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 ...
Agreed.
It’s always the
OUT-GROUP person’s SINS
over there
WHO’S DISPICABLE
while the sinner in our mirror is construed as lily white.
God has a way of pulling the rug out from under such faulty mirrors, thankfully.
Thanks for the kind words.
Haughty, arrogant, self-righteous tones are not that easily hidden, are they.
The church blew it.
From what I read (more than just this article) The deceased mans brother worked for the Church and it was agreed that the service was free. Then the departed fellow's homosexual "partner" insisted/demanded that the presentation would include a video of them together in a manner that conflicted with church policy i.e; celebrate their "homosexualrelationship".
The "partner" insisted and the Church refused and then offered to pay to have the service elsewhere.
The "partner" instead elected to call the biased lame-stream news media and cause a big stink.
This resulted in headlines like the one we see when we read the title of this thread........
The more accurate headline should read....
Church cancels free memorial for Navy vet when his homosexual "partner" insists on celebrating the deceased veteran's homosexual relationship
Yeah.
That kind of “endorsing homosexuality” accusation is soooooo off the wall.
Someone needs a serious BETTER DISCRIMMINATOR implant.
Of course you can’t please everyone. However, wouldn’t it be nice to communicate the same ideas in a concise manner? Why use unnecessary words? Conciseness allows more time for dialogue.
I understand the preference for brevity.
Amazingly and contrary to public perceptions about my many paginated pontifications inviting palaverous paradoxes in the electronic parlor . . .
I have become, actually, briefer than in earlier decades in my life. And, Alamo-Girl has had no small partin that.
HOWEVER, MY OWN DELIGHT is in the longer narratives which allow me to sort of come along side and even occasionally sort of, to a degree, step inside the other’s skin and see the world through their eyes, thoughts and feelings. That richness I deeply and intensely enjoy.
I certainly would not want to give that up in the name of brevity.
But then, I’m much more typically in favor of the HEBREW notion of KNOWING vs the GREEK.
I’m much more inclined to tete a tete exhaustively on a topic or thread than I am to sip drops of necter from a 100 more flowers than the few I’d otherwise drink deeply from.
Yet, somehow, I manage to at least scan, if not read significantly on a very wide range of topics.
Executive summary! That’s a great idea. Thank you, dear brother in Christ!
And thank you so much for the kudos, dear brother in Christ!
Would you rather they became homosexual? Then they would have NO chance to make children because that is not what sex is for among homosexuals.
Do you really not see any difference? Really?
Yes but if they remarry there is a chance they will make (more) children.
The homosexuals have NO change of making children. That is not what sex is for to them.
Where does it say they took the trouble to determine the man's sexual preference? Their employee probably told them that at some point, but the family left out that he had a homosexual lover up to his death. It seems that the family was remiss, not the church officials.
Both are sin as defined by the Bible. But I guess in your eyes some sin is OK while other sin is not.
Perhaps the church should have taken the trouble to find out before making the offer and then withdrawing it.
He was still actively gay and had a partner. So lets preach about how to be saved at an actively gay mans funeral and point out that the deceased wasn't saved. That'll comfort the family.
She said she provided numerous family pictures of Sinclair, including some with his partner, but said none showed men kissing or hugging.
He hadn't repented.
Texas megachurch cancels vet's memorial service at last minute because he was gay
But after his obituary listed his life partner as one of his survivors, she said, it was called off.
His funeral was NOT the place to point out his or anyone elses sin.
If what you is true -- and I'm not doubting your truthfulness -- then the church was right to call off the funeral. However, Fox's article states this:The church's pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, said no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men "engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing."However, if Fox's version of the events are true, then the church should have just left those parts out of the tribute video and continued with the service.
No matter how many times you repeat this canard, you really don't know the man's last moments. Death-bed conversions are common. I have participated in hospital ministries and have seen a number of times that people convert to Christianity when they know that they only have hours or weeks to live. Unless you have access to information that the rest of us don't, you have no idea whether the man repented and became a Christian.
Now, if the man's "partner" insisted on having videos of the two embracing in the tribute video, then I agree with you that the church did the right thing. However, there's nothing in the Fox article that implies this. The church should have just kept those parts out of the tribute video because they were the ones who were editing it.
Regardless, I stand by my claim that Christians should reach out to homosexuals with the truth spoken in love. My past gay friends knew exactly where I stood on the issue of homosexuality, but they were friends because I did not reject them as human beings. Why? Because God did not reject me because of my sins. If that's what God did for me, then I have the obligation to do the same to others.
And neither does anyone else (save Jesus) (and HE is the one that counts). Could they praise his decision for Christ when there was no concrete evidence of such? No. And they would have wounded the family by preaching salvation at the funeral of someone that was not obviously saved. I find the idea heartless.
Now, if the man's "partner" insisted on having videos of the two embracing in the tribute video, then I agree with you that the church did the right thing.
Texas megachurch cancels vet's memorial service at last minute because he was gay
The church's pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, said no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men ``engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing.''
Church won't hold funeral for gay man
reneged on the invitation when it became clear the dead man's homosexuality would be identified in the service.
"Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging," he said. "My ministry associates were taken aback."
And then, he said, the family asked to have its own people officiate the service. "We had no control over the format of the memorial," Mr. Simons said.
Nobody from the church called her or Mr. Sinclair's partner, Paul Wagner, to discuss possible changes to the service, Ms. Bowers said.
Regardless, I stand by my claim that Christians should reach out to homosexuals with the truth spoken in love.
I do too but this mans memorial was not the place.
Thanks — that clarifies a lot of things and tells us more than what was printed in the article that this thread was based upon. Based on the new information, I agree that the church made the correct decision.
“It’s not Quix who has the superiority complex around here.”
Yes, well, there is you, too.
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.