Posted on 08/09/2007 9:41:18 PM PDT by texas booster
An Arlington church volunteered to host a funeral Thursday, then reneged on the invitation when it became clear the dead man's homosexuality would be identified in the service.
The event placed High Point Church in the cross hairs of an issue many conservative Christian organizations are discussing: how to take a hard-line theological position on homosexuality while showing compassion toward gay people and their families.
Mr. Sinclair, 46, died Monday. He was a native of Fort Worth, a Navy veteran who served in Desert Storm helping rescuers find downed pilots, and a singer in the Turtle Creek Chorale, said his mother, Eva Bowers. He did not belong to a church.
His brother, Lee, is an employee and member of High Point, a nondenominational mega-congregation led by the Rev. Gary Simons. Mr. Simons is the brother-in-law of Joel Osteen, nationally known pastor of Houston's Lakewood Church.
When Cecil Sinclair became ill with a heart condition six years ago, church members started praying for him out of love for his brother, Mr. Simons said Thursday. And when Mr. Sinclair died of an infection, a side effect of surgery intended to keep him alive long enough for a heart transplant, a member of the church staff was immediately sent to minister to the family, he said.
Click above to continue ...
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
"One hot summer’s day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. “Just the things to quench my thirst,” quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: “I am sure they are sour.”
-- Æsop's Fables
"But the question still remains why the church extended the invitation in the first place?"
No, the question still remains as to why a homosexual (who we both agree despises the church) would want the church to perform his burial service.
The church extended the invitation figuring the family would be discreet. They weren't. This family decided it was more important to advertise the sexual preference of the deceased as a flagrant "in your face" dare to the church.
Bad move. They messed with the wrong church.
“Bill O’Reilly’s gonna love that one.”
Yeah Bill will be foaming at the mouth in outrage.
Homos appreciate his defense of their “life style” choice.
“He did not belong to a church. “
I can understand why ... no Christ represented church would tolerate that. They’d speak to him and if he didn’t “go and sin NO MORE” - he’s be out.
Let's be honest and realize that we're getting only one side of the story here. We have no idea what the family wanted to do, other than the pictures mentioned. But if the man was homosexual should we expect the family to deny it or hide it at his funeral? The article makes it clear that they did not, so the church knew the man was homosexual to begin with. Can we agree that if the church had such a problem with that, then they should never have made the offer to begin with?
I think the pastor stated the issue well: it was "not so much that Mr. Sinclair was, from the church's perspective, an unrepentant sinner.... It's that it was clear from the photos that his friends and family wanted that part of his life to be a significant part of the service."
How does he define 'significant part of the service'? The article said the problem was with the photos and that "Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging," OK, so the man had a partner who obviously was an important part of his life. Why should the church want to cut that partner out of the man's life unless they did believe that Mr. Sinclair was, as they put it, an 'unrepentent sinner'? How do we know that the pastor wasn't planning to bring that issue up during his service? Again, we have one side only.
You are right that the church knew this man to be a homosexual; however, it seems they didn't know that the memorial service was going to be a celebration of that aspect of his life. I think an effective comparison would be with someone who was a known adulterer. The church wouldn't be likely to feature photos of the deceased with his or her extramarital partners during the memorial.
A celebration of that aspect? Or a celebration of the man's life that happened to include that part of it? Without knowing the whole story your comparison is not effective at all.
As you point out, the church knew the deceased was homosexual. On the other hand, the family surely knew the church's position on homosexuality, yet they chose photographs for a memorial that highlighted that part of his life.
Had the family known ahead of time that the man's homosexuality was going to be a problem I doubt very much that they would have accepted the offer to begin with. And I think that is evident because when the church made it's position known the family refused to accept anything else from them. I can't say as I blame them at all.
To me, the church did display a lot of tolerance, but tolerating something isn't the same as celebrating it.
Stop and think about that for a moment. Why would you or I or anyone else want to be merely 'tolerated'? That is about as low a feeling as I can imagine. Someone does something for me, not because they like me but because they 'tolerate' me? I'm not on the same level as them, I'm not as good as them, they 'tolerate' me and nothing else. Well if the church did the offer only because they were willing to 'tolerate' Mr. Sinclair then they were doing it for all the wrong reasons.
Let me make it clear that I'm not saying that the church had no right to do this. I'm saying that considering their feelings they were wrong to make the offer in the first place. And having made their decision, their sending food and offering to pay the Sinclair family to go somewhere else, and most of all send people to the memorial service is at best wrong, and at worst insulting.
Judging from your monicker, I am suprised to see you falling such easy prey to the non-sequitur.
You said:---They knew the man was homosexual to begin with. ---- [and the church offered their facillities for the funeral.]
Your faulty logic lead you to the following false conclusion:
Since the church knew he had been a homosexual and the church offered its facillities, the church must have therefore been offering their facilities for a funeral that freely promoted homosexuality.
On the contrary, homosexuality is the very same sinful lifestyle that they were trying to rescue him from.
Also, you made the following shallow statement as if it somehow reflected poorly on this particular church, as if they were doing something unusual that all other churches do not do as well.
You said:---And having had the family accept their offer then they withdrew it when the family wanted to have control over the service itself.
ALL churches have guidelines that they enforce when "giving control" to people who are invited into their church. Did you get that? Its not just this church, it is every church.
Your prejudiced assumptions are destroying your ability to reason.
You must think that giving control to a family for a funeral gives that family unlimited permission to do whatever they want to do, even when it is in direct opposition to the known views of the church.
Obviously, control does not imply -unlimited control- as you keep struggling to suggest.
To apply your -unlimited control- view would mean that when a church gives control to people for the funeral of a pedophile (the church would have known he was a pedophile), this must therefore permit scores of photos to be shown of the pedophile posing with various naked babies.
After all your justification would also say that he was a pedophile and the church knew it.
Churches historically have provided their buildings for weddings and funerals. Sometimes its because its the largest building around; sometimes its because the church also maintains the cemetery.
In any case religion of all types have been the ones to "bless" a wedding. Religion certainly aims to provide comfort and direction at a funeral. It is nearly universal that religion enters a persons live at the beginning and the end.
Our church has provided facilities for funerals at the request of the family or city government (public safety issues). We provide a lot of services, even as a private organization, that we do not charge for. Its part of being a church, at least for traditionalists.
I could not imagine that a Jew, Muslim or Wiccan would be comfortable at a church for a wedding or a funeral. I cannot imagine that a traditional church would open itself up to other religions, but it might if the circumstances warranted it.
“Someone does something for me, not because they like me but because they ‘tolerate’ me? I’m not on the same level as them, I’m not as good as them, they ‘tolerate’ me and nothing else.”
You’re partly right, but so what? Some people commit acts which DO place them at a lower level than others. And, it is the right of the church and its parishioners to make that judgment.
But the church was also willing to offer Christian service to this man’s family, in addition to “tolerance.” They were willing to celebrate the positive aspects of the man’s life, without giving over their pulpit for acceptance or celebration of what they consider to be perversion and sin. The family apparently wanted acceptance and/or celebration of that perversion and sin.
Another poster’s comparison to a church tactfully avoiding the subject of a departed’s adultery is completely apt.
To my way of thinking, the church went above and beyond anything that any reasonable person had a right to expect of them.
You don’t have to have a funeral in a church.
The church IMHO went overboard to help this family.
When my husband died a few weeks ago, I guess we forgot to discuss his sexual preference. I just assumed that it wasn’t anyone’s business.
Because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell? He told.
The church IMHO went overboard to help this family.
Let me point out that it was the church who approached the family, not the other way around. And it was the church who then revoked their invitation, not the other way around. So I don't really consider that helping the family all that much, and I certainly don't blame the family for refusing any offers the church made after they gave them the boot.
When my husband died a few weeks ago, I guess we forgot to discuss his sexual preference. I just assumed that it wasn’t anyone’s business.
And had you been asked to provide pictures of your husband for the service then wouldn't you have given them pictures of him surrounded by his loved ones without giving it any second thought or thinking that you were somehow promoting an agenda? Well that's what this family did, and some of his loved ones turned out to be of the same gender. That doesn't mean they were trying to promote homosexuality or force some agenda on anyone.
By the way, my wife loves your clothes.
Wonderful post! I couldn’t agree more.
I’d agree, with few exceptions that does pretty much seem to be the case. As for contempt for “its techings” that would have to be at 100% at least on one issue.
Then any offer made out of 'tolerance' and not out of love or a desire to aid the family cannot be sincere, wouldn't you agree?
But the church was also willing to offer Christian service to this man’s family...
Not so much, no. They were willing to offer a service, so long as the family apparently stayed within limits.
They were willing to celebrate the positive aspects of the man’s life, without giving over their pulpit for acceptance or celebration of what they consider to be perversion and sin.
Didn't Jesus say that judgement was his province and not man's? If the church looked upon their act as merely being nice to some perverted sinner's family then they chose to pass judgement and their actions were the height of hypocrisy.
Another poster’s comparison to a church tactfully avoiding the subject of a departed’s adultery is completely apt.
The Bible says that those who divorce and marry are committing adultery against their former spouse. Should the church forbid the family of a divorced man from showing any pictures of his second wife and family on the grounds that it was an adulterous relationship and the children were illegitimate? Would you be supporting the church if they did?
To my way of thinking, the church went above and beyond anything that any reasonable person had a right to expect of them.
To my way of thinking the church should never have made the offer in the first place.
Don’t ask, don’t tell doesn’t come in to play. He was a veteran period, unless he had less than an honorable discharge.
My guess is that the family was embarrassed, and had too much pride to accept the church’s kindness.
Seems to me some articles (this one included) try to show how thoughtless and uncaring churches are. Truth be told, churches provide a lot of outreach and in some cases I wouldn’t be surprised if that included homosexuals who are ill.
Dying is expensive. You might be on to something there.
Huh, it just never occurred to me that people would expect a church to provide services to just any person... Seems strange to me.
You make it sound like the Sinclair family was going to conduct a recruiting drive. The man was who he was. He had a loving family and a partner who happened to be of the same gender. The family offered pictures which celebrated his whole life, not just his sex life, and some of those pictures showed him with his partner. I don't see that as 'promoting homosexuality' but remembering a family member.
On the contrary, homosexuality is the very same sinful lifestyle that they were trying to rescue him from.
At his funeral? A little late, don't you think?
Also, you made the following shallow statement as if it somehow reflected poorly on this particular church, as if they were doing something unusual that all other churches do not do as well.
Well, I can't say that I've ever heard of a church offering to conduct a funeral and then pulling out. That does strike me a somewhat unusual.
To apply your -unlimited control- view would mean that when a church gives control to people for the funeral of a pedophile (the church would have known he was a pedophile), this must therefore permit scores of photos to be shown of the pedophile posing with various naked babies.
Taking the matter to idiotic extremes shows a bit of desperation on your part - Mr. Sinclair was in a legal, adult relationship with a consenting partner. He wasn't preying on anyone and he wasn't committing a crime, not even in Texas.
Sorry, but I don't see it as kindness at all. Kindness in the original offer, but no kindness in withdrawing it. And after telling his family that they were no longer welcome in the church, their acts afterwards were downright insulting.
Do you really see the world in such ego-centric terms? You can’t grasp that someone might like you, even love you, even PRAY for you, and yet not approve of everything you do? Or wish to celebrate aspects of your life that they honestly think are destructive and harmful to your salvation?
I’m perfectly satisfied if someone tolerates me. I don’t expect people to bow and scrape. If someone who thought me to be a sinner offered to help me, I wouldn’t throw a tantrum if they stopped short of changing their 2,000 year old sincerely held theological beliefs just to satisfy my desires.
Why should gays miss out on all the fun? In the Age of Narcissism, practically everybody believes the point of a funeral is to celebrate the wonderfulness of the deceased. Just read the responses on this thread.
No, I can't grasp doing something like this to someone who I loved, or even liked. And no, I cannot for the life of me fathom why the church, which I admit had every right to take the actions that they took, would even have made the offer in the first place.
I’m perfectly satisfied if someone tolerates me. I don’t expect people to bow and scrape. If someone who thought me to be a sinner offered to help me, I wouldn’t throw a tantrum if they stopped short of changing their 2,000 year old sincerely held theological beliefs just to satisfy my desires.
Well if all you're going to do is merely tolerate me then you can save yourself the trouble, I don't want you. And if the only reason why the church offered to hold the service in the first place was for a final crack at a sinner then they shouldn't have bothered.
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.