Jennifer Knapp Returns to Music and Comes Out

By: Kim Jones


The year 1998 was huge for Jennifer Knapp because her first release spent 80 weeks within the Top 25 on the Billboard charts. Things got bigger from there and before long, she was pretty close to being a household name in Christian music. There was a lot of success and fame, as well as the pressure that comes with it, for the 24-year-old and after five years of it, she stepped completely out of the music arena. Rumors swirled and fans wondered but there was never an official response - at least until September 2009. It was then that Jennifer announced that she was returning to music with a new album and a new found lease on life. She had rested and recovered and in the process had discovered that she could do music without being consumed by the commercial aspect of it. Fans were estatic and waited with bated breath for the new music to come out.

Jennifer Knapp Comes Back and Comes Out
In April 2010, new music came out (Letting Go will hit stores on May 11th) - and so did Jennifer Knapp. In an exclusive interview with Christianity Today, on April 13th, Jennifer Knapp confirmed the rumors that she is in a lesbian relationship and has been with the same woman for the past eight years.
The shot, as they say, was heard around the world (much like when Ray Boltz came out in September 2008.)

Comments have ranged from outraged and disappointed to supportive, and opinions vary as to where we, the body of Christ, should fall on the issue of Jennifer's sexuality and her acceptance of it.

For me, one of the saddest aspects of it all is that another Christian "star" has fallen off of the pedestal ... the pedestal that WE put her on. (This is where I step up to the podium so I will forewarn you that if you are easily offended by the spotlight falling on you and your own walk, rather than the person who got "caught" and is easily kicked because their sin is so much more public than your own, stop reading.)

It seems to me that we, as the body of Christ, tend to put people in leadership up on a pedestal. We know that they are as sinful in nature as we are because they are human, yet we ignore that fact so we can look up to them. (You can't admire sin, therefore people we look up to have to be blemish free.) But in the real world, it doesn't work that way. We had perfect once and we nailed Him to a cross. Jennifer Knapp, Ray Boltz, the pastor down the street, you or me ... none of us are without sin and every single one of us falls short of the glory of God.


The Bible and Sin
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul is pretty clear on God's stance on homosexuality but here's the thing ... Paul doesn't JUST single out homosexuality. He covers fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers as well. While sexual sins are easy to jump on, they are far from the only sins that will keep us from inheriting the kingdom. Have you ever taken an ink pen from work? A notepad? A tool or any other supply? Guess what? You became a thief at that moment and fell into the list in 1 Corinthians! Have you ever had one glass of wine too many (drunkard)? Spread a rumor that you figured was true but didn't know for a fact that it was (slanderer)? Shortcut on a job to get paid in less time (swindler)? The list of folks that won't inherit that kingdom just got a lot longer and if anyone falls on that list, then they are hardly in a position to be pointing a finger at Jennifer Knapp while patting themselves on the back!

Now don't get me wrong here. I am not saying that I believe that sexual sins are OK because we all sin in some way. I believe wholeheartedly that God created sex to be a beautiful thing between a husband and a wife. Period! Yes, it's a narrow parameter but it's one that I've comfortably lived in for 17 years with my husband. Does that make me perfect? Not by a long shot! All of us can avoid certain sins because they're not "hot buttons" the enemy can push, but none of us have managed to avoid all sin.

To me, sin is sin - sexual or not - and we should try our very best to avoid it. Will we always succeed? Nope! The question isn't "Will we fall?" because we all will fall short; the question is "What will we do after we fall?" Temptation of some sort is a daily battle. It's life. It's hard to fight and it's a battle that we won't always win. Honestly, if we could completely overcome any and all sin in our life and never fall, then why did Jesus have to die on the cross?


Jesus Loves Us All
The thing is, while I don't believe for a minute that Jesus loves everyone but the folks who commit sexual sins, I do believe that people with any sin in their lives (sexual or not) should really strive to walk away from those sins. To me, that is what being Christ-like is about. I hear/read about people who struggle with their sexuality for years before finally "coming out" and then, once it's public knowledge, it's as if the battle is over and they've admitted defeat. Yet rather than call it defeat, they do the "this is who I am" dance and get upset that some people won't accept them "as is." Jesus himself said that the greatest commandment was "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'There is no commandment greater than these." Loving people despite their sin doesn't mean accepting their sin.

Bottom line for me is this - while I don't personally agree with Jennifer Knapp's choice of sexual partners, it's her decision to make (and answer for) and not mine. If I focus all of my energy on the twig in her eye, while ignoring the plank in my own, I'm not striving to be Christ-like at all. I'm going to stick to praying for her (and the rest of the world) to overcome any sin in their lives while I try to walk out my own path - and fight my own sinful battles and sinful nature as best I can. I'll leave the judgment part of up God because He is so much more qualified to do it than I am.

Refugee jailed for strangling "too Australian" wife

By: Kate Hagan

A man who killed his wife by using her veil to strangle her in their Melbourne home did so in the belief he was entitled to dominate her, a Supreme Court judge has found.

Soltan Azizi was today sentenced to 22 years' jail by Justice Betty King, who said the Afghani refugee had been physically abusive towards Marzieh Rahimi throughout their 14-year marriage.

Justice King said Ms Rahimi had sought help from social workers and was intending to leave Azizi, despite him warning that he would kill her if she tried.

She said Azizi had complained to Ms Rahimi's sister in the days prior to her killing that his wife was becoming "too Australian", meaning "she was not a docile and good wife in the terms you expected her to be".

"It is clear you were unable to accept that your wife had rights, which rights included the ability to leave you if that was what she desired," Justice King said.

"... Her death clearly resulted because of your belief that you were entitled to dominate and dictate to your wife what she could and could not do."

The couple, who had five children now aged from 14 to 2, came to Australia in 2005 after fleeing Afghanistan and spending seven years in refugee camps in Iran.

Azizi will serve a minimum of 17 years and six months before he is eligible for parole.

Five Things We've Learned about ObamaCare After It Passed

By: David Freddoso



"[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., famously said that about President Obama's health care reform package. She was right. We are just finding out what was contained within that Obamacare law that Obama signed weeks ago.

Here are five things we've learned so far:

One: No sooner had Obamacare passed than the White House discovered that someone goofed. Despite all of Obama's promises and talking points, Obamacare as passed by Congress does not require insurers to cover children with expensive pre-existing medical conditions.

Immediately, the White House got an assurance from the insurers. After demonizing them for months as callous profiteers on others' misery (in fact, the entire industry is barely profitable), Obama now tells Americans that they can trust health insurance companies to do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts.

Two: State governments discovered that they are no longer just required to guarantee payment for indigent patients' care under Medicaid. Obamacare changes Medicaid law so that now states must also guarantee treatment to the poor.

This is a thorny issue: Many doctors refuse to see Medicaid patients because the program doesn't pay enough for them to break even. (In some states, payments to doctors have been delayed for months or years.)

Some cash-strapped states expect this new definition to spawn court challenges, which will ultimately force them to pay exorbitantly high prices to doctors and hospitals for their existing patients.

Three: Even as Medicaid's costs increase because of the above, so will the number of Medicaid patients under Obamacare's coverage provisions. Thanks to the "Cornhusker Kickback" -- the special Nebraska provision that was extended to every state in the final version of the bill -- the federal taxpayer is on the hook for 90 percent of the new patients' expenses.

So remember those rosy budget projections about Obamacare reducing the deficit, or at least not costing too much? Forget it.

Four: Douglas Shulman, commissioner for the Internal Revenue Service, announced this week at the National Press Club that Obamacare means he can take your tax refund from you. Obamacare requires Americans to purchase insurance, but contains no serious enforcement mechanisms.

So, Shulman said, the IRS will collect penalties from those who fail to purchase "qualified" insurance by confiscating the interest-free loans that taxpayers make to the government throughout the year through employment withholding.

Five: The ski-tourism industry suddenly realizes that it is endangered by Obamacare. Ski resorts must now provide health care or else pay a fine for each employee who works more than 120 days out of the year -- and many of their employees do.

The bill had applied only at the 150-day threshold, until House Democrats changed it in reconciliation. They also cranked up the fine from $750 to $2,000 per employee, in order to pad their budget numbers.

Those are just five things we've learned, out of more than 2,000 pages. You can bet we'll learn a lot more in the seven months leading up to Election Day.

Speaking of which, on Monday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., explained away public opposition to this new health care law, shaped in large part by the special deals he made with reluctant senators last December.

"The loud minority made a lot of noise," Reid said. "Everybody acknowledges, with rare exception, that what we did with our immediate deliverables was terrific."

Reid's state defies the laws of math. Sixty-two percent of Nevadans somehow constitute a "rare exception." And it looks as though the "loud minority" will send Reid looking for a new insurance plan later this year.

Criminals from La Raza take over property- police cower

San Francisco, CA- Basically, the San Francisco Chronicle reports gently that people who are unable to pay rent, or homeless, feel they deserve to live freely in the vacant residential buildings in the city.

The San Francisco Chronicle did not officially state "La Raza" was responsible, but the proof is in the photos- the same photos that the paper did not use as a lead picture.

You can read the article HERE

Vermin in ACLU sue to block school prayer

GREENWOOD, Ind. -- A central Indiana district isn't calling off a planned high school graduation prayer unless a federal judge orders it.

Greenwood School Board president Joe Farley says the district wants the judge to decide the merits of a lawsuit filed by the school's top-ranked senior.

Greenwood High School student Eric Workman is asking a federal judge to stop a student-led prayer that the senior class voted to approve.

The lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on the 18-year-old's behalf claims that the prayer and class vote unconstitutionally subject students to religious practice.

The school district has until April 16 to respond to the lawsuit, and a court hearing is scheduled for April 30. The district's attorneys didn't immediately return telephone messages seeking comment Friday.