Posted on 08/11/2007 10:08:38 PM PDT by KerryOnNoMore
"We did decline to host the service _ not based on hatred, not based on discrimination, but based on principle," Simons told The Associated Press. "Had we known it on the day they first spoke about it _ yes, we would have declined then. It's not that we didn't love the family." Simons said the decision had nothing to do with the obituary. He said the church offered to pay for another site for the service, made the video and provided food for more than 100 relatives and friends. "Even though we could not condone that lifestyle, we went above and beyond for the family through many acts of love and kindness," Simons said. Wright called the church's claim about the pictures "a bold-faced lie." She said she provided numerous family pictures of Sinclair, including some with his partner, but said none showed men kissing or hugging. The 5,000-member High Point Church was founded in 2000 by Simons and his wife, April, whose brother is Joel Osteen, well-known pastor of the 38,000-member Lakewood Church in Houston. Now High Point meets in a 432,000-square-foot facility in Arlington, near Dallas. Wright said relatives declined the church's offer to hold the service at a community center because they felt it was an inappropriate venue. It ultimately was held at a funeral home, but the cancellation still lingered in some minds, she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I understand posting under stream-of-consciousness. It happens to me too. However, now I’m more aware of it, and try to be concise since people don’t have time to read.
I only had time to skim your entire post 37, so I can’t respond. My comment was more of a general one.
Hopefully others will follow the concise request.
Something tells me that if the church had hosted the funeral, and used it as an opportunity to share the gospel with people who desperately need to hear it (as you suggested), those people would have stormed out in protest and we’d today be reading news reports accusing the church of insulting a homosexual man’s “partner”, friends, and relatives at his funeral.
This is incorrect.
The funeral was going to go welstone with homosexual agenda type praise.
The churche was willing to buryy without the sexual politics. It is the family that insisted to go public with the dead mans recreation of playing with the genitals of other men.
Some church have policies to not do funerals for suicides in much the same way regardless of membership.
You analysis is incomplete.
At my friend's funeral, the gospel was preached by two separate pastors, one of which was my friend's uncle. And by preaching the gospel, I mean preaching the good news of how having Christ in one's life can completely change them and about how people are lost without Christ, not just saying a few good words about my friend and offering up some sentimental platitudes about angels welcoming John into heaven. No one there got the impression that homosexuality was an acceptable lifestyle.
And you know something? No one stormed out. I was sitting in the front pew with the family and we had dozens of teary-eyed people -- mostly gay or gay-sympathetic -- tell us that this was the most beautiful and moving funeral that they had ever attended.
These people heard the gospel because the church opened its doors to sinners. Where else are they going to hear the gospel if no one teaches them? As I mentioned in an earlier post, my experience is that probably 98% of homosexuals are very unhappy people and they were brought into that lifestyle by child molestors or because they never recieived love -- or never percieved having had love -- from their fathers. They're desperate to hear the gospel because they're seeking love in the wrong places and finding out that their lifestyle really does not offer them love. And they're not going to hear it if Christians don't get over their hang-ups and share the gospel with them.
As I mentioned to one of the posters earlier, take a couple of people from your church -- or go by yourself -- to an AIDs hospice and go room to room, asking each person if they would like you to pray with them. If you do that, you're going to be shocked at how many will accept your offer. Take them basic toiletries like toothpaste, hair brushes, toothbrushes, deodorant, and soap because most AIDs hospices have a shortage of these.
I'm not accusing you of this (though I have the feeling that some in this thread have done such things), of going to Mardi Gras, yelling at people and holding signs that say "God hates fags!" All that will do is turn them even further away from God. Jesus never treated people that way. You have to meet them individually and show through your actions and words that you love them and God loves them. When the Holy Spirit leads you, share the Gospel with them. Again, you'll be surprised how often you get positive responses.
Thank you, Quix — you’re absolutely right. This thread has been absolutely dismal because of the prejudices of people who try to justify ther prejudices with religion. Not Christianity, but religion. And they probably wonder why gays aren’t banging on church doors to hear the gospel and become changed people through Christ.
Thank you. I wasn't going to mention that but I believe that you're correct. I've asked the question here if someone should be afforded a church funeral -- and the church had no idea one way or another if the person was a Christian -- if they had been known to cheat on taxes or to have been an alcoholic. I've never gotten an answer. Their silence speaks volumes.
According to the Bible they are an adulterer. A violation of one of the 10 Commandments. It, too, is a lifestyle choice for those who choose to follow it. Should the church allow the second spouse to attend the service or to do anything else which celebrates the adulterous life-style?
Then why did the church take the trouble to find out that the man was homosexual before they made the offer to hold the service? Mt. Sinclair's family didn't make any secret of it and it would have saved them from having to withdraw the offer once they found out.
It's not Quix who has the superiority complex around here.
What does that have to do with anything? The church could have given the man a funeral without winking at the sin of homosexuality and they would have had the opportunity of preaching the gospel to some who need to hear it most. The church blew it.
oo bad their principle got in the way of their hearts.
Hate the sin but love the sinner.
Nobody here is talking about endorsing homosexuality. A few of us are talking about showing love and mercy and preaching the gospel to some who need to hear it most. Are you perhaps posting on the wrong thread?
Well, I can’t disagree with much of what you say. But I do understand that churches need to reach out to sinners without allowing those sinners to feel ratified in their behavior. It requires hard choices sometimes. There’s a growing demand in our society for churches to approve of homosexual conduct for no other reason than that such behavior is fashionable and PC protected.
Yes, there certainly is a demand. But the denominations that are catering to such demands are moribund and heavily in decline of membership. Compare this to evangelical churches (including many Roman Catholic churches) that are growing so fast that they are constructing new places of worship every few years. My church is one of those. People are flocking to churches that are true to the Bible -- not to legalistic churches but to those who teach their congregations to act as Jesus acted.
OH, DEAR! PLEASE ANGEL-GAL,
Do NOT try and be more concise—at least as a whole post.
Maybe an abstract or EXECUTIVE SUMMARY at the beginning would be great . . . but . . .
SOME OF US LOVE the long narratives . . . the longer, the more gems, from you. Please keep them up!
I realize you can’t please everyone. But you knew that already.
Praise God for folks who don’t try to squeeze God into their tiny tidy little narrow, rigid boxes.
Sometimes I think organized religion—even the Christian variety—has done almost as much to hinder folks forming a RELATIONSHIP WITH CHIRST as they have to foster one. Sometimes, I’m certain that’s true.
So true.
And, rather like the folks “having” to go to a bar and bar tender to get a listening ear etc.
Sigh.
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.