[adam42381]

And separate of that, but interestingly related to this thread
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kev ... hangeable/

Dr. Francis Collins, former Director of the Genome Project, has stated that while homosexuality may be genetically influenced, it is “… not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.” He also states [that] “…the prominent role of individual free will choices [has] a profound effect on us.”

Re: predispositions vs predetermintations, that's what my GNED teacher used to talk about in the sense that it doesn't contradict what most of us believe.

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/05/ma ... h-article/

I decided to contact Dr. Collins and ask him to read the NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) article and offer his comments. He replied with permission for me to share the following here.

It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.

The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.

[4everfsu]

I think the dna gene of sin has something to do with one choosing homosexuality

[RubberMallet]

i think most christians live with some form of habitual sin. i know i do.

[El Scorcho]

No. No jesting here. Just seems more like gossip than news to me. Like I said, I understand why it's news for a publication like The Advocate. But why is this legitimate news among Christians? Why are we running headlines because it's our belief that someone has sin in their life? Is it because she stands on a stage with a guitar in front of people? Is it because she was "on our team" and now she's not?

I'm not being facetious. I really don't get why the church continues to react this way to this sort of thing. It doesn't seem productive, becoming or like legitimate news.

Headline: We're all sinners.

This is one of those things where for some, she is leading worship. And on top of that there is a difference between "We're all sinners" and living in habitual sin. So yeah, it would be because she was on our team and now she's not.

I disagree with the worship take. I think that's an excuse Christians use to throw stones at anyone in the public eye. If you speak in front of crowds you're "a leader" and if you do it with a guitar strapped on you "lead worship". I don't agree with that at all.

Yes, I realize there's a difference being a sinner and "living in habitual sin", but how is that any different than many other habitual sins? I know Christians who are gluttons without a care in the world about it. And that was my point. Not to say that it's not sin, but to question why it's headline worthy. Do we need to get the word out when brothers and sisters in Christ are struggling deeply? Is it really necessary? Or are is the church doing it because of the particular sin that it is? The latter seems far more likely to me.

[adam42381]

Well said, El Scorcho. How many fat preachers slam homosexuality on Sunday morning before lining up at the buffet that afternoon?

[ATrain]

I also agree with Scorcho. While I believe that God does allow committed, same-sex relationships, I also think that the church seems to take a much more hostile stance on homosexuality as a sin than, like Scorcho said, gluttony or gossip.

[LUconn]

Ok, next time a preacher or worship leader makes an announcement that they're going to live a life of gluttony or gossip with no remorse, I'll be sure to start a thread about it. She just came out and said "I am a lesbian". If being a lesbian is a sin, I don't know why you guy are having such a hard time seeing the conflict of interest instead of trying to divert the conversation into pointing out others. We could have a whole other conversation about being fat not necessarily meaning your a glutton.



If I didn't know better, I'd say with the logic being displayed in the last few posts it'd be cool to attend a church led by a serial killer. I mean I guess he'll get arrested eventually, but apparently, that wouldn't be a deterrent to bringing the word every Sunday. But hey, I mean, some other guys eat too much, right?

[RubberMallet]

i don't think an announcement has to be made. while homosexuality is without a doubt a sin (its hilarious to see gay christians try and justify their sin, btw), thats all it still is just like any other sin. your example doesn't equate because in the scheme of things, atrain packing doesn't really affect my life a whole lot. neither do the few gay people i know and very rarely spend time with. a serial killer on the other hand does....and you know it...you are just exasperated.

i to feel this is news worthy. but its just an article and and interview...nothing more and nothing less....i'm not seeing the entire christian community go bananas over this. she's a celebrity in christian circles and they made a pretty big sexual decision. this would of been the same had she cheated on her husband or became a prostitute.

[ALUmnus]

I thought this was a pretty good piece on the whole thing. Basically, it's okay to have this conversation, but Jennifer Knapp should not be the focus of it.

http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/20 ... fer-knapp/

The Objectification of Jennifer Knapp
Wednesday, April 14, 2010, 6:51 AM
Matthew Lee Anderson
When I heard that Jennifer Knapp came out as a lesbian yesterday, I shuddered.

But not for why you think.

No. I shuddered because the news meant another round of conversations about evangelicals and homosexuality. And that is a conversation which is fraught with danger.

There will be the obligatory (and alas, necessary) posts about how evangelicals have failed to respect and act toward the gay community. There will be questions and discussion on the proper pastoral response to gay Christians, and even about whether that modifier establishes an oxymoron. And there will be attempts to walk that disappearing line between demonstrate grace toward those who need it without abdicating on the question of whether homosexuality is, in fact, licit.

In all this, Jennifer Knapp–the singer and songwriter–will likely be forgotten. Her status as a person, a person with sinful inclinations that obscure the radiant, recalcitrant image of God, will be pushed to the background as we focus on the only salient fact for us: that instead of simply being a minor Christian celebrity, she’s now a gay minor Christian celebrity.

Jennifer Knapp, object lesson. For whatever we want to say. Objectification happens in many forms–and turning someone into a flash card for our broader spiritual lessons is only one of them.

Of course, such objectification is probably inevitable. After all, Jennifer Knapp isn’t in your church. I’m going to guess she’s not reading our blogs. And she’s probably not your friend. She exists for most of us only as an icon of that funny phenomenon we call “Christian culture.” And so because she has lent herself and her music–as all successful musicians must–to the objectifying press-machine that is Nashville, it’s tempting to say that she deserves whatever she gets.

But that doesn’t mean it’s good, or that it justifies our own objectification of her. Especially when in every interview I’ve read, she’s expressed reluctance and dismay that her sexuality will be used as a political football. And she seems, if nothing else, to be properly respectful of her differences with the Christian community. In other words, she seems to be want to left alone, even if her status as minor gay Christian celebrity doesn’t allow it.

And so maybe, just maybe, we should respect her subjectivity, not turn her into an object lesson, and move on.

This isn’t an appeal to ignore the questions of the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity. Far from it. Anyone who has read my work the last few years knows that I have not shied away from articulating my own views on the subject, and have always sought to do so graciously, patiently, and faithfully.

But the first step toward a good dialogue is recognizing that there’s a real person, with a real will, a real mind, and real problems at the other end of the line. And in this case, from what I can tell, Jennifer Knapp the real person would rather not be in the thick of things. I simply think respecting that would be a good start to whatever happens next.

Postscript: I realize the many levels of irony that could be directed at this post. I’m using her to make my own object lesson. I’m contributing to a conversation that I’m afraid we can’t handle. I’m responding to Knapp’s interview by suggesting that the proper response is to say nothing about Knapp. Well and good. Right now, I have nothing to say to those other than that I think the point still has merit, and am open to be persuaded otherwise.

[ALAFlamesFan]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/1 ... y/?hpt=Mid

Reading this article I had two initial responses.

1. My heart broke for her as she described her search for significance and source of hope. It is apparent from her words that she never really found Christ but was in fact searching throughout her rise in the CCM culture..this is apparent in many of her songs and was the impression one of my friends had upon talking to her back stage when she visited LU in the 90's.

2. I was impressed by her respectful tone and graceful descriptions of churches and believers. It would have been so easy for her to lash out and give a little of what she has been getting. Very classy.

My prayer for Jennifer is that she finds the peace she is so deperately looking for.