The Knapp Story Unfolds

Jennifer Knapp talks to Larry King about being a Christian and a homosexual.

About Dave Dunham
  • Alan Noble

    Man, that was painful to watch. Larry King is absolutely not the venue for church discipline, no matter what you think church discipline entails.

  • http://spoonfulofhahne.com The Dane

    I can’t even imagine the dread that would overcome me had I actually clicked on the link.

  • http://spoonfulofhahne.com The Dane

    Uhr, I finally watched it after seeing my old youth pastor (now a real pastor in Texas somewhere) say it was awesome how the guy “defended the faith” on a nationally televised program. That was a deeply uncomfortable thing to see and completely inappropriate for Botsford to participate in. Knapp was almost entirely right to respond that there wasn’t really any reason she shouldn’t be in his chair condemning him instead if that type of action was at all appropriate.

    Bleh.

  • http://talkofsummertime.blogspot.com Devon

    Yeah, that was unpleasant. Why do we think publicly airing this stuff will accomplish anything for the church–when the typical audience of that show is merely salivating over the potential for ugly squabbling? No one watching that show has any interest in truth, one way or the other.

  • http://electexiles.wordpress.com Drew

    Just out of curiosity. What would have been appropriate. Just don’t do the interview? Be nicer? Talk about truth instead of saying, “I love you come back”?

    He just shouldn’t have accepted the interview?

    I agree with Alan, this is not the place for church discipline, should the Christian community just stay out of this and pretend we don’t know what is going on?

    I think this Botsford guy clearly wasn’t ready for this debate, but lets also take the time to point out the inherent pride in turning every discussion about morality into a “you don’t have the right to judge me” argument–which is just silly.

    @Devon–overstatement of the year: “No one watching that show has any interest in truth, one way or another.”

  • http://www.christandpopculture.com/ Richard Clark

    Yeah, he shouldn’t have accepted the interview. There’s only so much we can accomplish in the playing field of the media, and changing Jennifer Knapp’s heart and winning this debate in this way isn’t one of them.

    Though I agree with you about the silliness of the “don’t judge me” argument.

  • http://electexiles.wordpress.com Drew

    @Rich I agree that the pastor wasn’t going to change Knapp’s heart by winning this debate, but I don’t necessarily think that means he shouldn’t have accepted it. What I mean is that, Knapp is being given a public stage to explain to the world that she is an openly homosexual Christian. So why is it inappropriate for a Christian to take on such a public opportunity to address this.

    Again, I don’t know anything about this pastor and I only saw the little bits of the “debate” that were shown in the clip linked here, but I don’t think he was wrong in accepting the interview.

    I agree with much of what the Dane is saying about this pastor not having a right to judge her because he doesn’t know her that well etc. But again, Jennifer Knapp is very much in the public spotlight here and I don’t think it is inappropriate to say in a public sphere, “homosexuality is a sin.” That is not judging Knapp so much as what she is doing. We can’t get around that one Biblically so we might as well not be uncomfortable saying it. Again I don’t think this pastor did a very good job, it became far too personal when he should have kept the discussion on truth and where we get our standards for morality.

    No one got upset when Christians “judged” Ted Haggart for cheating on his wife. Why not? Because most people think that is wrong?

    I probably sound like I am trying to make some really big point here, I am not, I am just struggling to understand why accepting such an interview was inappropriate.

  • http://spoonfulofhahne.com The Dane

    I would have been bummed if a pastor confronted Haggert on a show like this. “I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?” Paul writes this not to say that suing believers is bad but to show that this is the kind of thing that should be handled within the church. If the church has to distance itself from someone publicly, then so be it. But that wasn’t the case here. There was nothing to be gained by the pastor either confronting Knapp with her sin or simply stating that homosexual activity is sin. The first is a matter between him (perhaps) and Knapp. The second is something that everyone viewing already knows—that conservative Christians believe homosexual activity is a barrier between man and God.

    There was nothing to be gained by his appearance on the show and (but by the grace of God) only harm could have come from it.

  • http://electexiles.wordpress.com Drew

    I think that is bit of an overstatement to say that only harm could come from it though I agree with you essentially that this matter needed to be handled in the church, but my guess is that never really happened–maybe it did, but I doubt it.

    I also think its a bit narrow to say that everyone watching knows what conservative Christians think. There are tons of people you haven’t thought of. The new believer watching the show who sees Knapp articulating deep faith in Christ and yet regularly has sex with a woman–what does he think if there is no response to such an interview? Or what about Christians watching the show who are struggling in a very real way with same sex attraction? I doubt they would be helped much by Botsford, but what if they had only gotten Knapp’s side of the story? I am not at all arguing about whether Botsford handled this correctly–I don’t think he did, but I could go on all day with examples of people who might have been helped by a more cogent response to Knapp who is being given a very public stage to proclaim that there is nothing wrong with her lifestyle and she is a faithful Christian and she seems to base all of this on her own personal feelings/desires. Maybe I am too rational, but I just want someone to say something intelligent in response to that. I have desires/feelings to lust after women who I am not married to, does that mean I should go have sex with them? Does that make it morally ok? I think we would all say of course not! So what would be wrong with saying that in the public sphere? Too personal?

    Let me just say this if any of you CAPC guys ever leave your wives and your church doesn’t do anything about it–I will call you and rebuke you (lovingly) because I care for your soul.

  • http://electexiles.wordpress.com Drew

    Let me be clear. I am not arguing that the confrontation needed to happen publicly–I think it should not have happened this way and this Botsford guy should have been more aware that such a confrontation as he seemed to handle it Scripturally speaking should have happened in private (and he may or may not be the guy who needs to do it). I just wouldn’t have had a problem with a Christian giving a response to what Larry King was saying. If intelligent Christians don’t respond to these opportunities to represent evangelicals then the nut jobs will.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X