in terms of positive cultural influence à la Matthew 5.13-16.  The Southern Baptist Convention in 1997 showed that it had heart when it began to fight the Disney empire and just as other Christians began to come up with every conceivable lame “excuse” for supporting the SBC’s boycott of things Disney.  This time around, on the other hand, the same organization which once was capable of noble action against social evils has shown that whatever wisdom it once had may have gone out the door in the natural flow of organizations’ shedding and gaining parts as members join, step down, die, become senile, etc.

From Southern Baptists condemn Boy Scouts over admission of gays | Fox News (06/12/2013):

HOUSTON –  The nation's largest Protestant denomination stopped short of calling for its member churches to boycott the Boy Scouts, but voiced strong opposition to acceptance of gay scouts - with a top church leader predicting at the annual gathering of Southern Baptists that a "mass exodus" of youths from the program that has been a rite of passage for more than a century.

The move by the Southern Baptist Convention came at its annual, four-day meeting in Houston, and three weeks after the Boy Scouts of America voted to allow gay youth to join.  With more than two-thirds of Boy Scout troops sponsored by religious organizations, and Baptists being the nation's largest protestant denomination, the resolution could have a crippling effect on the Boy Scouts.

"There will be a mass exodus over time," said Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee. “Churches are finally going to have to come to realize – there is a point when you say, ‘sorry, no more.’"

Let us juxtapose this with the following snippet from Baptist Press - Page, Land send letters opposing Scout proposal - News with a Christian Perspective posted on 05/17/2013:

"For over a century," Page wrote, "Scouting has helped our youth develop character and leadership skills forever impacting their lives. I am distressed by the recent proposed resolution which would introduce the subject of sex and sexual orientation into the program of the Boy Scouts. For one hundred and three years Scouting has been a safe haven from such topics rightfully reserved for parents. Such an introduction is inconsistent with the principles found in Scouting's sacred Oath and Law."

For starters, if you decimate the Boy Scouts by keeping your children out of it, you have now taken away the said means of developing character and leadership skills in the youth.

Secondly, a person who is openly gay need only be someone who is being honest about what feelings or attractions he has; it is hardly as if everyone who is a homosexual is someone who wears his “identity” on his sleeve or goes about broadcasting his sexual orientation to everyone around him.  Someone who is merely being honest their particular mental disorder--and yes, I will call it that--is not someone who categorically should be denied the opportunity to have character and leadership skills instilled within him.

Thirdly, the “safe haven” objection seems perfectly naive in considering what amount of the U.S. population is homosexual, how many members of that subpopulation would be interested in joining the Boy Scouts, and how many youngers already know that homosexuality exists.  Homosexuality is mentioned time and again in your copy of the Bible, you know.

Fourthly, what will be gained if you take your kids out of the Boy Scouts and attempt to set up conservative alternatives to the Boy Scouts?  Attempts at Christian isolation from the culture tend to create cultural ghettoes, something well-exemplified by CCM, where the only reason untalented people are getting record contracts is to fill a void in a niche market, or Christian cinema where half the movies of that genre would probably end up on Mystery Science Theater 3000 if that show were still on the air.  Sorry, but Christians do not in every instance have all the talent, money and resources necessary to put together a grade A organization or product; attempt a Boy Scouts of America alternative if you must, but please do not bother if only a few people will invest in such a project.

But again, what will be gained if you take your kids out of the Boy Scouts and attempt to set up conservative alternatives to the Boy Scouts?  Do the Scriptures not have something to say about believers’ being “salt and light”?  And do the Scriptures not have something to say about winning people with actions as opposed to mere words?  If there are kids in the BSA who are believers and if there are kids there who are not, then by isolating the believers from the unbelievers an opportunity is missed to show unregenerate people exactly how gracious and selfless a person should be toward his fellow man and how this behavior is borne of an understanding of the teachings of Christ.

Finally, some problems will naturally blow over or fade away if no further fuel is added to the fire.  The sort of attention that some social conservatives don’t want homosexuality and homosexuals to receive is something what would not exist if people would not create news stories by doing exactly the sort of thing for which the Southern Baptist Convention is currently in the news.  In fact, any further legal gains that the Gay Lobby makes could conceivably, over the course of time, come to be as forgotten and ignored as laws of various states which in our own day still outlawed sodomy or adultery.  And despite how debased Western culture has become in its ethically minimalist attitude toward homosexuality, guess what: there are still hate crimes (which I do not condone in any way) being committed against homosexuals, including the recent Madison Square Garden attacks in liberal, home-of-the-Stonewall-Inn New York City.  The point is that people such as members of the SBC need to stop the knee-jerk reactions to cultural occurrences around them and instead calm their nerves so they can think clearly.

Then again, if the reader thinks it is I who am in error here, then my first point is still proven; the fact that people can be disagreeing over the issues means that something has gone wrong somewhere down the line.

**************

Addendum: It is amazing what a little bit of further reading and research can reveal; lo, there may still be hope for Southern Baptist Convention: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-boyscouts-baptists-idUSBRE95B0NO20130612.  The reaction of the Mormon hierarchy on this issue, meanwhile, is interesting.

The Wrong Side of History

(Note: I don’t necessarily endorse any the websites behind the hyperlinks that follow.  The last source at the close of this post also is not for the squeamish, but it is also a poignant reminder of exactly what it is that we are talking about here and how the Scriptures could treat homosexuality as being something less than perfect.  Caveat emptor, and all apologies if two hundred other bloggers have already made the same point that I make below.)

---

“The Wrong Side of History” is a phrase that was used repeatedly in 2012: one of those phrases that people suddenly pick up on and end up using ad nauseum.  In the broadcast and information media it was used most often in favor of efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, as it were.  For example, in the month of May the phrase was in vogue after Amendment One was passed in the Tar Heel State.  It was followed by Shepard Smith’s infamous usage of the same phrase during one of Smith’s many broadcasts on Fox News Channel where the man cannot keep his opinion to himself.

So there it is: people who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage (as if such a phrase were not oxymoronic) are on the wrong side of history.  Translation: Everybody else has already run and jumped off the cliff, so why don’t you conservatives get with the program already and do the same?  Alternate translation: Humanity only grows wiser and wiser with the passing of time and with every new era; so you will be proven in the future to be unwise or to be barbarians.

Okay, I’ll play Shepard Smith’s game.  I would really hate to be on the wrong side of history; I really would.  And because I do not want to be on the wrong side of history, I hereby announce that I will not do anything to esteem or dignify homosexuality; in fact, this means that I may also find myself actively opposing so-called same-sex marriage on the grounds of benevolence vis-à-vis biblical teaching about sexuality.  After all, people talk so much about history, but have they already forgotten the history of the Western world when it comes to homosexuality?  To quote Wikipedia:

It was expected and socially acceptable for a freeborn Roman man to want sex with both female and male partners, as long as he took the penetrative role.

However, we later read in the same entry:

Attitudes toward same-sex behavior changed as Christianity became more prominent in the Empire. The modern perception of Roman sexual decadence can be traced to early Christian polemic.^[192] Apart from measures to protect the liberty of citizens, the prosecution of homosexual acts as a general crime began in the 3rd century of the Christian era when male prostitution was banned by Philip the Arab. A series of laws regulating homosexual acts were promulgated during the social crisis of the 3rd century, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriage.^[193]

By the end of the 4th century, passive homosexual acts under the Christian Empire were punishable by burning.^[194] "Death by sword" was the punishment for a "man coupling like a woman" under the Theodosian Code.^[195] It can be argued, however, that legislation under Christian rule was an extension of traditional Roman views on appropriate gender roles, and not an abrupt shift based on Christian theology. It is in the 6th century, under Justinian, that legal and moral discourse on homosexuality becomes distinctly Christian:^[196] all same-sex acts, passive or active, no matter who the partners, were declared contrary to nature and punishable by death.^[197] Homosexual behaviors were pointed to as causes for God's wrath following a series of disasters around 542 and 559.^[198]

Oh, but it’s Wikipedia.  Can’t trust anything they say, right?  To the contrary; the pendulum of history swings in both directions.

Are Christians Inconsistent?

The Left is making a very fallacious argument today about the Chick-fil-A controversy, and (sadly) some conservatives are buying it. We’re told our case against same-sex marriage is bogus because we’re inconsistent. That is, because we do not oppose No Fault Divorce with the same fervor we oppose same-sex marriage, our case collapses.

I disagree. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we are inconsistent. What follows—that same-sex marriage is permissible? The Left is making the dubious claim that not speaking against No Fault Divorce makes same-sex marriage justified. The logical conclusion, though, from this line of reasoning is that both SSM and NFD are wrong, not that both are OK. Secular people argue this way all the time. They try to find an inconsistency and then claim that everything is permissible.

An example of this faulty reasoning is justifying bad behavior for women (say, promiscuity) because men get a pass on that same bad beh
avior. But just because men do something immoral, doesn’t justify women doing the same immoral activity. Seems to me that the solution is to hold men to the same standard, rather than lowering standards for women.

Moreover, SSM and NFD are not parallel cases that demand equal responses. No-Fault Divorce does nothing to change the definition of marriage. Rather, it makes leaving a marriage easier—which is regrettable. Same-sex marriage, however, involves roughly six percent of the population forcing the rest of us to radically define marriage to suit it’s tastes. That demands a much stronger response.

Finally, conservatives aren’t inconsistent, only prudent. As Ramesh Ponnuru once said (paraphrase), there’s nothing wrong with preventing the growth of a new evil that you can stop (SSM) rather than fighting an entrenched one that you can’t (NFD).





Scott Klusendorf

In the news: Mars Hill Church vandalized

Via RNS: http://www.religionnews.com/culture/gender-and-sexuality/angry-queers-damage-mark-driscolls-church-in-portland

In the News: Harold Camping Changes His Mind and Kirk Cameron Does Not

Curiously enough, both of these guys have more courage and humility than many of their critics and other people in this world. Sources:

Harold Camping says May 21 prediction was ‘incorrect and sinful’ - The Washington Post

Kirk Cameron responds to anti-gay comments flap - Yahoo! News (Reuters)

First of all, when has Ergun Caner, for example, ever manned up about his biography and admitted to having repeatedly done things which are sinful?

Moreover, stop and consider the closing remarks of the Reuters story for a moment. Since Tracey Gold professes to “believe in equal rights for all,” does she also believe that grown men of the NAMBLA ilk should be provided legal “equal rights” regarding their sexual orientation? Presumably, the answer is No. That means that Ms. Gold is being less than honest about the real reasons she supports the LGBT community or she hasn’t thought her words through to even 1 millionth of the extent to which her elder TV brother thinks his words through.

Of course, if Gold is dishonest then the real reasons should seem obvious enough. No one likes to be a pariah or social leper; furthermore, the fallen and rebellious heart of post-Edenic humanity is naturally drawn to a minimalist theory of ethics per John 3.19-20. (If one is to avoid being mindful of God’s law, a replacement for one’s code of ethics must be sought.)

Contrast Tracey Gold's cowardice--or so I believe it to be--with the work of Kirk Cameron over the past several years. Who else in Hollywood and who else in celebrity circles has the guts to go against the grain of political correctness in any way, shape or fashion? If it were the case that Alan Thicke hated Black people, would he also have the guts to call them savages on Piers Morgan’s TV show? No. If Mel Gibson has a low opinion of Jews, would he dare say this openly and with a normal blood alcohol level? No. Modern celebrities and corporations are cowards and wusses for the most part: this is no secret. However, Kirk Cameron stands apart from them not only in his honesty and commitment to God’s law and Gospel, but also in the sheer guts the guy has to continually do street preaching or witnessing as many of us have seen on Ray Comfort’s “Way of the Master” TV show. So Cameron has guts and honesty; I would think more highly of him than most celebs even if I were not a Christian.

Finally, Kirk Cameron has also been accused of being thin-skinned regarding his reaction to people’s criticism of him of late. Kirk Cameron is not thin-skinned--for one thing, he knows he is a laughing stock though that has not stopped him from street preaching and doing the other things that he does. Again, he is not thin-skinned; to the contrary, he is simply telling it like it is when in recent news he points out the BS quotient of those who holler “Homophobe!” or “Hate speech!” at anyone and anything that merely happens to disagree with the idea that homosexuality (the attribute) and homosexuality (the acts) are good things. Terms such as “homophobia” and “hate speech” are in fact the tools of people who are either too lazy, too evil, or too dumb to draw rudimentary distinctions of logic and language or who simply want to bank on the use of emotive, politically-charged words.

FOXNews.com - Bisexual men claim discrimination in Gay World Series

The bisexual men were not allowed to play because, according to them, they were not gay enough.

FOXNews.com - Bisexual men claim discrimination in Gay World Series

Posted using ShareThis

In other old news...

From: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1004/23/lkl.01.html, personal comments interspersed as needed:

*********************

«Return to Transcripts main page

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Christian Singer Comes Out as Lesbian

Aired April 23, 2010 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LARRY KING, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, a Christian singer's shocking admission. She admits she is a lesbian, alienating some of her fans, angering devout followers.

Jennifer Knapp reveals how a God-loving woman rejected church teachings to be true to herself.

Ex-televangelist Ted Haggard who survived a notorious scandal is here with us as well.

Can you be Christian and gay? Should anyone have to choose one or the other?

Next on LARRY KING LIVE.

(MUSIC)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Good evening. This will not be a dull show tonight.

Jennifer Knapp is a Grammy-nominated Christian music artist. Recently came out publicly as a lesbian revealing that she has been in a same-sex relationship for the past eight years. Her new album "Letting Go" will be released in May. It's available for presale on iTunes.

We welcome Jennifer Knapp to LARRY KING LIVE.

Why did you come out?

JENNIFER KNAPP, CHRISTIAN SINGER: Well, go right for the jugular. As a history in the Christian music industry, I'm very well- known for my faith. I felt like it was one of the most important things that I could do to allow people who I knew might not agree with listening to an artist who has been known as a Christian and yet deal with the fact that they were homosexual at the same time.

There were a lot of rumors circulated around for about seven years. And while I wasn't actually here to kind of answer them, and it's starting to feel a little bit like a lie. So --

KING: Do you think you were living a lie?

KNAPP: Absolutely not. I've been quite open in my relationships that I've had in my private life. It's just on a public level, they kind of needed some -- need to be addressed, I think.

KING: You would be seen with your mate, et cetera -- you weren't hiding somewhere?

KNAPP: No. I mean, well, I was on another continent, so that made it rather convenient.

KING: You were where?

KNAPP: I was actually in Australia for the last five years.

KING: Singing?

KNAPP: No, just being an average Joe.

KING: Why did you stop singing?

KNAPP: Oh, that's a long story.

KING: Shorten it.

KNAPP: Well, I'd done about three records. And I got fairly burnt out. I was doing about 150 shows a year for about three or four years. And I just didn't know why I was doing it anymore. I lost the joy of what I was doing. So, I really decided I needed a break.

KING: Did you know early on you were gay?

KNAPP: No, I wouldn't have put it that way.

KING: When -- was there a realization?

KNAPP: Yes, when I fell in love with a beautiful woman. That was a pretty good indicator. But I was -- at the time I was actually involved in sharing my faith in music. I was celibate for 10 years.

So, I really kind of put my own personal desires out the window and kind of put all that to the side. And it wasn't until I actually met someone that was really quite difficult for me to ignore anymore.

KING: Is that someone kind of in the same boat?

KNAPP: I don't know. You'd have to speak -- you'd have to speak to my partner about that.

KING: But did you ask if she had previous -- if this was new to her, too?

KNAPP: Sure.

KING: You had a successful Christian musical career. More than one million albums were sold. You won four Gospel Industry Dove Awards, were nominated for a Grammy. Let's take a look at your music.

Watch.

KNAPP: All right.

(MUSIC VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Do you still call yourself a Christian artist?

KNAPP: I still -- I am a person of faith. It's a long-debated term, the connection of those two terms. I am an artist. I very much as an artist often find myself reflecting my faith in my music, and will probably continue to do that.

KING: Usually, we hear Christian artist, most of the music is of that bent.

KNAPP: Well, there's a particular genre like --

KING: Yes, of course.

KNAPP: There is a retail industry that's specifically designed for that.

KING: Go to the store.

(CROSSTALK)

KNAPP: Yes, it will be the Christian bookstore. And that's a legitimate form of -- there a legitimate group of people that are actually participating within that industry. So, it's not a small thing.

KING: Does what you do, do you think belie your faith since so many in the Christian world regard homosexuality as a sin?

KNAPP: Well, not every Christian denomination belies homosexuality.

KING: But many do.

KNAPP: I can't speak for the statistical analysis for it. But there are many denominations in the country.

KING: But the conservative element. KNAPP: I would say that there is a certain portion of the evangelical community that definitely disagrees with homosexuality being in conjunction of anyone calling themselves a believer. That has been my experience within the evangelical community. However, I've also had a great deal of experience with many other denominations who openly accept the rich diversity of the types of believers that are within their community. And it's been a great honor for me to be in participation with many of them.

[Kwame: When I walk into a car repair shop or a tire shop and have my car serviced alongside other cars that are broken or messed up, the sum of punctured tires, broken water pumps, and worn-out spark plugs does not make for rich diversity. No one will look at this and call it “rich.” And why should they? Such things have a certain design, and deviation from this design (through wear, tear and decay) is not a glorious thing.]

KING: No problem for you to be Christian and gay.

KNAPP: Not with myself personally, no.

[Kwame: And this is lamentable. “How could something so wrong feel so right?”--Not only is that a recurrent theme in musical lyrics, but it is also something that people actually think to themselves. But one’s proclivity toward attraction to this particular person or to this other particular action is not necessarily a good thing. Even queer Christians, as it were, must admit that there are things such as sexual deviance and psychological deviance.

For one, even if we were to concede that the Saul of Tarsus (later named Paul as an apostle of Christ) was an archaic, unenlightened, primitive ignoramus who knew nothing of true loving relationships between members of the same sex (as has been alleged in the past), must we also believe that the man was so ignorant as to misidentify fornication in 1 Corinthians 5.1-2 where people were shamefully reported as taking their fathers’ wives?

And those pedophiles of the world who have real, special feelings for children: shall we say of these individuals what something that feels so right can truly be wrong? If so, why not admit the same thing with regard to homosexuals? And the real, special feelings that Amnon, son of King David had for his half-sister, don’t the reality and sincerity of his feelings mean that his desire for his half-sister were good and natural? After all, no one wakes up in the morning and says, “Today I’m going to be deviant of the sort that if I were not a member of royalty people would be waiting to stone me if I were to act on my feelings.”]

KING: You don't feel that your Bible speaks against it. Or, do you? KNAPP: Well, I think there's plenty of evidence in my exploration of my faith through the sacred text of the Holy Bible that I have definitely recognized that we are somewhat at the handicap of our own interpretations of a sacred text. Let's take for example the original Greek translation of which I am no academic scholar of. Yet, you know, we all know that any time that we read a book or we read any kind of word, that it becomes the interpretation of our life's experience, what we want to bring out of that.

And so, I mean, in the long run, I don't have the greatest deal of problems with it because there are other -- there are not -- I'm not the only person in the universe that's ever, you know, looked at, you know, a different interpretation. We have --

[Kwame: SO WHAT??? Let’s go down the short list of theological and biblio-hermaneutic contorversies that have resulted from handicaps of people’s own interpretations: modalism, Arianism, subordinationism, baptismal regeneration, baptismal justification, Campbellite faith-by-baptism, pedobaptism, mode of baptism, pre-Trib rapture, pre-wrath pre-Trib rapture, mid-Trib rapture, post-Trib rapture, premillennialism, postmillennialism, amillennialism, partial preterism, full preterism, dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, supralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, semi-Pelagianism, monergism, Calvinism, Arminianism, post-Arminianism, glossalalia, Saturday sabbatarianism, Sunday sabbatarianism, one-cup Communism, frequency of the Lord’s Supper, et cetera, und so weiter, and so on. Does this now mean that we are all justified to do whatever the heck we want to do if some “scholars” argue over a given text? You dare make such a mockery of the love of the truth and such a mockery of the word of God?]

(CROSSTALK)

KING: We can read things into any things.

KNAPP: Yes, doesn't make the truth any less the truth or love any less love.

[Kwame: Yet what you have given with the right hand you have taken with the left, Jennifer Knapp. It behooves you to stop with this passive-aggressive nonsense and own up to your subconscious desire to avoid erring on the side of caution as you continue the process of finally making up your mind on whether the Bible supports your homosexual behavior or not.]
KING: What do you fans said?

KNAPP: What do my fans say?

KING: Yes. Have you heard from people?

KNAPP: I've had an overwhelming response in the last couple of weeks since this information has come out.

KING: Support mostly?

KNAPP: It's been incredible. Everywhere from -- you know, the typical Internet kind of -- Facebook, Twitter, and the shows that we've been doing. It's been fantastic.

[Kwame: And if people hit you up with notes or words of encouragement and unconditional support, this is not necessarily a bad thing at all. However, let’s hope that some of these people also are committed to “speaking the truth in love,” which in this case translates to reminding you that love of the eros sort properly obtains between members of the opposite sex only.]

KING: More with Jennifer Knapp, quite a story. The whole show devoted to her tonight. Don't go away.

(MUSIC VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Back with Jennifer Knapp, the Grammy-nominated Christian music artist who has in a sense come out. Her new album "Letting Go" released in May, available for presale on iTunes.

We just played a clip of Katy Perry singing "I Kissed a Girl." Katy used to be a Christian singer and you manage her, right?

KNAPP: For a bit. Yes, I was familiar with Katy when she was a young teenager up and coming.

KING: Now, you say that artists like Katy Perry and Pink help return to music. How?

KNAPP: Well, actually, it's funny about Katy because I was actually living in Sydney at the time and Katy was doing her tour down in Australia. And she looked great. I was really proud of her. I was really glad to see that she was having this success that she was.

And I was just sitting there at home, just getting fat and lazy. I just had the fire burning in my belly. I was just so jealous of seeing that. Just going, man, why am I not doing that? And a little time after that, Pink came through and was doing her tour and her preparation.

It was really hard to just see something that I really loved and I was just kind of sitting in the background going - oh, no, I can't do that. It's too hard. People won't like me. Just -- it really put a fire in my belly seeing people that I really admired to --

KING: How did you come out? What method did you choose?

KNAPP: Come out?

KING: Yes, to announce it publicly. What did you do?

KNAPP: Well, I mean, in particular for the last couple of weeks. I mean --

KING: What did you say? Did you talk to --

KNAPP: Well, I did an interview with "Christianity Today," which is a very well-respected evangelical publication, an interview with "Reuters," and an interview with "The Advocate." I really thought it was important try and share three different walks of life that many Christians find themselves in, just normal everyday people, people of faith, and people who are contending with their sexual orientation in society.

KING: We've looked at a few Christian Web sites. My crack staff has. Here are some comments people have said.

Jennifer must choose between her sexual orientation and her Christianity. She cannot have both. Jennifer does not yet have the spiritual strength to deny her sexual orientation. To say "This is OK, this is who I am," is not acceptable in God's sight.

[Kwame: This too is lamentable. When did the apostle Paul or anyone else in the Scriptures indicate that those who merely are attracted to members of the same sex will not inherit the kingdom of God? Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6.9-10, 1 Timothy 1.10: try them all, and you won’t find support for this idea therein.

Furthermore, I for one am not convinced that it is realistic to scrub away anyone’s sexual orientation entirely, short of miracles. Try taking a person who is attracted only to tall, leggy, blue-eyed blondes and have that person become attracted only to short, round-headed, black-haired, brown-eyed Filipinos. Or try taking a person who is attracted only to tall, dark and handsome men and her become attracted only to short, pale-skinned, redheads. Yeah, good luck making that happen. Better yet, try taking a person who is both bashful and introverted--though these traits will often work against him in life--and turning him into someone who is outgoing and extroverted at all times of every day of the week. None of this seems feasible. Likewise, considering how one act of our forefather Adam apparently had an effect at the genetic level such that all are sinners, even if one sin is ultimately is an efficient cause of one’s deviant sexual orientation I for one doubt that the effects are entirely reversible.]

These people are, of course, speaking for the Lord.

[Kwame: An amusing coda, I must admit.]

KNAPP: I have heard this before.

KING: And you react how?

KNAPP: Well, those are several different hot button topics that are issues within dealing with homosexuality and people of faith. It's amazing to me that -- I mean, it's literally stunning to me that because of in some eye or some way that I might be a failing or a disappointment to you as an individual, that at some point that you have any control over my faith or my belief or what is inspires me to look towards the heavens and look toward God.

So, it's a very -- it's a very challenging situation to sit there and listen to someone make that kind of statement.

[Kwame: Indeed, God never used anyone to preach the gospel of Christ to bring someone to Christ or to bring about repentance on someone’s part. And no sermon on any Sunday morning ever had an effect on anyone’s spiritual or religious beliefs. Yep, it’s just you and God: no medial causes whatsoever.]

KING: The implication is that you chose this, that you had a choice and said, "Well, I'm gay, straight, gay, straight, I'll choose gay."

KNAPP: There are many implications in it and that --

KING: You don't think that, do you? You don't think -- did you think you chose this?

KNAPP: I don't --

KING: You don't know why you are.

KNAPP: -- I don't know why I am. I'm very comfortable with it. I recognize that love is a choice, very much. My sexuality, on the other hand, I'm not so certain about.

(CROSSTALK)

KNAPP: It is what it is and I am what I am, you know?

KING: You say you're the happiest you've ever been right now?

KNAPP: I'm pretty darn happy.

KING: So, you're glad all of this happened? In a sense.

KNAPP: You know, I'm not a regretful person.

[Kwame: Off topic, but shouldn’t everyone on earth be regretful? Doesn’t repentance involve regrets?]

KING: But you feel better?

KNAPP: I feel blessed to be able to fully be who I am. I love being able to be a musician. And part of that process for me as a musician is being open and honest, and to not feel like I have to lie or to hide anything. I don't necessarily want to talk about it all the time but I don't have to hide it either.

KING: We're about to get a little lively. A pastor's take on Jennifer and other Christians who are gay is next.

[Kwame: Flag that last statement from Larry King.]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Jennifer Knapp, of course, remains. We're joined now by Pastor Bob Botsford, senior pastor, Horizon Christian Fellowship in San Diego.

Thank you for coming, Pastor.

You wrote a blog about Jennifer and I want to read from it, saying, "When a well-known spokesperson of the faith stubbornly chooses to remain in their life of sin, my heartbreaks for them."

Jennifer says she is finally happy she's in a committed loving eight-year relationship, and she's making music again.

So, why does your heart break for her?

PASTOR BOB BOTSFORD, SR. PASTOR, HORIZON CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP: Well, Larry, it breaks for anyone who is caught in a sinful situation. And so I just, you know, felt led to speak. We had a chance to meet a number of years ago briefly. I don't expect her to remember that. But I prayed for her for eight years now. And --

KING: You feel sorry for her?

BOTSFORD: I do. My heartbreaks for what the Bible tells us about this particular choice and lifestyle. And, you know, I care as much, you know, for Katy Perry. I've never met Katy Perry. So, I didn't think -- you know, I didn't even think this would ever come about where I would be here.

But I prayed for a lot of years having been told of Jennifer's same-sex decision and relationship. And so, I didn't say a word to anybody, kept it quiet, did not go public with anyone except the Lord in my prayers for Jennifer until it came public last week in the articles that she just mentioned to you that she gave. And then I said, well, hey, this is not right.

KING: I understand that. Katy Perry has a male fiance.

BOTSFORD: Yes. I think in the whole aspect, you know, of kind of being raised in the church, knowing what the Bible says, coming out as you had said earlier with hip songs like "I Kissed a Girl" and just kind of -- pushing the envelope with all that is one thing, coming out and saying, "I, you know, am a homosexual" and want to be accepted by the church and Christianity that made me famous and gave me a platform of which a lot of people have looked to Jennifer, as I did for many years, enjoy her music, went to her concerts, was a part of crusades that she was involved with. And yes, I don't want people to think that it's right.

[Kwame: Interesting point. But in the next round of dialogue we’ll see Botsford’s being either confused or dishonest. It’s clear that Larry King is asking whether Botsford chose to be homosexual in the sense of being attracted to the opposite sex. A choice to date is not a choice to be straight.]

KING: Pastor, I'll have her respond and we'll let you talk it with each other. But a question that puzzles, you said choice, that she made a choice. Did you make a choice for heterosexuality?

BOTSFORD: I did.

KING: Why did you that?

BOTSFORD: I fell in love with a gal I was dating in San Diego.

KING: But you made a choice to date a girl.

BOTSFORD: Well, I made a choice, first of all, to follow --

KING: How did you know you liked women?

BOTSFORD: How did I --

KING: How did you know?

BOTSFORD: I just --

KING: If she likes girls --

BOTSFORD: Yes.

KING: -- how did you know you didn't like boys romantically? How did you know you liked women?

BOTSFORD: Well, I just personally knew that first of all that I did. I naturally knew that I did. Secondly --

KING: So, she can't naturally know she likes the same sex? She can't naturally know that?

BOTSFORD: Well, I think, ultimately, you have to come back to what truth you're going to base your life on. I don't think that it's wise for any of us to base our decisions on feelings. I want to base decisions on facts.

And for me, the fact has become the truth of God's word. And God creates this wonderful gift of marriage where a man leaves his mother and his father and cleaves unto a wife. He didn't make Adam and Steve. He didn't make Eve and Ellen. He made a man and woman.

KING: He's omnipotent, right?

BOTSFORD: He is omnipotent.

KING: So, he also created homosexuality.

[Kwame: No, Larry, your conclusion does not follow. One’s ability to create something does not mean that he created it. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find any atheists who would use a theodical TANG against God, saying, “God is all-powerful. Evil exists. So based precisely on these two premises, God made evil.” Likewise, you don’t want to say that every signature out there in the world is a forgery just because a skilled forgerer is capable of making the very same signature.]

BOTSFORD: No. I don't believe he did. He's all knowing.

KING: You mean he did everything but that?

BOTSFORD: Well, here's the deal, Larry. He's given to us -- back to your question of choice -- he's given to us a choice. Me -- a choice whether or not I'm going to follow and abide by his word. Jennifer -- a choice as to whether or not she'll abide in her relationships according to his word.

KING: Jennifer, how do you respond?

KNAPP: You're a well-studied man. You have a master's degree in divinity. You're a study pastor, right?

BOTSFORD: I've got a lot to learn.

KNAPP: Well, I mean, I'm saying you've actually studied.

BOTSFORD: Yes.

KNAPP: I haven't gone to seminary. I haven't gone to Bible school. Yet, I'm aware of the fact -- I'm deeply aware of the fact that we're relying on the translations of Greek and that we're translating from a language, you and I, that is not originally our own.

BOTSFORD: Yes. Hebrew, the Old Testament. Greek, in the new.

[Kwame: Can’t forget Aramaic.]

KNAPP: There are a lot of well-studied academics -- both believers and seekers of God and those who are just purely trying to understand what the sacred text means to all of us -- that really put question on how we've interpreted the words, what is it malikos and arsenokitai. There are two Greek words that we have substituted in our English language as homosexuality, which didn't actually exist in my understanding of a lot of Greek language experts in the manner in which we use it.

And my curiosity is how do you -- how do you respond to that knowledge knowing that perhaps maybe we don't have the full understanding of the academics --

[Kwame: You’re joking, right? If you are really trying to understand what the sacred text means, why didn’t you stop first to remember the first rule of thumb of epistemology: the majority opinion of people generally deemed to be experts is probably the correct one. And why did you not stop to remember the second rule of thumb of epistemology: that people should be given the benefit of the doubt until there is incontrovertible evidence that they are acting deceptively? If you had followed these two rules, you should have realized that the fact that all reputable biblical translations historically have offered no renditions of certain Scriptures which favor pro-queer theology means that there was never any evidence that those Scriptures were authored by pro-homosexuality individuals.

Meanwhile, you act as if the biblical case against homosexuality all depends on 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, which it does not. Where in Leviticus 18 does the word “malakos” or the word “arsenokoites” appear? Where in Leviticus 20 does the word “malakos” or the word “arsenokoites” appear? Where in Romans 1 does the word “malakos” or the word “arsenokoites” appear? Answer: nowhere.

And since you are so bold as to meddle in the affairs of dragons--oh, if only slightly--to raise the linguistic question of the words “malakos” and “arsenokoites,” have you stopped to consider ways in which the “malakos” lexeme was used in Classical and Koine Greek and exactly how this delimits the number of plausible meanings of the lexeme in 1 Corinthians 6.9? Have you stopped to consider lexical parallels of “arsenokoites” in the LXX alongside arguments which seek to vindicate the age-old renderings of 1 Corinthians 6.9 and 1 Timothy 1.10 which come under attack only in a novel fashion?]

KING: In other words, simply put, could your interpretation of a word be wrong?

BOTSFORD: Well, that's a great question.

KING: That's why we asked it.

BOTSFORD: Absolutely. I believe God's word is inspired. I believe that God breathes --

(CROSSTALK)

KNAPP: Am I not inspired by God because I am filled with love for you, for my partner, for my family?

[Kwame: No, you are not.]

BOTSFORD: When God says in his word, this is what love is, and we pervert that and turn it into something that he actually --

KNAPP: How am I perverted?

BOTSFORD: We have taken a love that he designed to be lived out in marriage. That is his sexual outlet for male and females to enjoy union together in the holy sanctimony of marriage. He invented it. Man didn't invent it. It's his institution. And it exists between a man and a woman.

When we change that, that's a perversion.

KING: Let me get a break and we'll pick with more. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Jennifer Knapp and Pastor Bob Botsford.

Do you feel hurt, Jennifer, by what the pastor thinks? KNAPP: No. I've shared my grievances with Bob off-camera. I'm not hurt by his stance and his holding to the Scripture. I highly respect that. And I think the community of believers in the church where he is at is -- are there because that's what they choose and that's their tradition of Christianity that they choose to follow. I highly respect that.

[Kwame: Why? If the identity of their set of beliefs is determined simply by their deciding to embrace these beliefs, then they are fools.]

KING: Do you believe Jennifer is going to go to hell?

BOTSFORD: Larry, God is the judge. I'm just here to --

[Kwame: Meaning that God is the one who will have decided where Jennifer Knapps ends up.]
KING: You're judging her.

[Kwame: And you, Mr. King, are more or less equivocating.]

BOTSFORD: Well, am I?

KING: Sure.

BOTSFORD: I'm here out of love. I don't have a --

KING: You said she's a sinner.

(CROSSTALK)

KNAPP: If I am a sinner and homosexuality is a sin, let's just go on that premise for a moment. But what separates that particular sin out from the fact that I'm angry or mad at someone or that I cheat or maybe, you know -- what separates that out as so grievous to you that we have to sit here and have this type of conversation?

[Kwame: Might I remind you that Pastor Botsford was brought on the show precisely to have that very type of conversation? Didn’t Larry King make this clear earlier in the broadcast?]

BOTSFORD: Well, it's interesting. There's -- sin is sin. You're absolutely right. And we all have sin.

KNAPP: So, why are we -- why am I -- why aren't you in this seat and I'm in the other seat condemning you on national television?

BOTSFORD: I'm not condemning you. Listen, I'm here because I love you. And I told you that off-air, I'll say it on air. I'm here because I'm concerned. I'm here as a family member.

KNAPP: You get my phone number.

BOTSFORD: You calling yourself a Christian still as part of the family of God saying, as I said in the blog, Jen, come home. Come back. Come out.

KNAPP: I will say this to you again on air. I have spiritual leadership in my life.

[Kwame: The blind leading the blind, I would imagine. Who needs that kind of leadership?]

BOTSFORD: Yes.

KNAPP: The pastoral counsel of those who are dear to me, who understand the Scripture as sacred text. You know, also, want to --

BOTSFORD: I'm not sure they do, Jen.

KNAPP: Don't interrupt me. You are not that man in my life. Speak to your congregation --

BOTSFORD: I agree. I'm not saying that I'm you're spiritual authority.

KNAPP: You do not know me, and don't have the right to speak to me in the manner which you have publicly.

[Kwame: Why not? Because gays and lesbians are special and, unlike heterosexuals, they are above having people say anything unflattering about them?]

BOTSFORD: Well, I do have a role to stand up for truth.

KNAPP: In your congregation and your community.

[Kwame: And on Larry King Live. Is this not a reason the man was invited to the program?]

BOTSFORD: I'm --

KNAPP: But do not -- I'm asking you not to do that. I ask you not say that you're doing that on my behalf.

BOTSFORD: I'm here as a representative of Jesus Christ.

KNAPP: That's good.

KING: But you are judging. You are judging.

[Kwame: Actually, what Botsford did was to assert that Knapp had done something wrong. But guess what: your repeated “You are judging” remark apparently amounts to a tacit condemnation of something that Botsford has done. You are judging, Mr. King, you are judging.]

(CROSSTALK)

BOTSFORD: This story, Larry, where -- you know, there is -- in John chapter eight, and, you know, everybody comes rushing in, and there's a lot of emotional, you know, heartbeat on both sides of the fence of this thing. And people said, this woman was caught in the act of adultery and the Old Testament says she ought to be stoned. What do you say? And they really try and put Jesus into the corner.

And he very interestingly says, he who is without sin cast the first stone. I have sinned in my life. I'm not sit hearing as one person --

KING: So why single out gays?

[Kwame: Because you brought him on the show to do so, though you somehow forget this.]

(CROSSTALK)

KNAPP: But there's a pretty massive implication that I cannot say that I'm a lesbian and a believer.

BOTSFORD: Listen, Jesus, and the rest of the story is what people are missing out on. I'm not here with stones. I'm not here with bats.

Jesus looks at her and says, "Where are your accusers?" And she says, "They're gone." And he says -- he says, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more."

Here's the difference. Jennifer is wanting to justify the sin.

KNAPP: How did I -- how do I -- first off, that's a -- that's a very big premise. You assume that you and I both agree that homosexuality is one, a choice, and two, a sin. So to say that I have to justify it off that premise is inaccurate. BOTSFORD: Well, based on the sacred writings of what you're saying your spiritual authority --

KING: A break guys, hold it. Former televangelist Ted Haggard has survived scandal, says today that he no longer has homosexual thoughts. His take on all this next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Jennifer Knapp, the Grammy-nominated Christian music artist. New album "Letting Go," released in May, Pastor Bob Botsford, senior pastor Horizon Christian Fellowship, San Diego. Joining us from Denver, Colorado, a previous guest on this show, always good to see him, Ted Haggard, former pastor of the New Life Church. A 2006 gay sex and drug scandal destroyed Ted's New Life Megachurch Ministry, shocked the Evangelical community to its core.

All right, Ted, you've been listening. What are your comments and then we'll get into specifics. What do you think overall here of what we've heard?

TED HAGGARD, FMR. EVANGELICAL PREACHER: Yeah, I think both of them have some good points. I really appreciate what Jennifer is saying and what she is going through. And I think her big premise is that she is on a journey just like every one of us are. She accepts the fact that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, that God is working in us, that we have his scriptures to work with. And it is true people read them differently and people interpret them differently.

And the pastor has a point in saying it is his role as a pastor to try to be salt and light, and represent the word the way it's read. I do think, though, that the important overall message is that we emphasize personal relationship with God, and the core of everything that we say is this wonderful delight in who Jesus is and what he does. He accepts the fact that we've all fallen short. He accepts the fact that there are broad range of sins. We humans say one is more important than another. But he talks about how all of it separates us. And he accepts the fact that we are all on a journey that won't be completed until we see him face-to-face.

So the pastor is right. Let me finish this. The pastor is right in that he sins. And Jennifer is right in that she sins. Both are saved by the grace of god. And it would be good for them not to judge each other.

KING: I don't think Jennifer said she sins. You said you're not gay. You admitted to a gay experience. Do you, Ted, believe that homosexuality is a sin?

[Kwame: Unfortunately, the fact that the word “homosexuality” means two different things in common parlance is either lost on some people or treated as unimportant by others. The word variably denotes homosexual conduct and homosexual attraction, as even Merriam-Webster will testify. The fact of the matter is that the attraction is not chosen by all homosexuals and hardly seems to be a sin. However, the person who chooses to--and this word is appropriate--abuse his or her body by homosexual conduct has certainly done a bad thing.]

HAGGARD: I believe that when people don't fulfill God's perfect plan for their life, they're falling short and they're sinning. And I think people sin all day, every day, and that everybody, regardless of the complex nature of their sexuality or whatever -- everybody needs the grace of God. KING: OK. So therefore, Bob, you're as bad, if that's the term, as Jennifer. Your sin may be different, but just different. Why is hers worse than yourself?

[Kwame: OT, but no one fails to fulfill a divine plan for his or her life. Whatever is decreed to occur will occur. However, modern Christians in the Arminian tradition will take the word “plan” and its underlying concept and turn it into something no more than a set of divine suggestions on how to live.]

BOTSFORD: Larry, I think the difference here, if I can just point out, both with Jennifer and Ted, is this: there -- all of us on planet Earth in the human race have sinned. We have all fallen short of the glory of God.

KING: All right.

BOTSFORD: Jesus came to die in our place to forgive of us our sins, no so that we would remain in a sinful lifestyle, so that we would leave that life of sin that leads to death, and be born again. The whole idea of being a Christian is that what I used to be I no longer am.

KING: But you still sin.

BOTSFORD: I make mistakes every day. But sin isn't ruling my life. Jesus Christ is ruling my life. And when I mess up, I can repent.

KING: So Jesus Christ can't rule her life if she is a lesbian?

BOTSFORD: Listen, if someone is allowing sin -- and sin is called out in the Bible, whether it's homosexuality, adultery, whether it's stealing -- the list is there. Read it for yourself.

KING: Cheating on your income tax.

BOTSFORD: Allowing that to continue to reign over your life is not allowing Jesus Christ to be lord. I'm allowing Jesus Christ to be lord. My role every day is to die to sin, not justify sin.

KING: But he, Jesus Christ, loves her as much as he loves you.

BOTSFORD: He loves everyone.

KNAPP: Not for a moment have I ever sat here and justified my individual path in my life. I am not sitting to try and tell someone that they have to walk the path that I walk. Please preserve that for me. But to call -- go ahead. Ted?

HAGGARD: That is a very, very important point. Because when the pastor says Jesus is lord of his life, that is true. But he is still in process. It could be some other violations that he has. But the core of the Christian faith is a relationship with God, where God lovingly walks us through.

I had three boys come to Christ one time. One was immoral with his girlfriend. The other with a smoker. The other was drinker. One was convicted of the sexual activity. The other was convicted -- or they all had three of those things -- all three of those things in their life lives. But one was convicted of the sex. The other was convicted of the drinking. The other was convicted of the smoking. And as they have gone through the years, just as the pastor described, they have all become different people as they grow. That's happening in Jennifer's life, and it's happening in the pastor's life. Our role isn't just to call out one particular sin and say all these people are in trouble. Our role is to say we're all in a process, and we need to encourage one another.

So Jennifer has a group of believers she meets with. They study the scripture. They can go on that. They can do that process. That process obviously is not going to be Pastor Bob's church. It will be another group of believers which is why we have a diversity of churches.

KING: And on that note, let me get a break and come right back. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Jennifer Knapp, Pastor Bob Botsford, Ted Haggard. We got a couple of great reads on our blogs. See what Tim Irvin (ph) has to say about his "American Idol" experience. He got the boot, by the way, Wednesday night. And Ray Johnston's story is an inspiring one. He is playing in the NBA one day, in a coma next. All that on CNN.com/LarryKing.

Pastor, do you at all feel bad when you hear stories about people who kill gay people?

BOTSFORD: Absolutely. Yes, that's --

KING: They've gotten messages about how sinful that is that they take it to that extreme. And you add to that, don't you?

[Kwame: About as much as I add to anti-Muslim sentiment when I point out what Attorney General Eric Holder will not admit: that “radical Islam” breeds terrorists and terrorist acts. Of course, Holder’s also a compasionate guy, and seeks to stave off anti-Muslim bigotry by any and all means conceivable, even if this includes his refusal in recent congressional hearings to admit the obvious. And this is the way some people seem to think: ’tis better to sacrifice a greater number of souls in the long run than to lose a few along the way.]

BOTSFORD: I hope not. I hope I don't.

KING: You paint the picture. Your -- in the Old Testament -- I'm not a Biblical scholar -- you can't eat shellfish. Do you eat shellfish?

BOTSFORD: Absolutely.

KING: You're a sinner.

BOTSFORD: No I'm not. There are some things, Larry, that are very important to keep in context here. Although there are verses in the Book of Leviticus that say don't eat shellfish, don't wear clothes that have different materials on it, things that Jennifer has mentioned in the article that she has given in the news coming out -- you know what, God changed his mind on shellfish.

[Kwame: *sigh*]

KING: When did he do that?

[Kwame: Good question. Other good questions could be raised. For instance, why is the homosexual conduct of the Canaanites treated as evil in the book of Leviticus even though they were not bound by the Law of Moses? Or why would Larry King think that Christians or Gentiles are bound by the Law of Moses?]

BOTSFORD: There is a wonderful passage --

LYNN: God changed his mind on mankind. And he gave his savior for one and for all. BOTSFORD: He changed his mind, if I can finish, in Acts Chapter 10, to answer your question, Larry, on shellfish. And Cornelius has this amazing enlightenment, as Peter has this vision of the lord saying eat whatever you want.

KING: Peter may have been hungry. No pun intended.

BOTSFORD: There is this grace that comes upon all of us no longer to live by the law of the Old Testament. But when you get to the issue of homosexuality, he doesn't change his mind on that. It flows over into the New Testament as powerfully as it was in the Old Testament.

KING: Peter gets a vision about shellfish. What if Ted gets a vision about homosexuality that says, since it's not a choice, and as long as a person is observant and good, it is no longer a sin. You will not believe Ted?

BOTSFORD: God didn't use Ted to write the scriptures. And the scriptures that have been written are the scriptures that I go by.

KING: Nothing is being written today?

BOTSFORD: Absolutely not.

KING: Done.

BOTSFORD: In fact, in the Book of Revelation, we're told that there is a blessing upon those that keep what is written in this book, and a curse upon anyone who would add to it or take away from it.

KING: Ted, under that concept --

BOTSFORD: -- wanting to take away from what the Bible --

KING: Under that concept, Ted, your faith does not evolve, right?

HAGGARD: Well, I think what the pastor -- I think the point the pastor makes is a good one, but it's an incomplete one. All of the New Testament is about a love relationship with God that is appropriated for all of us through the lord Jesus Christ and the sacrifice on the cross.

BOTSFORD: Agreed.

HAGGARD: As a result of that, there are ethics, there are rules, there are things that happen. But those rules and those ethics are not the core. The core is the relationship. It's like my relationship with my wife. My wife and I love one another. But if we went to a conference that just taught us all the rules of what a good home should look like, that would be a sterile existence. Or if we learned about love and intimacy and growth and process and going through life together, then those ideas can supplement that.

That's the way the Bible is. And so that's why the Bible says in Romans 1, when it talks about homosexuality, it follows up with the first verse in Romans II saying, hey, be cautious about judging other people about this because you all do the same things. And then he concludes that first paragraph in Romans II by saying -- by saying hasn't it dawned on you that it's the love and the mercy of God that leads to our repentance and our salvation.

So what he highlights there is that we're all going -- the purpose of the holy spirit is to create in us a holy spirit we grow. The purpose of the word of God is to convict us and help us grow, sanctify us. That's all good. But we can't do it to one another like that.

KING: Jennifer, you would say amen to that?

HAGGARD: That's not our role with each other.

KNAPP: I don't have a problem with that at all. I think that leaves room for a great many sinful people.

BOTSFORD: Well, we're all sinful people.

What it gives room for is truth is relative. Cain was given parameters and specifics to he is offer. He chose not to do with that offering what God had laid out. So as much as Ted is saying the rules don't really apply, they apply.

KNAPP: I love you and I pray for you and your congregation.

(CROSS TALK)

KING: Jennifer wants to say something.

KNAPP: I just want to say, I appreciate both your men's wisdom. You guys have, in several different ways. been speakers of the truth in a community that has looked to you. I thank you, and I pray for your ministry. I hope you continue to be a light for the people that you serve and the people who call upon you. That's what love is.

To be here and even though I phenomenally disagree, to encourage you to find the truth that is written in this mysterious and sacred word.

BOTSFORD: That's my prayer for you, Jennifer.

KNAPP: That's all I ask, is that as we all continue on our travels and our journey in this mysterious --

(CROSS TALK)

KING: We'll be right back. Don't go away. We'll be right back.

(NEWS BREAK)

KING: We have just touched this subject. But it is an important one, since so many people are affected by it. I just want to get concluding thoughts. Ted, are you saying it is a choice or not a choice? Sexuality, do we choose whether we are gay or whether we are hetero? Do we choose that, in your opinion?

HAGGARD: I think that is a very, very complex thing that I don't want to get into here. What I do want to say here, though, is that I believe that the Bible is the word of god and it's inspired and inherent. And I believe Jesus was very clear and the scriptures were very clear when they say the command is to love. The command that covers them all, predominant, "love the lord, your God, with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself."

And so -- so, love is the predominant thing. God is love. The scripture says Jesus displays how to do this. Jesus warns religious leaders, strongly, that we must not use the scriptures to point our fingers at other people without letting the fingers point at us as well.

KING: Is that true, in your opinion, Bob? Is that true?

BOTSFORD: Absolutely. Yeah. I agree with that completely, Larry.

KING: Why point a finger at Jennifer?

BOTSFORD: Jennifer is in a position of great influence. A lot of people look to her life. I wouldn't want her example or lifestyle --

KNAPP: You don't want the young teenage girl that's sitting in your congregation, who says, gosh I think I might have to choose between my sexuality and my faith -- you want her to choose faith.

BOTSFORD: I do. I want you to choose faith.

KNAPP: You want her to deny any part of her process, to go through the process of shame without truly discover -- let's say that she doesn't want to choose to be homosexual. At which point does that become honest, because you guilted her into don't be like Jen?

BOTSFORD: I am just coming back to the Bible. Clearly God has an opinion on this issue. I'm just wanting to stand up for the truth of God's word.

KNAPP: I will repeat to you what I said to you back stage, that the next time you want to talk about an example of what you actually need to teach to your followers, please use the words "this is the congregation and how we are going to talk about homosexuality within our church." Don't use my name -- do not use my name as a substitute for the word homosexuality.

[Kwame: Probably too late, in a sense. “Jennifer Knapp” may well become a byword pertaining to self-professed Christians who try to justify homosexual conduct.]

BOTSFORD: Listen, I am to be a light in a dark place. There is a lot of justification now. Let's just open up our arms of grace and welcome Jen back into the Christian community.

KNAPP: When was I gone? Where did I go?

(CROSS TALK)

BOTSFORD: For eight years to Australia.

KNAPP: Because I wasn't in your church?

KING: It can't be a sin unless it is chosen?

BOTSFORD: It's not because God says it is a sin.

KING: You can't be a sinner if you are born with four fingers. You can't be a sinner. You don't have a fifth finger.

BOTSFORD: Nothing sinful about having four fingers, Larry.

[Kwame: Ever heard of the doctrine of Original Sin?]

(CROSS TALK)

KING: You can't have four fingers. I don't understand it. You are saying it is a choice?

BOTSFORD: I'm saying Paul clearly says in Galacians (ph) Chapter Two, whatever my life has been up to this point, I have now melt Christ. And Paul says, as a result of what Christ has done for me on the cross, I am to be crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, whether it is homosexuality tendencies, whether it's stealing tendencies, whether it's tendencies of adultery, pedophile. It is no longer I. It's Christ. And the life I live I live by faith. I can't have it both ways.

KING: Ted, we only got a minute left. We are never going to answer this, are we, Ted?

KNAPP: Never.

HAGGARD: I think it is an understanding of roles. I think Jennifer is in right. She is saying you do that with your congregation, but we are not your congregation. I think the pastor is right in that I am crucified with Christ. So let Jennifer go through her process as well, and God is the one who will judge it.

KING: Thank you all very much for an enlightened, interesting discussion. We hope to have you back. Jennifer Knapp, Pastor Bob Botsford, and Ted Haggard. When we come back, a tease from "American Idol."»

[END KNAPP SESSION.]