Church Will Not Hold Gay Service

[angellous_evangellous]

I haven't seen any indication at all that the video montage was objectionable in any way. In fact, the church was taking care of putting it together. While they were doing that, church members saw photos of men holding hands and kissing. Nobody has reported that the family insisted on certain photos being included, just that church members saw some photos they thought were objectionable. It was then that they became aware the deceased was gay, and decided not to host the funeral.

It doesn't take much when the viewer is homophobic. :foot:

 

[madhatter85]

I had a good friend who was gay.

i asked him how come he doesn't drive aroudn with a rainbow bumper sticker or something.

he said "Cause i don't want to get beat up walking to my car at night!"

He was a pretty funny guy. he shoudl have been a game show host, he did alot of great improv in college.

Family guy Quote -

"Everyone needs to be abstinant(sp?) from sex, because everyone knows that sex turns straight people Gay, and Gay people into Mexicans"

Eh, i jsut thought it might lighten the mood

 

[nutshell]

I had a good friend who was gay.

i asked him how come he doesn't drive aroudn with a rainbow bumper sticker or something.

he said "Cause i don't want to get beat up walking to my car at night!"

He was a pretty funny guy. he shoudl have been a game show host, he did alot of great improv in college.

Family guy Quote -

"Everyone needs to be abstinant(sp?) from sex, because everyone knows that sex turns straight people Gay, and Gay people into Mexicans"

Eh, i jsut thought it might lighten the mood

Why do you speak of him in the past tense?

 

[cturne]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, Sans-Serif]Church Refuses to Hold Funeral for Homosexual Man because it Would Include Gay Propaganda[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, Sans-Serif]The decision is "not based on hate, or discrimination, but upon principle and policy"[/FONT]

By Elizabeth O'Brien
ARLINGTON, August 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Christian Church in Texas has refused to hold a funeral for a homosexual man because the family wanted to display a multimedia memorial presentation that condoned his actively homosexual lifestyle.
High Point Church is a large, non-denominational parish that believes that active homosexuality is a sin, Dallas News Morning reports. When 46-year old Navy veteran Cecil Sinclair died on Monday, High Point initially agreed to hold a service for him because his brother was a member of the church. Sinclair himself was not affiliated with any church.
As Sinclair was dying of a heart condition, the church community prayed for him. After he died, High Point responded by sending a member to visit and minister to the family.
The Church also agreed to provide a large memorial service complete with a meal and a multimedia presentation in honor of the late Mr. Sinclair. However, when the church ministry saw some of the photos beforehand, they were shocked to find that they explicitly portrayed Sinclair as being in a homosexual relationship.
Upon discovering that Sinclair had been an active homosexual, the Church realized that a funeral in which these pictures were displayed would be a public statement in support of the homosexual lifestyle. Basing its decision on these moral grounds, the Church decided that it could not go ahead with the service.
"Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging," said Pastor Gary Simons. "My ministry associates were taken aback."
During his Sunday sermon, Simons firmly explained his rejection of the homosexual man's funeral amidst the applause of the church community. He said that the family "requested an open-microphone format to allow anyone in attendance to speak." In addition, the service would be presided over by someone who was not a member at High Point Church. "It appeared to the church staff that the family was requesting an openly homosexual service at High Point Church, which is not our policy to allow," he said. In addition, an openly gay choir, the Turtle Creek Chorale, was also set to perform at the service.
Sinclair's mother Ms. Bowers was upset by the decision, saying that a compromise could have been reached that might have enabled the memorial service to proceed. Nevertheless, Pastor Simons asked, "Can you hold the event and condone the sin and compromise our principles?" He said. "We can't."
Causing outrage among Sinclair's friends and family as well as many homosexual activists, Simons stated that he did not object to having a funeral for a homosexual man. Rather, he objected to the blatant condoning of the man's homosexual lifestyle. He made the analogy that while the church would not object to having a funeral service for a murderer whose mother was a member of the parish, the church could not allow photos of his crimes to be nostalgically displayed during the service.
In spite of High Point's moral objections to Sinclair's lifestyle, the Church made every effort to show the family that it was loved and cared for. They offered to pay for the service at another facility, and when the family refused, they sent food and representatives to the funeral.
Read former Dallas Morning News coverage: [URL="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/081007dnmetgayfuneral.3617689.html"]http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/s...[/URL]

This article plainly shows the valid reasons the church changed it's mind about the funeral. They tried to do it in as loving a way as possible. Churches do not have to condone lifestyles considered as sin, and it is not homophobic to say that homosexuality it a sin - and since this person was living an openly gay life style he obviously was not a repentant sinner. Just more insanity.

 

[Smoke]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, Sans-Serif][/FONT]"It appeared to the church staff that the family was requesting an openly homosexual service at High Point Church,

I'm not sure exactly what an openly homosexual service would entail, but I'll bet it would be a lot more fun than a regular service.

Just more insanity.

For sure. I don't understand why people who claim to care anything about any gay man would involve themselves with such bigoted freaks in the first place.

 

[cturne]

I'm not sure exactly what an openly homosexual service would entail, but I'll bet it would be a lot more fun than a regular service.

For sure. I don't understand why people who claim to care anything about any gay man would involve themselves with such bigoted freaks in the first place.

Just because a church refuses to compromise their position of not condoning homosexuality does not make them bigoted freaks. Maybe people making that accusation should look in the mirror...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just because a church refuses to compromise their position of not condoning homosexuality does not make them bigoted freaks.

Refusing a funeral demonstrates quite clearly their bigoted freakhood. They may as well have brought Fred Phelps himself to speak with the family.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Aside from the freakishly inhuman actions of the church... I think that this could have been prevented had the pastor not been a complete idiot.

During his Sunday sermon, Simons firmly explained his rejection of the homosexual man's funeral amidst the applause of the church community. He said that the family "requested an open-microphone format to allow anyone in attendance to speak." In addition, the service would be presided over by someone who was not a member at High Point Church. "It appeared to the church staff that the family was requesting an openly homosexual service at High Point Church, which

They should not have agreed to have someone who they don't certify to do the funeral. That is, if they have sentiments that can be offended - like being a woman or being gay - they should talk about that with the person BEFORE THEY AGREE, and not stupidly assume that everyone is a homophobic nutcase like they are.

The pastor, in my opinion, should have honored the agreement and took the heat for any objections, showing compassion for the bereaved at the very least. Instead, blatant contempt for the dead man and those who care for him are projected onto Christ.

 

[cturne]

The church withdrew their offer to do the funeral only after they found out the family wanted to run the show, going against the beliefs of the church. This is a church and churches have rules. People are expected to abide by the church's rules. If they refuse to, even after a church has offered to do a service, the church has every right to withdraw that offer. The only intolerance and bigotry I am seeing in this thread is that of people who don't think the Church has the right to stand up for its principals. The church also offered to pay for an alternate place to hold the funeral. They did nothing wrong.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The church withdrew their offer to do the funeral only after they found out the family wanted to run the show, going against the beliefs of the church. This is a church and churches have rules. People are expected to abide by the church's rules. If they refuse to, even after a church has offered to do a service, the church has every right to withdraw that offer. The only intolerance and bigotry I am seeing in this thread is that of people who don't think the Church has the right to stand up for its principals. The church also offered to pay for an alternate place to hold the funeral. They did nothing wrong.

It's a wonder then that any non-Christian, especially if they are a woman, minority, or GLBT, would ever darken the door of a church.

Stay away if you value your soul!

Yes, the church offered to pay for another venue, and it also attempted to erase a defining characteristic of the deceased:

After the church decided it would not host the funeral service, it offered to pay for another facility, Mr. Simons said. The family declined and found a local funeral home to hold the event Thursday night.Even so, the church sent over food and the video – minus the images church officials found to be offensive.

... one last slap in the face!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I just feel very deeply for the loved ones of Mr. Sinclair. It has to be difficult that they're entrenched in this entire fiasco in the first place in their time of grief.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[cturne]

It's a wonder then that any non-Christian, especially if they are a woman, minority, or GLBT, would ever darken the door of a church.

Yes, the church offered to pay for another venue, and it also attempted to erase a defining characteristic of the deceased:

... one last slap in the face!

Interesting how you like to make a sweeping judgement of this church - OBVIOUSLY, if the church does not condone a homosexual life style then they must also be against minorities and women.

"Defining characteristic" of a lifestyle the church did not condone. Just as they would have also erased anything condoning drunkenness, drug use, a gambling habit, etc...

Yet another attempt to make religious leaders out to be the bad guys because people don't like to be told they are sinning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Upon discovering that Sinclair had been an active homosexual, the Church realized that a funeral in which these pictures were displayed would be a public statement in support of the homosexual lifestyle. Basing its decision on these moral grounds, the Church decided that it could not go ahead with the service.

I would not consider a family funeral to be any sort of "public statement". In fact, whatever the photos' content, I'd consider their display to the mourners in attendance who presumably knew the deceased to be the definition of private.

During his Sunday sermon, Simons firmly explained his rejection of the homosexual man's funeral amidst the applause of the church community. He said that the family "requested an open-microphone format to allow anyone in attendance to speak." In addition, the service would be presided over by someone who was not a member at High Point Church. "It appeared to the church staff that the family was requesting an openly homosexual service at High Point Church, which is not our policy to allow," he said. In addition, an openly gay choir, the Turtle Creek Chorale, was also set to perform at the service.

According to the web site of the Turtle Creek Chorale, they are not an "openly gay choir". On the contrary, they are a choir that is supportive of the gay community and has membership open to all men... or at least all men who can sing. From their FAQ:

Q. Who are the members of the organization?

A. The TCC, an arts organization, has an open-door policy, respectful of diversity and welcoming to all in the greater Dallas community who have a love of chorale music and wish to audition

Sinclair's mother Ms. Bowers was upset by the decision, saying that a compromise could have been reached that might have enabled the memorial service to proceed. Nevertheless, Pastor Simons asked, "Can you hold the event and condone the sin and compromise our principles?" He said. "We can't."

In other words, the issue was the deceased's orientation, not any sort of objection to a slide show or a very professional-in-demeanour mens' chorus.

The church withdrew their offer to do the funeral only after they found out the family wanted to run the show, going against the beliefs of the church. This is a church and churches have rules. People are expected to abide by the church's rules. If they refuse to, even after a church has offered to do a service, the church has every right to withdraw that offer.

What you call church rules, I would call church preferences. Absent a big honkin' sign in the front entrance of the church saying "no gay funerals here", it was the responsibility of the church to make its feelings known before the agreement was made. If they didn't care enough about it to make an issue of it before they agreed to the funeral, then it can't be important enough to cancel the funeral the day it's scheduled to occur.

The only intolerance and bigotry I am seeing in this thread is that of people who don't think the Church has the right to stand up for its principals. The church also offered to pay for an alternate place to hold the funeral. They did nothing wrong.

They did everything wrong. Once an agreement is made, both parties are bound by it. The church broke a promise.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yet another attempt to make religious leaders out to be the bad guys because people don't like to be told they are sinning.

They are bad guys for agreeing to something and not following through with it.

 

[MaddLlama]

Do any of the articles actually come out and say what was in the video that was construed as "celebrating the gay lifestyle"?

As I understand it, the actual act of homosexual sex is a sin, not being a homosexual. So, did the video contain pictures of the deceased and his partner having intimate relations? From the articles I've read, there seems to be a lot of dispute over what was actually in the video.

Second of all, why didn't the church just say "you can't play the video at the funeral", or ask them to change certain parts of it? Why agree to hold the funeral without going through the details, and why cancel the whole thing and go back on your word when one detail doesn't mesh? What was the reason they had to tell the family they weren't wanted instead of just trying to make that little detail more appropriate for the church? Especially if the church knew he was gay in the first place.

I just don't think there's any way to defend going back on your word like this. Had they not agreed at the outset then that would be one thing, but to say yes, and then change their minds is reprehensible.

 

[MaddLlama]

Yet another attempt to make religious leaders out to be the bad guys because people don't like to be told they are sinning.

Do churches only hold funerals for people who never sin? Do pastors/priests/reverends always talk about a persons sin during a Eulogy?

 

[cturne]

Do churches only hold funerals for people who never sin? Do pastors/priests/reverends always talk about a persons sin during a Eulogy?

It is not merely the fact that he was a sinner - we are all sinners. This person was openly living a sinful, UNREPENTANT lifestyle. Even that said, the church most likely would have done the funeral if it had been allowed to do it in a respectful manner, not celebrating the person's lifestyle. Just as it would not have wanted to celebrate someone's unrepentant lifestyle of drunkenness, or a gambling addition.

I am through arguing this as my stand here is firm. The bottom line here is that I am sick and tired of churches being demonized for standing up for their beliefs. Again - who is being intolerant here? Who is doing the name calling? Who REALLY is acting bigoted?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is not merely the fact that he was a sinner - we are all sinners. This person was openly living a sinful, UNREPENTANT lifestyle. Even that said, the church most likely would have done the funeral if it had been allowed to do it in a respectful manner, not celebrating the person's lifestyle. Just as it would not have wanted to celebrate someone's unrepentant lifestyle of drunkenness, or a gambling addition.

I am through arguing this as my stand here is firm. The bottom line here is that I am sick and tired of churches being demonized for standing up for their beliefs. Again - who is being intolerant here? Who is doing the name calling? Who REALLY is acting bigoted?

No, they are demons for not making sure that the people they demonize aren't present. This church or anyone else is perfectly within their rights to fantasize about God however they want... just be sure to warm people who they hate not to come and be a part of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am through arguing this as my stand here is firm. The bottom line here is that I am sick and tired of churches being demonized for standing up for their beliefs. Again - who is being intolerant here? Who is doing the name calling? Who REALLY is acting bigoted?

I don't think anyone's saying that the church should be forced to change its position on homosexuality.

Personally, I see two big issues here:

- in refusing to have the funeral, they broke a promise. This is, IMO, dishonest, and caused unneeded suffering to a family at a time when they already had too much.

- in doing this awful thing to make a doctrinal point, I believe they threw away the major Christian teachings of mercy and charity in favour of cold legalism. I believe that at its core, this is what the Gospels speak very much against and is (to re-use a phrase that may be familiar) a clear example of straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel.

Edit:

Even that said, the church most likely would have done the funeral if it had been allowed to do it in a respectful manner, not celebrating the person's lifestyle.

Your article specifically said that the church refused to compromise.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

- in doing this awful thing to make a doctrinal point, I believe they threw away the major Christian teachings of mercy and charity in favour of cold legalism.

You're right...