• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Church Will Not Hold Gay Service

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
no, our minds are much more evolved than animals. (except the dolphin, the only thing that separates us from them are opposable thumbs.)

Ah, well I suppose that an indicator of the level of science we're at in this discussion.

Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humans are a species of mammal. Mammals are animals. Just because we see ourselves as being better or smarter than other animals doesn't put us in a totally different class.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I found a description of the other side of the story. The anonymity of the web makes it hard for me to confirm the source, but the commenter on the blog of a friend of the deceased claims to be his partner. It makes for interesting reading:

Paul Wagner on Aug 11th, 2007 at 5:40 am

I am the partner of Cecil Sinclair who passed. It is unfortunate that the church has decided to tell untruths in order to make themselves feel better, or make their side of the story into a saner response. Hopefully more of the truth will come out in future articles or investigations.

First of all, let me start by stating that it was a member of the church who offered the use of their facility to us, on behalf of his brother who is/was a member of their congregation. I was introduced to this man as Cecil’s partner. To my knowledge, this person at least was fully aware that we were living openly as a couple. This same member of the church, when were later advised that we could not use the facilities, on his own, with money from his own pocket, not church coffers, went and procured another facility for the funeral. The church did not do so. At no time did a member of the church contact us to indicate that they had a problem with any part of the service we were planning. We never had contact with the minister or any of the administration.

On Tuesday morning, we gave the church a total of 83 various pictures of Cecil that were forwarded to us by various members of his family. Of those, not a single one showed a man hugging or kissing another man, nor were there any overtly homosexual references. Cecil’s sister Kathleen sat and worked with the two people preparing the video and went through all of the photos with them. There was only one photo which would be considered offensive, as it was a picture of him in his early 20s making a rude gesture at his best friend who was taking the photo. We removed it and never asked that it be included. It was just overlooked in the rush to get things done. These individuals went through all the other photos, which were pictures of family gatherings, birthday parties, vacations, etc. At no time was anything expressed to her or us that they had a disagreement with any of the other photos.

Cecil’s brother Lee, who was the member of the church, asked that we include a call to prayer near the beginning of the services, as well as a call for salvation at the end. We immediately agreed to this because it meant so much to his brother personally. We even asked if they wanted to have their own minister conduct it, or if our officiator could. There was no objection raised, so we assumed that it was OK.
On Wednesday evening about 6pm, we received a call. The person on the line put Cecil’s brother Lee, who is mentally impaired, onto the phone. Lee informed us that something was wrong, and then someone else got on the phone. That person informed us that a terrible string of errors was made, and that the service could no longer be held at their facility. We never spoke to the pastor nor anyone from his administration directly. It was all done through middlemen. When we requested to know why we could no longer use their facility, there was no answer. They simply stated a mistake was made.

Later that night, while we were scrambling to find another location, Cecil’s niece called back to the church and demanded an explanation. It was at that time a very long string of excuses began to form. First she was told that it was because we were bringing in outside food, which they didn’t allow. Then we were told it was because there was construction going on nearby which they felt would be too obtrusive. We said we didn’t think it would interfere. Then we were told it was because there was a scheduling conflict. When asked was other event was being held that was conflicting, the call was disconnected.

The remembrance we held for Cecil I felt was wonderful. We started with a brief welcome by the officiator. A song (For the Fallen) was sung. Cecil’s obituary was read. We then played the video which was about 10 minutes long, showing him from childhood, graduation, his naval service, and family gatherings, especially those from his 46th birthday, which had just been on the 5th of July. The officiator then read from personal family statements and remembrances of him. His mother, father, uncle and sister had all contributed personal insights into his life that they were not able to state themselves due to grief. A time was then allowed for individuals to come to the mike and offer their own personal remembrances of him. The chorale then sang another song (Amazing Grace). Closing remarks were made by the officiator and we then moved to the light meal that had been prepared. Meat and cheese sandwiches, cakes, and cookies. Only a small amount of this was offered by the church, most was either brought by family or friends.

To me personally, I have no problem with the church turning us away. My problem is with the method in which they did it. I happen to know several other members of that church who are also gay, and they had no idea that their church held that opinion on this topic either. If they had told us right away, or even on Tuesday that they were not comfortable with the service, we would have been more than willing to try and come to some sort of compromise, or we could have changed venues. We were never given that option. Someone in a position of power made the decision to cut us off, and didn’t even have the moral courage to tell us the truth to our faces.

Hopefully your reading this helps to make sense of what occurred. I fully understand the church’s right to deny us the use of their facilities. I also served in the military, (US Army, 1987-2002), and I have fought to defend their freedom of religion and freedom of choice. If just one couple or family can be saved from having to suffer the same as we did, I would consider all this to have been worthwhile. I truly believe all congregations need to have more open communication between all their members, so that the person who had initially welcomed us into their church would have known that is was not acceptable in the eyes of their leaders, and the entire issue would have been avoided. If we had known from the beginning we were not welcome, or the offer had never been made, we would have just continued making the same arrangements we finally had in the end. Nothing we did for Cecil’s remembrance ceremony was changed, other than the location.

I loved Cecil truly and deeply, and I am sorry that anyone considers a truly heartfelt, emotional, even spiritual connection to another human being to be sinful, simply because that love is between two people of the same sex.
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
Absolutely.


i don't know about you but, if someone was demanding me, and i am the pastor, i would cancel also.

If i was the pastor of my church and someone wants to have a service there. I set the rules. You cannot TELL me, " show these pictures, have this chior, this man is speaking, we are having an open mic, etc, etc, ...... if i don't agree, you got to go down the road.......

no one from the church was allowed to even speak! why are you there then? because the building is big? you did not attend church there, all but one of your family members did. Now, you are demand we bring whoever we want, and do whatever we want?

sorry, i don't think so.:cool:
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
i don't know about you but, if someone was demanding me, and i am the pastor, i would cancel also.

What do you mean by "demanding"?

If i was the pastor of my church and someone wants to have a service there. I set the rules. You cannot TELL me, " show these pictures, have this chior, this man is speaking, we are having an open mic, etc, etc, ...... if i don't agree, you got to go down the road.......

no one from the church was allowed to even speak! why are you there then? because the building is big? you did not attend church there, all but one of your family members did. Now, you are demand we bring whoever we want, and do whatever we want?

sorry, i don't think so.:cool:

The family was willing to change the photos and other portions of the service as well, so that's not the issue. The man was turned away because he was gay, and that alone. Besides, ... "Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? "
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
What do you mean by "demanding"?



The family was willing to change the photos and other portions of the service as well, so that's not the issue. The man was turned away because he was gay, and that alone. Besides, ... "Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? "


go back and read my post, i said " IF THE CHRUCH ACCOUNT WAS %100 TRUE".

the church knew he was gay , and said yes. So, if it was that alone, why did they say yes?

anyway, i am not going to the he said, she said, i just wanted to know how you felt IF, and i guess that did not work.

if you answer is why not rather suffer wrong, then why don't you give my your church address and i will be there sunday with my choir to preach....:D
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
the church knew he was gay , and said yes. So, if it was that alone, why did they say yes?

The website does not indicate that the church knew he was gay when they offered the facility...

The church did offer the family, free of charge, the use of its facility for the memorial service. It was not known at this time that the family desired a memorial service that would openly celebrate the homosexual lifestyle of Mr. Sinclair.

When the photos were presented to the church the day before the scheduled memorial service, there were some inappropriate images that alerted the church to the homosexuality of Mr. Sinclair.

... so if the church's testimony is 100% true, THEY ARE WRONG.
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
The website does not indicate that the church knew he was gay when they offered the facility...





... so if the church's testimony is 100% true, THEY ARE WRONG.



The church did offer the family, free of charge, the use of its facility for the memorial service. It was not known at this time that the family desired a memorial service that would openly celebrate the homosexual lifestyle of Mr. Sinclair.

see, did not mind he was gay, but did not want to celebrate the lifestyle.


The family requested that the church produce a video of Mr. Sinclair’s life for the memorial service. When the photos were presented to the church the day before the scheduled memorial service, there were some inappropriate images that alerted the church to the homosexuality of Mr. Sinclair. One photo showed a man with his hand touching another man’s genitalia. The phrase “like hugs and kisses” used by a staff member to describe to the pastor the blatant homosexual reference was mild at best.

man touching anothers genitalia! and the church is wrong?:cool:


The family desired an associate of an openly homosexual choir to officiate the service and for the choir to sing. They also desired an open microphone format to allow anyone in attendance to speak. High Point Church ministers would not be directing or have control over what was said or emphasized.

see, they just wanted the building, but not the preacher. They wanted the church to give up total control of the service. and the chruch is wrong?:cool:


It became clear to the church staff that the family was requesting an openly homosexual service at High Point Church – which is in obvious contradiction to the scripture and therefore our religious convictions.

The church has that right. Just like your church would never invite me or WHOEVER they dissagree with to speak for whatever reason. and the chruch is Wrong?:cool:
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
see, they just wanted the building, but not the preacher. They wanted the church to give up total control of the service. and the chruch is wrong?:cool:
Sounds very much like a friends' wedding I attended a few years ago. The church was picked mainly for convenience and aesthetics, IIRC (it was in a nice spot out in the country and fairly pretty itself, and was close to the reception hotel), but the minister was from the bride's childhood church. I don't recall anyone from the church expressing any sort of worry about "giving up total control".
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
man touching anothers genitalia! and the church is wrong?:cool:

The family offered to remove the picture.

see, they just wanted the building, but not the preacher. They wanted the church to give up total control of the service. and the chruch is wrong?:cool:

Yes, the church is wrong because they should have specified beforehand if they wanted their people speaking or having any other part in the service.

The church has that right. Just like your church would never invite me or WHOEVER they dissagree with to speak for whatever reason. and the chruch is Wrong?:cool:

Exactly. We'd talk with you and make sure that your beliefs somewhat aligned with ours BEFORE we invited you, not AFTER.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Besides, I've never heard of a church refusing a family funeral before, and especially after they agreed to do it. This sinks down to an all new low for me.. except, of course, the almost comedic Fred Phelps.
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
Sounds very much like a friends' wedding I attended a few years ago. The church was picked mainly for convenience and aesthetics, IIRC (it was in a nice spot out in the country and fairly pretty itself, and was close to the reception hotel), but the minister was from the bride's childhood church. I don't recall anyone from the church expressing any sort of worry about "giving up total control".


yes, but it is ridiculous for any church going christian to come on here and say they would let whoever come to there chruch and say whatever they wanted.

they KNOW they wouldn't, but want to judge another chruch for doing the same thing.

so all this stone throwing at this chruch by other christians is very weak, because they know they would not have certain people , preaching certain things in there church also.

The local pastor has the right to speak in his church, and has the right to decide who speaks inside that chruch.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
yes, but it is ridiculous for any church going christian to come on here and say they would let whoever come to there chruch and say whatever they wanted.

Why didn't the church and the family agree on the details before they agreed to do the funeral?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
yes, but it is ridiculous for any church going christian to come on here and say they would let whoever come to there chruch and say whatever they wanted.

they KNOW they wouldn't, but want to judge another chruch for doing the same thing.

so all this stone throwing at this chruch by other christians is very weak, because they know they would not have certain people , preaching certain things in there church also.

The local pastor has the right to speak in his church, and has the right to decide who speaks inside that chruch.

And the decent thing to do then would be to make it plainly known what fiflth the pastor wants in his church so people can avoid these types of situations.

While tragic, this incident would be easily avoided if only the church had asked some very easy questions beforehand.

The pastor not showing an ounce of integrity in this situation is very discouraging.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Why didn't the church and the family agree on the details before they agreed to do the funeral?

I think the family were victims of their own ignorance and the pastor's stupidity.

The family should have known that the church was capable of doing something like this, but lack of contact with bible churches like this would not offer previous experience. In their time of grief, they did not do the appropriate research.

The pastor should have been trained to get stuff like this out of the way before the facility was offered. This is very basic ministry stuff. You don't agree to marry someone that you object to, and then find stuff out about them - unless they lied. You create a fundie wacko checklist and ask them questions - if they don't fit the bill, you don't agree to marry them. Simple as that.
 
Top