Posted on 08/16/2007 11:08:18 AM PDT by Anti-Hillary
Should biblical churches host gay-glorifying funerals? Should evangelical politics move leftward? Many news organs give us one answer: Yes!
The lead of an Aug. 11 Associated Press story seemed to expose a clear case of homophobia: "A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay."
The story stated that officials at High Point Church in Arlington, Texas, offered to host the service for a gay janitor who wasn't a church member but had worked there -- only to say no when his obituary listed a life partner. The deceased's sister said, "It's a slap in the face."
The AP story did quote the church's pastor's concern that the service would promote the gay lifestyle. That quotation was a throwback to the old AP style of trying to present both sides equally, but the new AP is politically correct, and the overall slant of this story was clear: Christians lack compassion.
A Dallas Morning News story was more nuanced. It noted that the issue was not the deceased's unrepentant homosexuality but that "his friends and family wanted that part of his life to be a significant part of the service."
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Talk about blatantly false reporting! The problem wasn’t his being gay. The problem is they wanted to make his memorial service into a perverse celebration of homosexuality.
If they had just asked the United Methodists, ELCA or the Episcopalians, they would have never had this “problem”.
The words “Church” and “Gay” should never be used in the same sentence without a negative in between.
Homos like Elton John think that organized religion should be disbanded because it is not “gay friendly” (his words). That shows you just how far removed from reality these people have become. I would love to be a fly on the wall on his Judgement Day.
Jesus said that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. Should churches refuse to allow pictures of someone's second wife and family on the grounds that it promotes an adulterous life-style?
This topic has been beaten to death on half a dozen posts since it surfaced. The long and short of it is thatgiven their position on the matter the church should probably never have made the offer in the first place.
And the family has denied that.
A Wellstone homosexual hootnanney is what would have happened. Good for the church for not caving in to the MSM ongoing war against independent thought.
A Wellstone homosexual hootnanney is what would have happened. Good for the church for not caving in to the MSM ongoing war against independent thought.
oops!
“The problem is they wanted to make his memorial service into a perverse celebration of homosexuality.”
Like gay pride activities, these celebrations seem to have to include obscene behavior, up to and including simulated and actual sodomy. The gays do their damnedest to foster and promote what they call ‘homophobia’. It’s not just what goes on behind closed doors any longer; they demand the right to do it publicly. They create and then complain of their own victimization.
To answer your question, yes. I could never figure out how today’s Christian churches are so against homosexuality (and rightfully so, based on what the Bible says), yet gloss over that part on divorce and remarriage.
Jesus states that both are wrong, yet you’d never know it with the way divorce and remarriage are so mainstream in today’s churches.
But He also acknowledged that there were legitimate causes for a marriage to end, did He not?
And did He address marriages where one party is deceiving the other?
So what about Christian Churches that do not “gloss over” divorce and remarriage? Are they permitted to teach what God had to say about sexual perversion?
Read this article at The Onion. I thought they were a satire news site, but this article makes you wonder.
Depends on which Gospel you refer to. But at best He allowed for divorce only in cases of infidelity. That accounts for a small minority of all divorces. So should the rest be condemned as sinners?
The Catholic Church pretty much requires an annulment before a divorced Catholic can be remarried in the Church; which I believe is how it should be. At one time divorce pretty much made a someone persona non grate in the Church. That is not the case right now but the Church’s position on remarrying and therefore committing adultery has not changed much.
So how did the church parishoners see those pictures then?
Really? Can you support that assertion?
So should the rest be condemned as sinners?
Leave condemnations to God Himself but let the Churches celebrate according to the Gospel.
Both should be taught, of course. But we rarely hear about churches today teaching against divorce, as if they want to preach only part of God’s law.
And what was loving about the way they treated this dead sinner?
That being said, they should not glorify the sin so as to be seen as "compassionate". The funeral should not be hijacked into a fagfest just so that Christians can be seen as "compassionate". That's the ultra left, liberal, homo spin on it.
According to the article, the church withdrew their offer once they found that the man had a partner. So it seems that they had no idea he was homosexual to begin with, which also seems to shoot the 'love the sinner' claim right out the window. The lesson obviously is that the church should have asked a few questions before making the offer. And having made the invitation and then withdrawing it, I think their sending food and offering to pay the family to go somewhere else was insulting to say the least.
I just saw your response to Non Sequitur. I don’t think either of us are speaking against or judging anyone, it’s just very strange that divorce/remarriage is the one topic that seems to be omitted from most church positions. That’s all.
Odd, the two largest Christian Churches in the world condemn divorce among their followers.
And they both abide by God’s teachings regarding sexual perversion.
Should churches be permitted to determine this for themselves?
By refusing to celebrate the sin that separated him from God so that others would not be deceived into thinking that God was silent on these matters.
It's hard to say in the U.S. because of no-fault divorce, reasons don't have to be given any more. Grant Thornton did a U.K. study saying that in 2004 infidelity accounted for 27% of all divorces. I'm willing to accept that as accurate, unless you have another figure, and will point out that it still means that according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, at best in 3 out of every 4 cases of divorce and remarriage, the relationship is adulterous. Unless you feel that Mark 10 is the accurate interpetation. Then all of them are adulterous. So what should the church di in those cases?
Leave condemnations to God Himself but let the Churches celebrate according to the Gospel.
Unless, of course, we're talking about a homosexual. Then condemn away. Is that it?
I honestly don’t know how to respond to you. Do you want me to pretend that evangelical churches speak out against divorce and remarriage, and that their members actually abide by these teachings? The whole world knows that they don’t; it’s a well known fact that divorce is more rapant among those in the church than by non-Christians.
I actually think it’s sad; I divorced my husband thinking that it wasn’t that big of a deal. But it is, and now that I know what God has to say about it, I would have tried a LOT harder to make the marriage work. And I’ve seen the same level of apathy in other church-people, whose churches did NOT stress the level of significance that God places on marriage.
Our pastor actually did preach one Sunday about divorce. He started with, “This is going to make some people very uncomfortable, but the Word of God often does....”
It was a great sermon and I’m certain made some of the congregation squirm in the pews, but he used scripture and that could not be denied.
He has preached often on abortion, sexual immorality (ALL of it—not just homosexuality) and Hell—all topics that make christians (small c) extremely uncomfortable. He constantly implores us to be salt and light in the world.
I really appreciate the messages and often am convicted. I must remember to pray without ceasing. This is an ongoing battle within the church body and without.
This article doesn't say that the parishoners had seen the pictures. The author describes some of them as 'gay glorifying' without defining what that means. The family says that yes, there were pictures of the man and his partner. But completely denies that in any of the pictures were they, or any other same sex couple, kissing or hugging. So is the fact that a picture had the man and his partner in it together 'gay glorifying'? Isn't that a pretty narrow definition?
This article claims that the church withdrew the offer when the obituary mentioned a partner, which seems to indicate that they didn't know the man was homosexual to begin with. If the article is true then it seems to show the church's claim that the man's sexual orientation had nothing to do with their withdrawl to be less than accurate. The whole truth lies somewhere in the middle, but in any case I still believe that the church should never have agreed to host the funeral to begin with, and they shot themselves in the foot, from a publicity standpoint.
So what should the church di in those cases?
Perhaps they shouldn't celebrate the fact that the deceased was divorced as a major theme at his/her funeral?
Oh, so refusing to celebrate their sins is now considered to be "condemning them," is it?
Oh, you silly liberals think words only mean what you want them to mean.
Is it your assertion then that none of them do?
I believe any Church has the right (and an obligation) to refuse to perform any kind of ceremony the nature of which is in direct contradiction to theirs and Christian teachings. A funeral glorifying the decedent’s gay lifestyle certainly applies. Save that garbage for the reception afterwards, it has no place in a House of God.
It is regrettable that they refusal was so short fused but I think the Church did the right thing.
If the parishoners didn't seem then how could they have reacted in the manner described? It doesn't logically follow.
Yes, I too have heard some messages on divorce and remarriage, and I’m greatful that these preachers had the courage to address their congregations on such matters. I think you understand what I was saying. But what I was TRYING to tell the other poster is that it is just strange that so few people actually know God’s and the church’s position on this subject, because it’s NOT nearly as well known as the teaching against homosexuality.
Both should be preached.
Still can't feel the love in that one. I will ask again, if the church refused to allow a funeral because the dead man's family insisted that his second wife be included in the procedings then would you say the church was right in refusing to celebrate the sin of adultery and making it clear that God should not be silent on that matter?
I got the figures out of a Wikipedia article on divorce. Wikipedia may not be the most accurate source going, but in this case they quoted their source, the Grant Thornton study. But hey, if you don't like these figures then how about providing your own figures? If you believe infidelity is the cause of most divorces then surely you have something other than your own word to support that? Have at it.
Perhaps they shouldn't celebrate the fact that the deceased was divorced as a major theme at his/her funeral?
So, no pictures of the second spouse. Don't let them attend the funeral. Don't mention he was divorced and remarried. That kind of stuff?
Oh, you silly liberals think words only mean what you want them to mean.
I can always tell when someone realizes that they don't have a clue what they're talking about. They call their opponent a liberal.
I do not disagree. I'm merely pointing out that since the reason the church withdrew the offer is because the man was a homosexual, that they should have done their homework before making the offer to begin with.
Sorry, but your analogy is bad.
To equate it with what happened with the attempt to force the church into celebrating the deceased’s lifestyle, it would have to be a known fact that the first marriage did not dissolve because of adultery, that there had been no attempt to atone for this, and that the divorce and remarriage would be invoked as part of the service.
I would expect the church to refuse to participate in such a service.
But in this case it was done in response to a clueless liberal.
Where in the article does the author describe the parishoners reaction to the pictures? It is the author who described them as 'gay glorifying' without saying it was a quote from the pastor or anyone else. Nor did the author define what is 'gay glorifying' and what is not.
It doesn't logically follow.
It would if you had read the article.
“And having made the invitation and then withdrawing it, I think their sending food and offering to pay the family to go somewhere else was insulting to say the least.”
How was that insulting? Would you have preferred that they did not send food and did not offer to pay the family to go somewhere else? Were they simply supposed to cave in to the family’s desire to display blatant homosexual pictures?
The basic problem is that homosexuals want acceptance of what Christians call sin. This is entirely different from an attitude of repentance and humbleness. I’m sure that there are homosexuals who are repentant and humble, but we don’t hear about them. It’s all about flaunting and pride.
The family decided to turn this into a political situation rather than getting on with preparations for the memorial. The family showed no respect for the beliefs of those in the church. To attempt some analogies, how about, say, Buddhists demanding a Buddhist service in a Jewish temple? How about demanding that a baseball game be played according to the rules of football? The church was trying to be accommodating and the family was not.
I think their sending food and offering to pay the family to go somewhere else was insulting to say the least.”
________________________________________
I agree, they shouldn’t have taken food to the family and they shouldn’t have paid them.
Apparently, his game plan is to deny that there were any pictures, not that anyone associated with the church saw anyway.
Yes, I know that doesn't make any sense but he's trying to run with it anyway.
What if Mark 10 is right and Jesus gave no exceptions to his command that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery? Now you can go with Matthew and his loop-hole, but I've always thought that trying to wriggle out of something using a loop-hole was a very liberal thing to do.
And atone? How does one atone for sin by living in sin? Adultery is a sin. Don't believe me, look at the 10 Commandments. Jesus said those who divorce and remarry were committing adultery against their first spouse. It would seem to me that the only wany to atone for the failed marriage would be not to marry at all, not enter into a sinful relationship.
Oh there is a clueless party in this debate, but I don't think it's me. And if merely disagreeing with you on this makes one a liberal, then there must be a lot more of them out there than people realize.
I've never denied any such thing but it appears that you would permit a celebration of the adultery as part of the funeral (at least if your going to be consistent about pitching a hissy about their refusing to celebrate the sin in this case).
The church was correct in refusing to celebrate what God Himself has called an abomination.
No but trying to pervert the word of God in support of sexual perversion is a pretty good indicator.
Ping. This was our old church, 4CJ.
That and the video, DVD or whatever people would watch as he reposed was full of filth, according to a member.
Well...yeah. Having told the family that the dead man was not worthy of being buried from their church then it seems to me that any actions afterwards were insulting. The family, quite rightly, told them to keep their money and their food and to leave them alone. If I it were me I'd do the same.
Were they simply supposed to cave in to the family’s desire to display blatant homosexual pictures?
What was blatant? The family says that none of the pictures contained same sex individuals kissing or hugging. Taking that out then define exactly what a 'blatant homosexual picture' is. Can you do that?
The basic problem is that homosexuals want acceptance of what Christians call sin. This is entirely different from an attitude of repentance and humbleness. I’m sure that there are homosexuals who are repentant and humble, but we don’t hear about them. It’s all about flaunting and pride.
The man's family wanted to bury their family member. He was a homosexual, but they accepted him anyway. They were not going to deny who he was or refuse to acknowledge people he loved. The church apparently demanded that as the price for allowing the funeral. I am sure that if they had made their 'no funerals for homosexuals' policy clear to begin with, the man's family would have politely thanked them and politely declined the offer. Then the church could have gone on, safe in the knowledge it had dodged the bullet. But the church didn't do its homework and if shot itself in the foot.
The family decided to turn this into a political situation rather than getting on with preparations for the memorial.
How exactly did they do that. A lot of accusations about their motives are flying but I don't see where in the article any of them are supported. It seems that the only 'political' act they took was refusing to hide the fact that the man was homosexual. They weren't advocating gay orgies in the aisles or porn pictures over the altar. They were merely saying that this was their son/brother/partner. He was who he was. They accepted him for who he was and weren't going to deny the fact or hide it. Why is that political?
To attempt some analogies, how about, say, Buddhists demanding a Buddhist service in a Jewish temple? How about demanding that a baseball game be played according to the rules of football? The church was trying to be accommodating and the family was not.
Lame analogies aside, I don't see where the church was being accomodating. They took their stand, after making the offer. They're entitled to it. But having taken their stand they should have left the family alone, not run after them and try to force food and money and unwanted visits on them. Was the church trying to ease its guilty feelings?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.