Posted on 08/16/2007 11:08:18 AM PDT by Anti-Hillary
Should biblical churches host gay-glorifying funerals? Should evangelical politics move leftward? Many news organs give us one answer: Yes!
The lead of an Aug. 11 Associated Press story seemed to expose a clear case of homophobia: "A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay."
The story stated that officials at High Point Church in Arlington, Texas, offered to host the service for a gay janitor who wasn't a church member but had worked there -- only to say no when his obituary listed a life partner. The deceased's sister said, "It's a slap in the face."
The AP story did quote the church's pastor's concern that the service would promote the gay lifestyle. That quotation was a throwback to the old AP style of trying to present both sides equally, but the new AP is politically correct, and the overall slant of this story was clear: Christians lack compassion.
A Dallas Morning News story was more nuanced. It noted that the issue was not the deceased's unrepentant homosexuality but that "his friends and family wanted that part of his life to be a significant part of the service."
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
“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.”
How was that insulting? Would you have preferred that they did not send food and did not offer to pay the family to go somewhere else? Were they simply supposed to cave in to the family’s desire to display blatant homosexual pictures?
The basic problem is that homosexuals want acceptance of what Christians call sin. This is entirely different from an attitude of repentance and humbleness. I’m sure that there are homosexuals who are repentant and humble, but we don’t hear about them. It’s all about flaunting and pride.
The family decided to turn this into a political situation rather than getting on with preparations for the memorial. The family showed no respect for the beliefs of those in the church. To attempt some analogies, how about, say, Buddhists demanding a Buddhist service in a Jewish temple? How about demanding that a baseball game be played according to the rules of football? The church was trying to be accommodating and the family was not.
I think their sending food and offering to pay the family to go somewhere else was insulting to say the least.”
________________________________________
I agree, they shouldn’t have taken food to the family and they shouldn’t have paid them.
Apparently, his game plan is to deny that there were any pictures, not that anyone associated with the church saw anyway.
Yes, I know that doesn't make any sense but he's trying to run with it anyway.
What if Mark 10 is right and Jesus gave no exceptions to his command that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery? Now you can go with Matthew and his loop-hole, but I've always thought that trying to wriggle out of something using a loop-hole was a very liberal thing to do.
And atone? How does one atone for sin by living in sin? Adultery is a sin. Don't believe me, look at the 10 Commandments. Jesus said those who divorce and remarry were committing adultery against their first spouse. It would seem to me that the only wany to atone for the failed marriage would be not to marry at all, not enter into a sinful relationship.
Oh there is a clueless party in this debate, but I don't think it's me. And if merely disagreeing with you on this makes one a liberal, then there must be a lot more of them out there than people realize.
I've never denied any such thing but it appears that you would permit a celebration of the adultery as part of the funeral (at least if your going to be consistent about pitching a hissy about their refusing to celebrate the sin in this case).
The church was correct in refusing to celebrate what God Himself has called an abomination.
No but trying to pervert the word of God in support of sexual perversion is a pretty good indicator.
Ping. This was our old church, 4CJ.
That and the video, DVD or whatever people would watch as he reposed was full of filth, according to a member.
Well...yeah. Having told the family that the dead man was not worthy of being buried from their church then it seems to me that any actions afterwards were insulting. The family, quite rightly, told them to keep their money and their food and to leave them alone. If I it were me I'd do the same.
Were they simply supposed to cave in to the family’s desire to display blatant homosexual pictures?
What was blatant? The family says that none of the pictures contained same sex individuals kissing or hugging. Taking that out then define exactly what a 'blatant homosexual picture' is. Can you do that?
The basic problem is that homosexuals want acceptance of what Christians call sin. This is entirely different from an attitude of repentance and humbleness. I’m sure that there are homosexuals who are repentant and humble, but we don’t hear about them. It’s all about flaunting and pride.
The man's family wanted to bury their family member. He was a homosexual, but they accepted him anyway. They were not going to deny who he was or refuse to acknowledge people he loved. The church apparently demanded that as the price for allowing the funeral. I am sure that if they had made their 'no funerals for homosexuals' policy clear to begin with, the man's family would have politely thanked them and politely declined the offer. Then the church could have gone on, safe in the knowledge it had dodged the bullet. But the church didn't do its homework and if shot itself in the foot.
The family decided to turn this into a political situation rather than getting on with preparations for the memorial.
How exactly did they do that. A lot of accusations about their motives are flying but I don't see where in the article any of them are supported. It seems that the only 'political' act they took was refusing to hide the fact that the man was homosexual. They weren't advocating gay orgies in the aisles or porn pictures over the altar. They were merely saying that this was their son/brother/partner. He was who he was. They accepted him for who he was and weren't going to deny the fact or hide it. Why is that political?
To attempt some analogies, how about, say, Buddhists demanding a Buddhist service in a Jewish temple? How about demanding that a baseball game be played according to the rules of football? The church was trying to be accommodating and the family was not.
Lame analogies aside, I don't see where the church was being accomodating. They took their stand, after making the offer. They're entitled to it. But having taken their stand they should have left the family alone, not run after them and try to force food and money and unwanted visits on them. Was the church trying to ease its guilty feelings?
Boy, there's a lot here just in this little bit. Let's see:
There's lots more to be said, but I can't do it right now. Duty calls.
No, that comes from actually having read the article. You really should break down and do that.
The debate in these matters is normally framed to fit within the modern template that highlights both tolerance and hypocrisy. The assumption is that to not tolerate and show compassion are signs of the inner hypocrisy of the avowed Christian. The toleration and compassion are to be shown for whatever the favored form of degradation that the writer/debater prefers (of course).
Christianity is not a tolerant religion. No real religion is tolerant. Religion is about discovering Truth and the moral Rightness that flows from it. Jesus never preached tolerance. He never preached compromise. He stated in rather plain and simple language what the good news is and how to live so as to take the greatest advantage of it.
Homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, infidelity, fraud - the list is almost endless. These things should not be tolerated. Period. What they should be is acknowledged. They exist in each of us and the test of character is how well we exercise self-control and act courageously in facing these and keeping them in check.
Should the fact of a man’s divorce be the subject of a eulogy? Is his failure (all divorce is a sign of failure) something to be celebrated? Is it a token by which his life should be measured by all the other frail, foolish, fallible humans around him?
While we live here it is almost impossible to maintain clarity of vision. Doubt is part of the life we live. Any position, no matter how seemingly incontrovertible can become befogged and murky - usually by people pretending to moral uprightness but who, in fact, practice deliberate deceit and obfuscation (all for the sake of an “open mind” and “tolerance”). I find I have no patience for such people. Clever arguments and nuanced discussion can cloud Truth but they can never supplant it.
All humans are children of God. All deserve the respect and consideration that this brings with it. But there is nothing respectable or praiseworthy in the pursuit of lust or the breaking of vows. We cannot judge these matters wisely enough to determine what a man’s ultimate disposition may be in the scheme of eternity. But each of us knows in his heart - and despite the layers of lies and distortions that coat every one of us - what is right.
People may yammer along the line of “but what about.....?” while inserting some sin or folly once condemned and now accepted after years and decades of continuing moral erosion, evasion of truth and even active promotion by the minions of “tolerance”. I no longer care about these arguments. They are for fools.
To the degree a man lives his life conforming to the commandments of God that man has succeeded and become an exemplar for us all. We don’t need to hear about the other because the other is known in one form or another to all of us - because it IS us. I know men are stupid, sinful, deceitful, weak and foolish. I know this because I am all these things. But I also know men can be upright, honest, honorable, courageous and truly virtuous. I need to hear about these because I need all the inspiration I can get to carry me forward in my attempts to live up to these.
If a person does not adhere to the belief statements of the church, the church has no commitment to accommodate.
Using the same standards as this church uses, any mention of a second spouse in the obituary would be a celebration of adulery. Any pictures of the man with the second spouse would be adultery glorifying. So if the church applied those same standards then I would be the first to congratulate them for not being hypocritical. I'm not holding my breath, however.
The church was correct in refusing to celebrate what God Himself has called an abomination.
Then why do they not refuse to celebrate what Jesus Himself called a sin?
How so? The family has said that none of the pictures they provided showed any same sex individuals kissing or hugging or anything like that. What was filthy?
I don't deny that. But being forced to withdraw the offer after having made that was their own fault. Everyone seems to want to blame the dead man's family for the screw up when it appears that the church is solely responsible for their embarassment. Nowhere does it appear that the family misled the church or lied about the man or covered anything up. They hid nothing. They claim that none of the pictures contained anything that might be considered sexual or overtly affectionate, and nobody has produced any pictures showing they were lying. So in the end the church made the offer, they then found out the man was homosexual. They're the ones who blew it.
According to the “Dallas Morning News” at http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/081007dnmetgayfuneral.3617689.html “the photos that the family selected alerted church officials that there might be a problem with the service, Mr. Simons said.
Not OK with photos
“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.”
Also at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20221295/
“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.”
Kudos to your old church!
... only to say no when his obituary listed a life partner.
That's at odds with what I read/heard on AFR, and from my friend ;o) The church already KNEW he had a partner. Some of the pictures submitted were too graphic. No church could condone such and consider itself Christian.
Pictures? Did the story mention that Rev. Gary Simons and the church had been in prayer over the man for over 6 years? Or that a member of the church staff was at the hospital ministering to the family? That the church volunteered to host the memorial service, to feed over 100 guests, and create a multimedia presentation of photos of the man and his life? I didn't think so.
According to the article that started this thread, "...officials at High Point Church in Arlington, Texas, offered to host the service for a gay janitor who wasn't a church member but had worked there -- only to say no when his obituary listed a life partner." There seems to be two different stories on why the church turned it down.
“Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging,” he said. “My ministry associates were taken aback.”
According to the Fox News story the family denies that and says that there were no pictures of any same sex kissing or hugging by any individuals.
“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.”
Again, contradicted by both stories. Now no doubt the truth actually lies somewhere between the two sides. But it's pretty clear that the church should never have made the offer to begin with.
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.