Apr 15, 2010
She’s Here, She’s Queer, She’s Christian, Get Used to It…
The coming out of Jennifer Knapp has sparked a tipping point for Christians and homosexuality—at least from my perspective. So many of us loved her previous work, and now most Christians feel like they sort of know someone who is a homosexual AND a Christian.
Instead of homosexuals being “out there,” we’ve found they’re also among us.
When same sex marriage passed in Vermont a group of advocates chanted outside the tiny capital building in Montpelier: “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re married, get used to it!”
OK, so it was probably more of a taunt to their opponents, but I got a kick out of it. Blunt though it may be, it laid the cards on the table. With a law legitimizing same sex unions, those in opposition were faced with a choice of how to respond. Will they continue to fight it, or will they figure out a way to disagree and still move on with their lives?
The homosexuality debate among Christians is in a deadlock. I don’t think there’s anything new we can say. If you read enough comments and blog posts, you’ll find roughly three views. Christians who find homosexuality morally permissible, those who aren’t sure, and those who don’t.
The comment threads go on and on, but I don’t see an end to the debate in sight. I’ve written extensively on this topic both in the Coffeehouse Theology Contemporary Issues Guide and on this blog. As an exercise, I wrote up one post explaining the reasoning behind all three views on this topic. I feel like I understand where they’re all coming from, even if I have my own opinion on the matter.
I think we need to reframe this discussion. All three sides are just getting frustrated. It’s time to accept the fact that there will always be Christians who permit homosexuality, there will always be Chrisitians who aren’t sure, and there will always be Christians who do not permit it.
We’re here, we’re queer/unsure/straight, we’re Christians, get used to it.
That isn’t to say that we need to agree. No, that isn’t going to happen. We just need to ask the “Now what"?” question. If we can’t resolve this debate, are there some levels where we can at least have civil dialogue while holding to our different convictions?
And if some folks can’t imagine fraternizing with the other side in a dialogue that seeks to understand where that perspective is coming from, then perhaps the best move is disengagement. I’m all for dialoguing with perspectives different from my own—I benefit greatly from it. However, any debate on this topic has been played out, so why even bother to keep lobbing broad sides at one another?
There are consequences to pressing on with the debate. If we continue in this debate, I fear opponents of homosexuality will feel smug and self-righteous for their biblical purity, while those who support it will feel smug and self-righteous for their biblical progressiveness.
This is new, uncertain ground for many of us. So I advise caution as we move forward. However, it’s time to start asking the “now what?” question because the old debates aren’t moving us forward. Too much harm has been done in the name of “what’s right,” and people called to love God and to love others above all else cannot afford to let things continue in their present state.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by edcyzewski. edcyzewski said: New blog post: She’s Here, She’s Queer, She’s Christian, Get Used to It… – http://tinyurl.com/y29hyqn [...]
I don’t really want to comment on the issue of homosexuality itself. What stuck out to me from the CT article was Knapp’s sorta apathetic attitude towards theology. I thought it ironic that she has been very theologically driven in her lyrics in the past, yet her tone from the interview implied that she was unwilling to do the hard theological framework and was very feelings driven. Anyone else get that drift as well?
I guess what I’m saying is that it would have been more healthy for her to have done the work and come down on one side or the other. There are compelling arguments for both “sides” of the homosexuality debate. Of course, it she also alludes to feeling like she’s not convinced in her own mind that God totally approves of her lifestyle choice either.
Heather, Thanks for your comment. That’s an interesting insight. It’s hard to say whether Knapp didn’t want to get into theology, whether the interview questions kept her from going there, or whether she dropped the ball on it. I did notice one swipe at theology with the shellfish reference, but I’ve wearied of that caricature of the theology of those who think the Bible prohibits homosexuality.
It seems to me that she has reconciled herself to it and finds it permissible, even if the process was a struggle. Either fortunately or unfortunately there are enough places already with presentations of both sides of this issue.
Blessings!
see, i didn’t find her attitude toward theology apathetic, nor did i hear her saying she *couldn’t* articulate a theological argument for her position. i heard her saying that wasn’t what she was goin to do- on that day, for the purposes of that article. furthermore, i found the interviewer to be rather hostile, with an obvious bias, and it felt as if his primary purpose in the interview was to trip her up in regards to the theological validity/viability of her relationship, and to cause her to see some error in her ways :/
I suppose I saw these comments from the article as where I saw her as being apathetic:
Knapp:” I’m not capable of getting into the theological argument as to whether or not we should or shouldn’t allow homosexuals within our church.”
Interviewer: “Some argue that the feelings of homosexuality are not sinful, but only the act. What would you say?”
Knapp: I’m not capable of fully debating that well. ….
If God expects me, in order to be a Christian, to be able to theologically justify every move that I make, I’m sorry. I’m going to be a miserable failure.”
See article for full context.
I guess I saw the opposite as Lauren:) I didn’t see the interviewer as hostile. I thought that he was giving her a fair platform to share herself with hostile readers, even asking questions that her readers might ask.
This magazine is coming from a conservative orthodox theology world view. I don’t normally view a lot of “Christian musicians” as thorough orthodox theological thinkers. I guess I had put both Jennifer Knapp and Derek Webb more in that category based on previous song lyrics and interviews.
I’m also not saying that she has to theologically justify every more she makes either. I would just like to have seen her more firm and comfortable in what she knows and believers…for her own sake.
…and peace of mind.
I won’t say I’m happy that she’s come out – but I am encouraged that there is some kind of challenge to the simplistic belief that if you just pray hard enough your “gayness” will disappear. It is a complex process of self formation – social, biological and psychological. Yes some can “overcome” their feelings, and others feel that to be true to themselves they can’t.
While we can wish that Jennifer would have given a deep personal or theological reason for her statements, I see her perceived apathy as more her resistance into getting into a debate about a choice that she has likely spent more than the last 8 years wrestling with (her lyrics sure sound like it). Her statement regarding the OT specifically, in my opinion, was a general statement about how we as the Church have sins we seem to LOVE to jump on, these sins give us a perverse sense of pleasure to lay on someone – homosexuality, porn and adultery seem to top runners for this – we ignore those who covet, don’t keep the sabbath day holy, the other blackberrys/laptops/toys er sorry I mean gods… all the other commandments.
Yes it is a sin, so is a lot of what I will do today in my personal failing – I might swear, engage in some gossip and so on. If we start a legalistic view on God’s will for our lives I too like Jennifer might feel like the spirit will be lost.
In the end I know I will be more grieved about the stones thrown at her than her choice and I know that is not how it should be.