Posted on 08/16/2007 11:08:18 AM PDT by Anti-Hillary
Both should be taught, of course. But we rarely hear about churches today teaching against divorce, as if they want to preach only part of God’s law.
And what was loving about the way they treated this dead sinner?
That being said, they should not glorify the sin so as to be seen as "compassionate". The funeral should not be hijacked into a fagfest just so that Christians can be seen as "compassionate". That's the ultra left, liberal, homo spin on it.
According to the article, the church withdrew their offer once they found that the man had a partner. So it seems that they had no idea he was homosexual to begin with, which also seems to shoot the 'love the sinner' claim right out the window. The lesson obviously is that the church should have asked a few questions before making the offer. And having made the invitation and then withdrawing it, I think their sending food and offering to pay the family to go somewhere else was insulting to say the least.
I just saw your response to Non Sequitur. I don’t think either of us are speaking against or judging anyone, it’s just very strange that divorce/remarriage is the one topic that seems to be omitted from most church positions. That’s all.
Odd, the two largest Christian Churches in the world condemn divorce among their followers.
And they both abide by God’s teachings regarding sexual perversion.
Should churches be permitted to determine this for themselves?
By refusing to celebrate the sin that separated him from God so that others would not be deceived into thinking that God was silent on these matters.
It's hard to say in the U.S. because of no-fault divorce, reasons don't have to be given any more. Grant Thornton did a U.K. study saying that in 2004 infidelity accounted for 27% of all divorces. I'm willing to accept that as accurate, unless you have another figure, and will point out that it still means that according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, at best in 3 out of every 4 cases of divorce and remarriage, the relationship is adulterous. Unless you feel that Mark 10 is the accurate interpetation. Then all of them are adulterous. So what should the church di in those cases?
Leave condemnations to God Himself but let the Churches celebrate according to the Gospel.
Unless, of course, we're talking about a homosexual. Then condemn away. Is that it?
I honestly don’t know how to respond to you. Do you want me to pretend that evangelical churches speak out against divorce and remarriage, and that their members actually abide by these teachings? The whole world knows that they don’t; it’s a well known fact that divorce is more rapant among those in the church than by non-Christians.
I actually think it’s sad; I divorced my husband thinking that it wasn’t that big of a deal. But it is, and now that I know what God has to say about it, I would have tried a LOT harder to make the marriage work. And I’ve seen the same level of apathy in other church-people, whose churches did NOT stress the level of significance that God places on marriage.
Our pastor actually did preach one Sunday about divorce. He started with, “This is going to make some people very uncomfortable, but the Word of God often does....”
It was a great sermon and I’m certain made some of the congregation squirm in the pews, but he used scripture and that could not be denied.
He has preached often on abortion, sexual immorality (ALL of it—not just homosexuality) and Hell—all topics that make christians (small c) extremely uncomfortable. He constantly implores us to be salt and light in the world.
I really appreciate the messages and often am convicted. I must remember to pray without ceasing. This is an ongoing battle within the church body and without.
This article doesn't say that the parishoners had seen the pictures. The author describes some of them as 'gay glorifying' without defining what that means. The family says that yes, there were pictures of the man and his partner. But completely denies that in any of the pictures were they, or any other same sex couple, kissing or hugging. So is the fact that a picture had the man and his partner in it together 'gay glorifying'? Isn't that a pretty narrow definition?
This article claims that the church withdrew the offer when the obituary mentioned a partner, which seems to indicate that they didn't know the man was homosexual to begin with. If the article is true then it seems to show the church's claim that the man's sexual orientation had nothing to do with their withdrawl to be less than accurate. The whole truth lies somewhere in the middle, but in any case I still believe that the church should never have agreed to host the funeral to begin with, and they shot themselves in the foot, from a publicity standpoint.
So what should the church di in those cases?
Perhaps they shouldn't celebrate the fact that the deceased was divorced as a major theme at his/her funeral?
Oh, so refusing to celebrate their sins is now considered to be "condemning them," is it?
Oh, you silly liberals think words only mean what you want them to mean.
Is it your assertion then that none of them do?
I believe any Church has the right (and an obligation) to refuse to perform any kind of ceremony the nature of which is in direct contradiction to theirs and Christian teachings. A funeral glorifying the decedent’s gay lifestyle certainly applies. Save that garbage for the reception afterwards, it has no place in a House of God.
It is regrettable that they refusal was so short fused but I think the Church did the right thing.
If the parishoners didn't seem then how could they have reacted in the manner described? It doesn't logically follow.
Yes, I too have heard some messages on divorce and remarriage, and I’m greatful that these preachers had the courage to address their congregations on such matters. I think you understand what I was saying. But what I was TRYING to tell the other poster is that it is just strange that so few people actually know God’s and the church’s position on this subject, because it’s NOT nearly as well known as the teaching against homosexuality.
Both should be preached.
Still can't feel the love in that one. I will ask again, if the church refused to allow a funeral because the dead man's family insisted that his second wife be included in the procedings then would you say the church was right in refusing to celebrate the sin of adultery and making it clear that God should not be silent on that matter?
I got the figures out of a Wikipedia article on divorce. Wikipedia may not be the most accurate source going, but in this case they quoted their source, the Grant Thornton study. But hey, if you don't like these figures then how about providing your own figures? If you believe infidelity is the cause of most divorces then surely you have something other than your own word to support that? Have at it.
Perhaps they shouldn't celebrate the fact that the deceased was divorced as a major theme at his/her funeral?
So, no pictures of the second spouse. Don't let them attend the funeral. Don't mention he was divorced and remarried. That kind of stuff?
Oh, you silly liberals think words only mean what you want them to mean.
I can always tell when someone realizes that they don't have a clue what they're talking about. They call their opponent a liberal.
I do not disagree. I'm merely pointing out that since the reason the church withdrew the offer is because the man was a homosexual, that they should have done their homework before making the offer to begin with.
Sorry, but your analogy is bad.
To equate it with what happened with the attempt to force the church into celebrating the deceased’s lifestyle, it would have to be a known fact that the first marriage did not dissolve because of adultery, that there had been no attempt to atone for this, and that the divorce and remarriage would be invoked as part of the service.
I would expect the church to refuse to participate in such a service.
But in this case it was done in response to a clueless liberal.
Where in the article does the author describe the parishoners reaction to the pictures? It is the author who described them as 'gay glorifying' without saying it was a quote from the pastor or anyone else. Nor did the author define what is 'gay glorifying' and what is not.
It doesn't logically follow.
It would if you had read the article.
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.