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 ...
His mother should have taken the direction away from whoever was going to make it a pro-homosexual event and perhaps discuss the positives of his life like military service and any other things he may have done. You can definitely have a nice service without having sex part of it.
The replies (over 200) had lots of pro and con viewpoints as well.
The Church knew that he was a homosexual when they agreed to have the service.
It was later discovered that as part of the service, there would be photos that “celebrated” his lifestyle. It was then that the Church decided that they could not help someone “celebrate” homosexuality in their sanctuary.
If he were a divorced and remarried individual, I don't think they would have a problem with photos of his second wife, but that is a ridiculous statement since they didn't have a problem with photos of his "partner" either.
They extended the invitation out of love, they offered to rent another place for the family out of love, they donated all the food and the video out of love.
But because of their conviction not to compromise their principle, you lamblast them.
Why can’t a “non-denominational” Church stand for anything?
Are you suggesting that they can’t have a Statement of Faith or adhere to principles or rules?
That’s nonsense. Some non-denom Churches are liberal. Others are very conservative. That’s why one should carefully examine any Church’s beliefs before deciding to become a regular attender.
What I read is the Church has agreed to bury the man just that they refuse to mention he was a homosexuals.
There is NOTHING wrong with not mentioning the dead mans recreational sex life.
The headline could easily read “Church refuses to mention man had sex with animals at funeral.”
Nope not saying that it can’t, just saying I doubt that any of their members could even in a collective group state what they are from memory, or even find the documents within their church most likely.
They offered their facility first. They knew the man was homosexual to begin with. And having had the family accept their offer then they withdrew it when the family wanted to have control over the service itself. The offer to pay for something else was sanctimonious to say the least.
They offered their facility first. They knew the man was homosexual to begin with. And having had the family accept their offer then they withdrew it when the family wanted to have control over the service itself. The offer to pay for something else was sanctimonious to say the least.
Sadly, the same can be said of most people who attend “denominational” Churches.
That’s why people need to find a Statement of Faith of the Church they attend or are looking to attend and see if it lines up with the Bible.
no christian church is obligated to host a funeral for anyone but their own. if you live outside the church — don’t expect to be buried or married in the church. hey, go to a liberal church....they will do anyone and there are plenty of those. but i would wonder if someone had an agenda in picking this church.
its just like people who live without god during their lifetime expecting to go to the place where he lives when they die. if you live without god, expect to die without god. sad, but its a choice you make. free will.
I'm sure that's the reason.
So why would you want that institution to perform your burial service?
The article seems to indicate the family wanted complete control over the "format of the memorial," and insisted on the deceased's homosexuality being a feature of the service. I don't think it is reasonable for the family to expect a church to host a service that celebrates what that church views as sin. I don't understand why they would have accepted the church's offer in the first place if they find that doctrine so offensive.
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."
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.
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. It seems a shame, because it sounds like there was a lot more to the deceased's life than his homosexuality. Unfortunately, the family insisted that the church sponsor a celebration of his sexual orientation or nothing at all. It seems that the family expected complete "tolerance" from the church for their own belief concerning homosexuality, but refused to extend any tolerance to the church for its beliefs. To me, the church did display a lot of tolerance, but tolerating something isn't the same as celebrating it.
Why? Would the church be expected to spend lots of money to hold services for muslims, jews, buddhists, wicca? It’s a private church - how can you argue that they must have a funeral for someone?
And I would point out that once the church made it's position clear and revoked it's offer, Mr. Sinclair's family didn't ask for anything from the church nor did they accept anything from the church. So your question is moot. They didn't want that institution to perform the burial or have anything to do with it.
But the question still remains why the church extended the invitation in the first place? They knew who he was. Did they expect the family to deny it as the price for allowing the service there?
They have that right. If the family really wants the church to perform the funeral, they should drop the references to the man's homosexuality. Not sure why they'd want to talk about his sins during his funeral service anyway.
What a sanctimonious comment.
I guess that means I'm no better than them.
Nope, we are all sinners in need of a Savior.
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.