Pastor Beaten After Blunt Eulogy

The Carolina Channel ^ | 21 June 02 | AP

[aomagrat]

LOXLEY, Ala. -- Authorities in Loxley, Ala., are investigating the alleged beating of a preacher by funeral mourners who didn't like his blunt eulogy.

Glynis Bethel told The Associated Press that her husband -- the Rev. Orlando Bethel -- was attacked during a June 14 funeral and dragged out of the church.

That's because Bethel told mourners the deceased was in Hell and that they were headed the same way.

The dead man was Glynis Bethel's uncle.

Orlando Bethel referred to him as a "drunkard and a fornicator."

Glynis Bethel, who's also a preacher, says "the fornicators didn't like what he said so they got up and beat him."

She says police didn't make any arrests, so she and her husband -- who may have a broken nose -- are taking out warrants.

[Risky Schemer]

So preaching the bible is an "emotional assault"? So anyone at a church service can sue the preacher if their feelings are hurt? Should a preacher be required to submit all sermons to the government to ensure political correctness?

1. There is NO WAY that preacher or any preacher knows for sure whether a man is saved or not. There are many examples of born again believers have committed adultery, fornication, gotten drunk and even committed murder. Yes, murder. There are many born again saved sinners who have "backslidden" (to use an evangelical term) and become unrecognizable as Christians. There are some who have even renounced Christ -- though He never renounces His children, thank God. So they might not bother to tell people of their, say, childhood conversion. The point is, the pastor DOES NOT KNOW. And if he is loving, he will give the benefit of the doubt and not assault a grieving family.

2. "LOVE one another." A grieving family is not the place, and a funeral is not the time to drop the hammer. And you are devoid of compassion and love if you think they should, and the family should sit there and be brutally subjected to such at such a time and have to take it. It is inconsiderate, unfeeling, unloving, and if you think people will be "drawn to Christ" by such boorish behavior, THINK AGAIN.

There are ways to say it. The loving pastor can offer, if he feels compelled to address it directly, words that he doesn't know for sure and has no way of knowing the eternal disposition of the deceased. WHICH IS THE TRUTH. He can say that he hopes the deceased is in heaven. And add that everyone there CAN KNOW what their own eternal destiny will be, and settle it once and for all if they but invite Jesus Christ into their heart to save them.

3. I shudder to think there really are Christian "monsters" out there who really would do something like pull shocked, heartbroken, grieving 10-year-old little Suzie aside and tell her that her dead daddy is burning in fire. Whether it is true about her daddy or not (AND THEY HAVE KNOW WAY OF KNOWING), it is monstrous behavior. And I feel sure that the Saviour will have somewhat to say to them at the Judgment Seat, if not before.

If you are one such monster, stay away from children. For their sake, and yours.

[Paul C. Jesup]

It is considered the height of rudeness to speak ill of the dead. Especially during his funeral, in front of his grieving family and friends.

I can fully understand why those people beat-up that Pastor. That Pastor's blunt eulogy was like striking a match in a nitro factory.

[ladyinred]

Do you think we could get the Rev. Orlando Bethel to give blubba's eulogy, when that glorious time comes?

Well, I was already quaking with laughter at some of the other replies, then I come across yours!

Priceless! I am ROTFL!

[RobbyS]

The purpose of a funeral is to remind the living that they are going to die. Whether he should have started a holy wa is another matter, especially one in his own family.

[Kevin Curry]

Let he who is without sin throw the first roundhouse right.

[Yeti]

If you don't like it, that is your problem.

Sounds like before he got the end of his "eulogy" it had become our noble preacher's problem.

[LikeLight]

Back in the old west, there were two notorious outlaw brothers . . . the one brother was killed in a shootout and the brother who lived put out the word that he would pay $5,000 to any preacher who would do his brother's funeral if the preacher promised to say that his brother was a saint . . . well even though $5,000 was a lot of money, all the local preachers just shook there heads and said there's just no way I can do it, I can't call that dirty, rotten, no good scoundrel a saint . . . until this one preacher finally pipes up and says to the brother, "I'll do it" . . . well the day of the funeral comes and there's a big crowd gathered . . . everyone wants to see the preacher lie for money, especially all the other preachers in town . . . everybody waits and listens . . . the preacher starts his eulogy and it gets ugly . . . "this man who died was vile, mean, nasty, and cruel", he says, "the very worst kind of man, dishonest, hateful, he would turn his back on a friend in a heartbeat, why even his own mother couldn't stand him" . . . then there's a long pause, the tension builds . . . the brother looks at the preacher and fingers his six-shooter . . . the preacher calmly stares him down . . . finally, the preacher continues . . . "but, compared to his brother, he was a saint"

[doug from upland]

This is the funniest thing I've read about a funeral since the Mary Tyler Moore show and Chuckles the Clown --- a little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.

[dighton]

Are you calling me a yankee?!?!?! I'm from South Carolina. I'm as Southern as grits.

Yeah, sure.

I've seen your allies in the War of Interplanetary Aggression.

[ClancyJ]

The purpose of a funeral is to remind the living that they are going to die

No, sorry, the purpose of a funeral is to bury the dead and to say goodbye with a nice service since this is the last thing they can do for their loved one.

If the purpose of a funeral is to remind the living that they are going to die, how come the family is required to provide a body and spend thousands to make it as nice as they can. Seems to me a preacher would provide all that.

[ClancyJ]

Agree.

I'm reminded of a audio book I listening to - Glass Lake. A woman leaves her husband and two children to go to another man. She had always promised she would not leave without telling her husband. It turned out she left a note on his pillow that explained why and what she was doing.

When the mother did not return from a walk by the lake, and the discovery of their overturned boat, the daughter found the note in her father's room. Scared to death that her mother committed suicide and therefore the church would not allow her to be buried in the church yard, she took the note and burned it without reading it. She never told the father and everyone thought the woman had drowned.

Years later after writing to one of her mother's friends and developing a wonderful relationship - she happened to meet the woman and it was her mother who had pretended to be a friend to write to her daughter. All was discovered and they finally decided not to tell the family and the mother was to remain dead. The father remarried, the son does not know his mother is alive and the daughter hates her.

Anyway - all because the 10 year old daughter could not bear for her mother not to be buried in the church yard.

[aomagrat]

They're from the Southern part of the galaxy.

[DugwayDuke]

"You are hateful and stupid." and "I have a problem with you. You are a creep. You intentionally misstate and seem to misunderstand the matter to justify spiteful and cruel behavior." and "You said that "preachers" are called to "preach the word of God." As tried to point out to you in an earlier post, wherein you also dishonestly pretended not to understand the point,"

You've accused me of being "hateful and stupid", of being "a creep", and of being "dishonest". You've maintained that the attendees at a religious service have the right to sue the preacher if they find his words emotionally upsetting. We may argue whether the preacher could have choosen different words but that is not the point.

The point is this. Do you really find the content of a religious service a proper cause for a lawsuit? Do you really believe the courts have the right or the power to judge what a minister should or should not say? (Parenthetically, do you support the kinds of laws recently passed in Canada and Sweden making it a crime for a minister to condemn homosexuality? Is this the kind of interference in religious matters you would support?) Do you really believe the congregation are justified in assaulting a minister because they disagree with his sermon? (Parenthetically, how does this assault differ from assaults on Christian ministers overseas? Do you think those assaults are also justified because of "emotional assault?) Now cut the personal attacks and address the real points here.

I've not claimed that the bible said this particular person was a fornicator or a drunkard. I have maintained that the bible does say that these are sins and that the wages of sin are death. I've only mentioned these points to demonstrate that there was a bibilical link to what the minister said making it a religious matter not subject to judicial review. That is a valid line of argument and is not in any sense an attempt to "dishonestly pretend to understand the point."

[DugwayDuke]

"Do you think the family asked him to speak at the funeral so that he would say so and so is going to hell? Don't you think he knew what he was going to say? Or, as soon as he did decide - don't you think it would be appropriate for him to advise the family that he will be trashing the memory of their loved one? Or, is it supposed to be a surprise to all for the proper effect?"

Neither you nor I have any idea of the agreements made prior to this religious service. It is possible, that those who asked this minister to give the eulogy knew full well what he would say. I remind you that this is a very small community and the minister was an almost relative. So far all you have provided is an attack on this man's motivation without any evidence to support your assertations. If you'll return to the article in question, the facts in this matter are very sketchy and do not support any of your claims.

"Did he get to show the love of God during the ensuing fisticuffs?"

Irrelevent. The minister did not instigate the fisticuffs. The bible is full of stories of ministers and prophets whose only rewards for preaching the Word of God were stones, beatings, and death. Does that mean that they were not showing the "love of God"? Reflect on this before you reply, their words were also unpopular, emotionally upsetting, etc.

"A true man of God would have given a respectful goodbye, would not have judged the man and then could ask any that need to get right with God to do so and if they need help, he would be glad to work with them."

I suppose then that Christ was wrong when he chased the money changers from the temple or when he condemned the Pharisees? Should he not have been more "respectful", especially of their feelings? Shouldn't he have invited them to prayer meeting the next Wednesday instead of condemning them?

"I see no need to defend this preacher and I'm sure he is so sure he is in the right to be beyond hearing what any have to say. Yet, by his fruits we will know him. Looks like the fruits led to fisticuffs and a broken nose. Did any get right with God based on his words?"

If we are to know a man by his fruits, then using your standard, what are the fruits by which we should know Christ? He was subject to fisticuffs, whippings, and crucifiction because of his words and his message. Please note, I'm not saying this minister in Alabama is comparable to Christ. So do not accuse me of that because it is not my point. I am saying that this standard is not valid by pointing out that if this standard were applied to the words of Christ (or John the Baptist, or most other prophets and apostles), then their words must also be considered inappropriate.

[Yeti]

Now cut the personal attacks and address the real points here.

The real point is that a man used a eulogy to smear an in-law after his death in the persence of his mourning family. There is no justification morally for this. I don't know why you would continue to use sophistry and rhetoric to defend such cruelty. You seem to present yourself as representing Christianity, and then lend a sadistic taint to the religion. You introduce red herrings like allegations of oppressive laws in foreign lands apparently to attach some global God vs. Devil significance to a local act of petty cruelty. If I pick up a bible and call myself a preacher, may I tell your children that you are a liar and a child molester? Will others like you defend my behavior? I know I waste my breath(figuratively), as the problem with you is one of willful feigned ignorance rather than lack of understanding.

I continue to notice the selective omission from your cut and paste, and, after these few exchanges, I really don't see any point in further argument as you continue be dishonest.

[LaGrone]

That'll learn 'em to review the eulogy in advance! Especially if the deceased is a fornicator!!!

[DugwayDuke]

"There is NO WAY that preacher or any preacher knows for sure whether a man is saved or not."

So what? The knowledge given to this minister is not the issue here. The issue is whether the content of a sermon is a proper thing to be considered by the courts. You responded to a quote of mine that you cut and pasted. The entireity of that cut and paste dealt with the issue of court action over the content of a sermon.

For the sake of argument, here is the section you cut and pasted: "So preaching the bible is an "emotional assault"? So anyone at a church service can sue the preacher if their feelings are hurt? Should a preacher be required to submit all sermons to the government to ensure political correctness?" Now, just what do you find in these questions that makes you think that I am a monster or that I should be kept away from children?

[DugwayDuke]

"The real point is that a man used a eulogy to smear an in-law after his death in the persence of his mourning family. There is no justification morally for this."

No, the "real point" here is that you wish to be able to use the courts to enforce your concept of what is appropriate religious content upon a pastor. You've stated in several posts that you think the pastor should be sued for what he said in a pulpit in a religious ceremony. All of our discussions trace back to that central issue. There is no legal or moral justification for this. Do you really want the courts to judge the suitability of the content of a sermon?

"I don't know why you would continue to use sophistry and rhetoric to defend such cruelty."

I am defending the pastor's right to determine the content of his sermons.

"You seem to present yourself as representing Christianity, and then lend a sadistic taint to the religion. You introduce red herrings like allegations of oppressive laws in foreign lands apparently to attach some global God vs. Devil significance to a local act of petty cruelty."

Don't you see that there is no diffence between the positions you've advocated and those oppresive laws overseas? In both cases, someone is offended by the content of a sermon and wishes to use the powers of the courts to control the content of a sermon? Or, in some cases, some people find it perfectly acceptable to beat up a preacher for preaching what he thinks is the Word Of God. These are not red herring issues.

"If I pick up a bible and call myself a preacher, may I tell your children that you are a liar and a child molester? Will others like you defend my behavior?"

If you have the facts to back it up, then you may certainly do so. I note that no one has claimed a factual error on the part of the minister for claiming that the man was a drunkard and a fornicator. These claims have no where been challenged. The only claim has been that these claims caused emotional distress. I point out that truth is always a perfect defense in a libel case.

"I know I waste my breath(figuratively), as the problem with you is one of willful feigned ignorance rather than lack of understanding."

No, I understand your point that you think the minister shouldn't have said what he said. I may even agree with you on that. But the point remains that the courts have no place in the pulpit.

[Yeti]

No, the "real point" here is that you wish to be able to use the courts to enforce your concept of what is appropriate religious content upon a pastor. You've stated in several posts that you think the pastor should be sued for what he said in a pulpit in a religious ceremony. All of our discussions trace back to that central issue. There is no legal or moral justification for this. Do you really want the courts to judge the suitability of the content of a sermon

If the people had attended a new church and didn't like the sermon, your posts might make a little sense. This was not the case. This was a funeral, not a Sunday sermon. The individual was a family member who was invited to speak. We all understand the purpose of the eulogy. We certainly believe that the family had certain reasonable expectations regarding the content of the eulogy. If the fellow in question had given them some warning regarding the fact that he was going to speak ill of the dead, the family would not have invited him to speak. Instead, he surprised everyone by doing something nobody could reasonably have expected. In doing so he caused great emotional harm to the deceased's loved ones.

I do not think referring to oneself as a preacher grants him licence to defraud or intntionally inflict torment. I do not think holding a bible in your hands grants you immunity from civil law.

As I said in a post to someone else, I am inclined to believe that the guy got sufficient comeuppance, but I do believe that he is rightly vulnerable to civil action for the manner and circumstances in which he callously amplified the grief of the mourners.

What if a preacher preaches the glory of homosexuality, bestiality and murder to five and six year old boys. I guess we couldn't sue or take any legal action against him, by your opinion.

The foregoing is called a "reductio absurdium" and disproves your assertion by showing that it leads directly to absurdities. If you begin to multiply your propositions in order to exclude absurdities, you will eventually admit some limitation on what may or may not be reasonably preached(preaching "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or preaching "Rape that woman!" to a bunch of mental patients, for examples). When you refine your position to the point that it cannot be shown to admit absurdities, you will have defined it in such a way that admits the exclusion of fraud or intentional infliction of emotional pain. Whereupon you will have opened the "preacher" to civil action.

[Jorge]

"Jesus Christ Himself told people right to their faces that they would die in their sins if they didn't repent."

But He hadn't risen yet, had He?

Makes no difference. Jesus knew He would rise from the dead, and still told people they would die in their sins if they didn't repent. This was true, both before and after He rose.