Jennifer Knapp Sets the Record Straight with ‘Facing the Music’
Jenifer Knapp’s long-awaited memoir has arrived in the form of her new book, Facing the Music. It’s a must-read for everyone who’s been speculating about her life during the last ten years, and it’s filled with useful discussion about Christianity and homosexuality.
For those of you who don’t know, Jennifer Knapp was dominating the Christian Rock scene when she simply disappeared in 2002 and left no trace. Fans were scratching their heads when tour dates and new albums ceased to be announced.
Rumors abounded.
It was widely whispered that she was a lesbian and had run off with a woman. Others claimed she was no longer a Christian. (Some truly imaginative people combined those two rumors.) Years went by with no news; she may as well have been abducted by aliens.
The silence broke a few years ago when Jennifer Knapp came out of hiding and announced that she was, indeed, a homosexual who shared her life with a woman, and that she had certainly not left her faith. (Knapp kept out of sight by hanging out in Australia.)
The entire story is told in Knapp’s straight-forward autobiography, Facing the Music. Knapp tells us about her early life and gives a unique, behind-the-scenes glimpse at the Christian music industry. Christian artists face all of the normal trials that make rock stars burn out and need therapy, but they also face constant scrutiny of their spiritual lives from the peanut gallery of online comments and rumors. The stressful situation of being a high-profile Christian is rarely met with compassion; instead, fans expect inhuman perfection from their stars.
Of course, Knapp’s sexuality is the question on everyone’s mind. Facing the Music gives us a moving tale of the pressure Jennifer Knapp faced as she was expected to avoid being a lesbian even though she had never been attracted to men. This is obviously the part of her book that will ruffle the most feathers, but it’s a story that needs to be told.
I was fortunate enough to be at her book reading in Nashville, last week, when Facing the Music was released. (While I was there, I learned that if you sit on the wrong side of the room the microphone stand will get in the way of your pictures.) My favorite thing about Knapp was the way that she refused to make enemies of people who disagree with her. She told us how Christians have asked her to leave her gay lifestyle while those outside of the church think she should abandon Christianity; this tension places her in a difficult position. But rather than take sides and treat homosexuality as an “us vs. them” debate, Jennifer Knapp endeavors to keep the conversation open to all sides. She does not shun someone for having a different opinion, and her book is an effort to tell her side of the story to everyone.
Facing the Music is a book I highly recommend because it provides an honest and kind discussion of what it’s like to be a homosexual in a Christian culture. Order it here. Also, you can read a portion of it for free. Homosexuality and the Church is an important discussion, and I’m glad Jennifer Knapp is telling her part of it.
—
Related Posts
About The Author
I take issue with one thing you say, or seem to imply, in this post, Adam.
You seem to merge two principles:
1. It’s good to avoid an us-vs.-them mentality.
2. It’s good to keep the conversation open on moral issues.
The first principle is correct and thoroughly Christian (Ephesians 2 and, especially, 2 Corinthians 5).
The second principle is often false. To illustrate, consider these descriptions of imaginary people:
Alice:
She told us how Christians have asked her to leave her kitten-torturing lifestyle while those outside of the church think she should abandon Christianity; this tension places her in a difficult position. But rather than take sides and treat kitten torturing as an “us vs. them” debate, Alice endeavors to keep the conversation open to all sides. . . .
Bob:
He told us how Christians have asked him to leave his idolatrous lifestyle while those outside of the church think he should abandon Christianity; this tension places him in a difficult position. But rather than take sides and treat idolatry as an “us vs. them” debate, Bob endeavors to keep the conversation open to all sides. . . .
Charlene:
She told us how Christians have asked her to leave her polyamorous lifestyle while those outside of the church think she should abandon Christianity; this tension places her in a difficult position. But rather than take sides and treat polyamory as an “us vs. them” debate, Charlene endeavors to keep the conversation open to all sides. . . .
Dan:
He told us how Christians have asked him to leave his adulterous lifestyle while those outside of the church think he should abandon Christianity; this tension places him in a difficult position. But rather than take sides and treat adultery as an “us vs. them” debate, Dan endeavors to keep the conversation open to all sides. . . .
The whole problem is that the truth of Principle 1 does not entail the truth of Principle 2. In fact, the only reason Principle 1 is supported by Scripture is that all sins are forgivable thanks to what Christ did on the Cross. But forgivable sins are genuine sins, and so the Christian reason to accept Principle 1 is also a reason to reject Principle 2 for various moral issues.
Of course, abiding by Principle 2 is an effective way to abide by Principle 1. It’s just not the right way.
Naturally, I agree with everything else in this post, or nearly everything.
In those examples, I could replace the word “Christianity” with “poisoning giraffes” as a way of saying that hurting animals is not compatible with homosexuality.
In my opinion, as long as Christians are dividing about this issue we should maintain an open dialog.
Excellent. That giraffe thing reinforces my point that Principles 1 and 2 are separable!
But there clearly are issues where Principles 1 and 2 should go together (use of alcohol, perhaps). So I guess the real issue is whether they should be separated here, on homosexual lifestyles.
You obviously think they do go together here, and give an impressive reason for it: Christians disagree. I wasn’t really interested in arguing whether they do. But, then again, if I wasn’t at least suspicious, then why did I make any comment at all?
So here’s my position: Dusting off an old illustration, the conversation on this topic between Albert and Chris should probably cease; I can’t see much point in its continuing. But if there is any Beth out there, she and Albert need to talk! (And on a related note, who exactly are the Beths out there?)
Albert gets up on a soapbox and says, “Homosexual acts are wrong. I know they are wrong because the Bible condemns them.” He steps down.
Beth steps up and says, “I think we may have misunderstood what the Biblical authors were saying. Maybe homosexual acts are ok after all.” She steps down.
Chris steps up and says, “Homosexual acts are ok. The Bible condemns them, but the Bible is mistaken on this point.”
As I said, I believe this issue calls for discussion. I realize some people disagree on that point.
I don’t understand why open discussion is so threatening to many Christians. I think there are a lot more view points on this topic than the 3 above. At no point has anyone asked “Albert” to change his views on homosexuality, but rather to be willing to retract his claws long enough to have a conversation. He can get on his soapbox and talk AT people all day but it’s not going to be effective. Step down off the soapbox and engage people and actually listen, even if he disagrees, and everyone might come out of the conversation a little more understanding as a result.
I’m not against conversation. I just don’t understand what it is anyone would expect Albert and Chris to talk about.
Even if this moral issue is itself ambiguous, there is no ambiguity where Albert and Chris are concerned. Their differences are irreconcilable. They can talk about the fundamental principles (authority of Scripture in particular), and they can talk about sports, and they can talk enough to be sure they understand each other’s positions. But there it stops.
(Or is there a need for conversation because they haven’t even got that far?)
On the other hand, I completely understand the usefulness of conversation between Albert and Beth.
Having said that, I don’t know who Beth is. What churches, denominations, or theologians have Beth’s position?
(I can’t help wondering if she’s mostly a myth. If she is, then there isn’t any ambiguity after all. If she’s not a myth, then I am ignorant of her, and I need someone to educate me.)
Postscript: Leslie, I think you may have missed a few occasions where Albert was indeed asked either to change his position, or to retreat from public life. The Duck Dynasty chap was one such case. There are others. (Unless you were referring to Thinking Through Christianity, in which case you are completely right!)