church refuses gay man's funeral

[sweetycakes]

Just WHAT IS IT, THESE DAYS, THAT A SOCIETY CAN FOIST UPON IT'S CITIZENS THAT A MAN HAVING SEX WITH A MAN IS ACCEPTABLE?

It is NOT acceptable. It is an abomination!

I may get flamed. I don't really care......

But a MAN having sex with another MAN is totally abominable.

I will stand by what I said, come what may!

Get flamed Stephen because that is absolutely correct. It goes against natural laws of Creation. As Christians, we love the homosexual but we abhor and hate the act because it is wrong.

(((ok, completely off tangent... sweet cakes = stephen ?)))

"As Christians, we love the homosexual but we abhor and hate the act because it is wrong."

Easier said than done.

Yep, that's me....Stephen. Ted changed my name, because he had some grudge against me.....I'll get him back, though

Regarding 'love the homosexual but abhor the act'.....

Yes, it easier said than done. As are a lot of things in our lives.

To be honest, I have known quite a few homosexuals in my life. They tend to be quite gentle and harmless characters, and don't do me any harm, as opposed to, say, a vicious burglar or mugger.

But I would still take exception to allowing a homosexual lifestyle or belief system becoming commonplace in the church setting, or in Christian thinking in general.

Homosexuality is NOT compatible with Christianity.

[Daly1981]

Umm I not sure what to say but apart of me thinks they should of held the funeral because he was a person but another part is like they shouldn't of the lifestyle that he led because he was gay. I think those kinds of situations are tricky.

Edited August 11, 2007 by Daly1981

[Guest LadyC]

hmmmm... i really don't know what to think about all this. should a gay person be denied a funeral by a minister? seriously, this is way different than a pastor having to perform a wedding ceremony, because the pastor who does that has (IMO) some moral obligation to the couple he weds. but this guy is DEAD. i see no reason whatsoever that he should be denied a funderal, as long as their are certain conditions met....

for instance, there should be no photos of him embracing a lover or a lifestyle that is abhorrent to God. and.... like it or not, i think the family must understand that the pastor isn't going to be saying anything in the service that indicates the man is in heaven.

do church pastors make a habit of refusing to perform funerals for other non-believers who have died?

[XianGothDude]

I must say I'm appaled at some of the answers I have read; when are Christians going to learn that being in the world means being within EVERY part of the sick and the hurting and the dying. Is it too much to ask that we as Christians get our hands dirty? I mean the church is for worship of God but its also a place for the hurting too. I'm not condoning the homosexual lifestyle but pictures or no pictures; this man was a person; was a creation. "But I would still take exception to allowing a homosexual lifestyle or belief system becoming commonplace in the church setting" - guess what, news flash that's the world and as Christians we need to wake up and realize that when people come into the church its not for the faintest reasons of "attacking" or "disrupting" the service; LET the service be interupted. I don't know about you people; but Jesus if you want a Christian example of making a point; try loving people JUST loving people, and not trying to make "Christian" examples by barring some and letting others.

[nebula]

So we can pray for him but not hold a funeral service for him....? Out of respect, the family should have agreed NOT to show the photo's of his personal love life, remembering the service is in the Lord's House.

Well looks like I'm going to be the odd one out here. While I absolutely agree the church should have refused the pictorial display that "showed" how he lived his life, a funeral is for the living, to help family/friends grieve and receive comfort from each other. I think this is very sad, and I think if I was the brother that attended here, I would no longer be attending.

I agree Scarlet. I think there are double standards. Many gays are welcome to attend Church but a line is drawn here at a funeral service. His family needed to make compromises concerning the way the service would go(NOT SHOW PHOTOS OF KISSING ETC) and I think the funeral should have gone ahead. It's not a service about his "lifestyle" but acknowledging a life was lived.

Hey -

I can appreciate your POV with this, but there are some points I read that warrant consideration here, I believe:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement from High Point Church pastor <<--LINK to full statement

10:08 PM CDT on Sunday, August 12, 2007

The church did offer the family, free of charge, the use of this facility for the memorial service. It was not disclosed at this time that the deceased was homosexual or that the family desired an openly homosexual memorial service.

The family requested that the church produce a video of Mr. Sinclair

[Guest Biblicist]

I agree with what the church did.

I don't understand why they would have wanted the funeral service there. That seems rather silly to me.

I could see if his homosexual lifestyle was part of his witness, "saved from the lifestyle" or something, but this. No, it's unacceptable. Good choice by the church staff.

[hepatocyte]

Did his brother not know that he was openly homosexual?

[sweetycakes]

I must say I'm appaled at some of the answers I have read; when are Christians going to learn that being in the world means being within EVERY part of the sick and the hurting and the dying. Is it too much to ask that we as Christians get our hands dirty? I mean the church is for worship of God but its also a place for the hurting too. I'm not condoning the homosexual lifestyle but pictures or no pictures; this man was a person; was a creation. "But I would still take exception to allowing a homosexual lifestyle or belief system becoming commonplace in the church setting" - guess what, news flash that's the world and as Christians we need to wake up and realize that when people come into the church its not for the faintest reasons of "attacking" or "disrupting" the service; LET the service be interupted. I don't know about you people; but Jesus if you want a Christian example of making a point; try loving people JUST loving people, and not trying to make "Christian" examples by barring some and letting others.

The difference being (as you failed to mention), is that the 'sick' want to get well......the 'hurt' want to be healed....and the 'dying' want to live.

What I take exception to, is somebody who is practicing an openly homosexual relationship, has no intention of changing, and who sees it as his 'right' to demand equal status for his lifestyle within the Christian community, teaching, or tradition.

[Scarletprayers]

So we can pray for him but not hold a funeral service for him....? Out of respect, the family should have agreed NOT to show the photo's of his personal love life, remembering the service is in the Lord's House.

Well looks like I'm going to be the odd one out here. While I absolutely agree the church should have refused the pictorial display that "showed" how he lived his life, a funeral is for the living, to help family/friends grieve and receive comfort from each other. I think this is very sad, and I think if I was the brother that attended here, I would no longer be attending.

I agree Scarlet. I think there are double standards. Many gays are welcome to attend Church but a line is drawn here at a funeral service. His family needed to make compromises concerning the way the service would go(NOT SHOW PHOTOS OF KISSING ETC) and I think the funeral should have gone ahead. It's not a service about his "lifestyle" but acknowledging a life was lived.

Hey -

I can appreciate your POV with this, but there are some points I read that warrant consideration here, I believe:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement from High Point Church pastor <<--LINK to full statement

10:08 PM CDT on Sunday, August 12, 2007

The church did offer the family, free of charge, the use of this facility for the memorial service. It was not disclosed at this time that the deceased was homosexual or that the family desired an openly homosexual memorial service.

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.

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. It became clear to the church staff that the family was requesting an openly homosexual service at High Point Church

[nebula]

Well if you notice Neb, I said...........the church had the right to refuse the pictorials and a homosexual "service".....................but I still don't agree with the final decision and if I was a member of this church............I would be shaking the dust from my feet and finding another place to fellowship. Your opinion, my opinion.

Forgive me, but I am not clear on what you would have preferred happening differently?

These are the points I noticed, just so you understand what I am looking at:

* The video was one of the issues of concern; the homosexual choir and open mic were two others. "High Point Church ministers would not be directing or have control over what was said or emphasized."

* "To assist the family in securing another location, an alternative venue was paid for - which the family declined"

* "We also prepared and delivered food for the family and one hundred relatives and friends."

If you would clarify your position with regards to these points, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!