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 ...
Now don't go spoiling Christian fun. It's a favorite pastime for many.
Good for this part of the body of Christ.
How dare these people.
Give an inch and they try to take a mile.
I’m with you, Grace.
It was all done in Christian charity. They drew the line at a situation that they felt was offensive to the church.
My gut feeling is that the entire family was poor and would not have been able to afford a funeral. It happens more often than we would like. Dying is the most expensive part of living, it seems.
I am amazed how often the attempts by our church to help others has come back to bite us. Never a major problem, but disappointing that altruistic assistance is never rewarded with even a thank you.
We keep doing it anyways.
Understand that when one searches through the descendants documents there may be items found that are not appropriate to present to a grieving family.
As a counselor, in the course of searching for a LW&T you may find photos of Mr. Smith in flagrante delicto with either Mrs Smith or not-Mrs Smith (it really doesn't matter).
Those things are simply inappropriate to present to a family especially before the funeral.
Now go back to the days when being gay was not a social statement (this is Texas). Are you going to present a family and his life partner with multiple photos of Joe being inappropriate with many nameless faces? Or to print out a screaming screed blaming a parent or lover for all of life's ills, and this painful death?
Be careful what you wish for. As a volunteer I tried to balance discovery with tact, especially when having HIV was a painful death sentence.
I certainly do not have all the answers but I do my best.
Our church had few guidelines many years ago. Alcohol was the primary prohibition. As time marches on we have added a few more.
Our prohibition against dancing in the church, while well meaning, has created a situation where a staff member can’t have a last waltz with his daughter. They simply are moving the reception elsewhere.
I expect that when the young generation starts to run the church, many of our rules will be relaxed or eliminated.
I also suspect that the stricter rules will be reinstated when the newly relaxed rules allow conduct that is unbecoming in a church.
Last time I checked, all of us will die if the Lord tarries. We do not know where someone will end up, since G_d determines that. We can only be responsible for ourselves and those few we touch.
Funerals are for closure for the living. I don’t like the theatrics of Mr. Phelps or crass political statements of a Wellstone funeral.
As would be your right. But apparently a Church does not have a right to behavior that you disagree with.
Would you force a Church to hold a service for an acknowledged and proud drunkard? Would the Church have no recourse but to hold the service when it was revealed that a video showing his prodigious drinking skills would be shown at the funeral?
Why must the Church give up it's own values when confronted?
Why can't it make a stand and say, "No, not in our sanctuary. We won't allow a celebration of sin to take place where we meet to go into the presence of God in our time of communal worship."
Once again I find proof that those who scream "Tolerance!" the loudest are those who will not tolerate those who disagree with them.
LOL. Spare me. To which part of the post was I responding?
Maybe it's because the man and his partner would not have been welcomed at a church such as this that causes that contempt?
Why? Because the sent the food over? Booting the funeral is not generous or loving.
Why did they agree to the funeral in the first place? Nobody hid the man's sexual orientation so why all of a sudden the cold feet?
Would you force a Church to hold a service for an acknowledged and proud drunkard? Would the Church have no recourse but to hold the service when it was revealed that a video showing his prodigious drinking skills would be shown at the funeral?
Would the church have banned the funeral if there was a picture of him drinking a beer? The Bible teaches that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. Had Mr. Sinclair been a divorced man would this church censor out pictures of his second wife on the grounds that he and she were living an adulterous lifestyle? I think not. Mr. Sinclair was who he was. His family and his partner were a part of his life and accepted him for who he was, better or worse. If the church could not do the same then they had no business whatsoever of extending the invitation in the first place. But having done so then they should have allowed the family to remember Mr. Sinclair as they wanted to.
Why can't it make a stand and say, "No, not in our sanctuary. We won't allow a celebration of sin to take place where we meet to go into the presence of God in our time of communal worship."
Because if they ban the sinners then the church would be empty?
Once again I find proof that those who scream "Tolerance!" the loudest are those who will not tolerate those who disagree with them.
And that those who scream 'Sinner' generally are very selective in the sin that they protest against.
If a person with a related spiritual or psychological problem enjoyed having sex with animals would you consider this 'just' one of many ways of sexual satisfaction?
On the surface there is nothing in your statement that would condemn any form of sexual pleasure (which did not violate the private will of another person), even sexual pleasure resulting from beastiality.
How can a "nondenominational" claim any stand on anything? Some denomination or another is going to allow, endorce or otherwise everything under the son.
mega-church... proof that snake handling need not be limited to tents and carnivals anymore.
The church is not obligated to celebrate anyone’s sins.
Does the Mafia ask the church to celebrate a hit man’s sins?
He didn’t belong to ANY Church.
I tolerate the homosexual lifestyle. I don’t agree with it, I don’t approve of it.
I can agree with you to a point, however, what the homosexuals have done is gone totally wacko in my opinion. They have gone from being quiet to yelling and screaming about their rights. I tell you it is getting annoying and uncalled for if you ask me. If they would shut the heck up and live their lives they probably would be better off. Obviously that is not taking religion into my opinion.
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.