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.
“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.
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.