A Texas megachurch is drawing fire from the homosexual community for refusing to host a gay man’s memorial service, which the church says goes against its church policy.
What started out as a small local dispute has evolved into a national controversy with worldwide media appeal as High Point Church in Arlington, Texas, remains firm in its decision to rescind its invitation to hold the memorial amid heavy criticism from pro-gay supporters.
“With all the negative e-mail we are receiving right now, it seems that the homosexual community – God bless them all – are very organized,” said the Rev. Gary Simons, senior pastor at High Point Church, during his Sunday sermon, according to The Dallas Morning News.
He emphasized the decision was not based on hatred.
"We did decline to host the service – not based on hatred, not based on discrimination, but based on principle," Simons told The Associated Press. "Had we known it on the day they first spoke about it - yes, we would have declined then. It's not that we didn't love the family."
Simons is the brother-in-law of well-known megachurch pastor and author Joel Osteen of Lakewood Church in Houston.
High Point Church backed out on its commitment to host the memorial of a former Navy veteran Wednesday evening – less than 24-hours before it was scheduled to take place.
The church said their decision was based upon several factors including photos turned over to them to create a multimedia presentation which made it clear that the deceased – 46-year-old Cecil Sinclair – was homosexual.
However, there has been contention between the church and Sinclair’s family over whether the photos explicitly promote homosexuality.
The church said in its issued statement that one photo shows a man with his hand touching another man’s genitalia. The family, however, has denied those accusations and said there was only a picture of Sinclair sitting with another man, but there was nothing sexual about the photo.
In addition to the photos, the family wanted to have a member of the openly homosexual choir Turtle Creek Chorale to officiate the service and for the choir to sing. They also wanted an open microphone format to allow anyone to speak.
“It became clear to the church staff that the family was requesting an openly homosexual service at High Point Church – which is not our policy to allow,” said the church’s statement.
“Allowing an openly homosexual service in our facility would condone homosexuality as a lifestyle,” read the statement. “We could not allow the homosexual lifestyle to be celebrated, flaunted or glorified in our church facility. We could not put inappropriate images on our screens or subject our members and possibly even our children to an openly homosexual service. We cannot condone what the Word of God condemns.”
Despite the differences, the church has repeatedly said that it is committed to caring and showing compassion to homosexuals and their families.
Many High Point Church members spent hours to prepare food for the 100 guests at Sinclair’s memorial service, which was moved to a nearby funeral home, and delivered the multimedia presentation, with the inappropriate photos removed, to the service. The church even offered to pay for another facility to hold the memorial service but the family declined. Continue >>
RSS
"We cannot condone what the Word of God condemns"...wouldn't it be nice if all the churchs in this country took this stand when it comes to the homosexual lifestyle .....God loves the person, but not the sin!!!
Let's all preach the gospel of christ in the homosexuals nasty little bathhouses and caste out those demons so that keep them in bondage. Amen.
WiccanTexan,....I will follow you and your bethren and thought processes to the very end,...Understand me? no big deal just gettin` it off my chest ,...thanks......
"I really think they tried to do what was right"
That's a joke, right? Who would Jesus reject?
WiccanTexan-
I hope we meet up again, I've enjoyed our chat. Till next time :)
"WiccanTexan - I understand what you're saying, I can't say I agree, but I understand."
Then I guess we'll leave it there. Thanks for listening to my point of view, even if you disgree. At least you took a look at it, a trait which is often sorely lacking in these sorts of discussions. ;) I can respect an informed disagreement more than a knee-jerk reaction.
I'm sure they did have good intentions, but I also hope they realize the mistakes that were made, and revise their approach if this sort of thing comes across their path again.
And on that note, thanks for the conversation, I'm sure I'll see you around on other ChristianPost articles!
WiccanTexan - I understand what you're saying, I can't say I agree, but I understand.
If it's any consolation I think they did it with the best intentions. I really think they tried to do what was right, and learned you can't please everyone. Who knows maybe in the future they will do things differently, but I figure they'll just keep muddling along as we all do, trying our best and screwing up along the way. Heaven knows I screw up enough :) I do hope it doesn't keep them from helping everyone they find in need, no matter what happens.
RBB:
I don’t take an honest question as mean-spirited; it’s simply asking for clarification. What would I have liked them to do? Not play the “principles” card after the fact. If it was truly about the belief, then it should have been a firm “no” across the board, regardless of what anyone else thought. Stand up for what you believe is morally right, even when everyone is watching and might not agree. Instead, quite frankly, it comes across to me as “We love the sinner, but the ones who aren’t quite good enough for us get relegated to second-class status because we can’t sully our precious building.” Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that’s the ultimate impression I got.
I’ve gotten into conversations with well-meaning Christians who simply don’t get how their actions are being perceived from outside their spectrum. They don’t want to see. They simply put on the morality vest and talk about how the “non-believers are all big meanies and just don’t get it.” But a good presenter, first and foremost, understands their audience. Whether I or anyone else personally agreed with their decision to not support this man’s lifestyle, the church would have been much more respected in the long run for making a consistent stand rather than the wishy-washy one that hurt this grieving family.
WiccanTexan - What would you have liked them to do? They could not hold the service there, with the content. Am I right in assuming you think it would have been better if they had just told them to get out and not done anything? Then they would have been accused of being heartless, mean-spirited, judgmental.... which actually they have, so...if you had been in their position what do you think they should have done. (No, don't answer that they should have just held the funeral...they couldn't ) Please note, not written in a mean spirited tone of voice, just trying to understand what you think their option was.
To Robocoastie:
THE TWELVE APOSTLES:
1. Andrew - crucified
2. Bartholomew - beaten then crucified
3. James, son of Alphaeus - stoned to death
4. James, son of Zebedee - beheaded
5. John - exiled for his faith; died of old age
6. Judas (not Iscariot) - stoned to death
7. Matthew - speared to death
8. Peter - crucifed upside down
9. Philip - crucified
10. Simon - crucified
11. Thomas - speared to death
12. Matthias - stoned to death
(source: Fox's Book of Martyrs)
"None of the disciples died of natural causes, save John." Hope this clarifies my claim.
“In most cases it was a matter of praying for the loved one or friend of a person you did know and love, such as this man's brother. In some cases there was more help needed such as food, services, etc, in which case that help was given.”
I can understand that as a general rule, but in this case, it just seems like when the person’s real life came into play, compassion went out the window for the family. It was the deceased that was gay, but the grieving family had to pay the price.
“I assume that they offered to pay for the place whatever service they planned to put on. They just couldn't in good conscience have it in their sanctuary. As to whether they offered to let them keep it in the church if they took that aspect out...no way of knowing. Once they knew the true situation they might have felt that they couldn't have it there either way.”
Unfortunately, it seems to the general public that the explanation of “supporting our beliefs” is hollow based on the information at hand, aka ‘we’ll help with the gay service outside the church building, but not inside the church building.’ The material structure is given more meaning than the teaching/tenet.
“Do you feel that churches or other public institutions should be forced to hold events that violate their beliefs?”
Depends on the circumstances.. For instance, public institutions paid for with tax dollars should not discriminate. If a church is tax-exempt/non-profit, there are rules to go by. If a church doesn’t want the Government in its business, it should forfeit the tax-exempt status and pay Caesar his due, so to speak. In this case, it doesn’t really matter. The church offered to host a gay memorial outside of church grounds, so “violation of belief” is not in play here that I can tell.
“Do you belong to any group that you feel should not have to host an event that you disagreed with? Just wondering.”
I don’t belong to any group that would have to face that decision.
"It would seem that the fact that the guy was gay, or involved with any sin, was less a problem then that the service was to celebrate, emphasize and glorify homosexuality in their church. "
That's where I see the hypocrisy. It's not about standing up for one's religious beliefs and values. It's about "we just don't want it in our yard." If they truly didn't want to support homosexuality, why agree to host it anywhere? Why, in essence, lead the family on and then leave them hanging, already deep in grief and now this?
WiccanTexan-
After I posted I noticed this last bit from the article.
High Point Church concluded: “The issue was not whether we would hold a memorial service for someone in a lifestyle of sin. We have assisted many families in this regard. The issue was whether we would allow an openly homosexual service that celebrated and emphasized homosexuality in our church.
“We love the homosexual, but cannot condone the homosexual lifestyle. We could not allow homosexuality to be glorified in this house of worship.
It would seem that the fact that the guy was gay, or involved with any sin, was less a problem then that the service was to celebrate, emphasize and glorify homosexuality in their church.
WiccanTexan-
"My question again is, if they were trying to hide his sexuality, why would they have then given the church a memorial that so openly celebrated it? I just don’t see it. There’s a part of this story we’re not being told."
I'm really not sure..it's a very good question though. Maybe they thought they had nothing to lose. The man was gone, and they may have thought the church would never cancel on them. There may be no way to know. I'm sure your right. There is only a little info in the article and I'm sure there's info on both sides that would help us understand what happened better.
"Which begs the question, what kind of ministering doesn’t bother to actually learn about the person they are praying for? Praying by proxy, simply because “that’s what we do,” doesn’t seem very caring or compassionate to me. It just sounds like spiritual autopilot."
I've never gone to a mega church and to tell the truth don't have the slightest desire to. The biggest I've ever done was our last church which was about 300. Even at that level there were people who we prayed for that we didn't know that much about. In most cases it was a matter of praying for the loved one or friend of a person you did know and love, such as this man's brother. In some cases there was more help needed such as food, services, etc, in which case that help was given. I ran the food pantry of the church and truthfully didn't know the sexual preferences of anyone, and didn't want to know.
"I don’t think a lot of human beings are ever really satisfied with what they think other people ought to be doing."
I couldn't agree more. We're always looking at others trying to see what they could be doing, when we should be looking at ourselves and see what we should be doing.
"I see a lot of “lip service” these days. Do you feel that’s prevalent, and perhaps why this sort of story gets a strong reaction"?
I don't think there is more today then in the past. If what you are saying is that those who are only paying lip service are the ones angry at this church, I could see it.
"Was the secular location the church offered to pay for still including that gay memorial service, and/or was the family offered the church facility if they took that part out?"
I assume that they offered to pay for the place whatever service they planned to put on. They just couldn't in good conscience have it in their sanctuary. As to whether they offered to let them keep it in the church if they took that aspect out...no way of knowing. Once they knew the true situation they might have felt that they couldn't have it there either way.
Do you feel that churches or other public institutions should be forced to hold events that violate their beliefs? Do you belong to any group that you feel should not have to host an event that you disagreed with.? Just wondering.
Robocoastie,
I think the Internet has been a wonderful tool for folks to have access to so much more information, and actual practitioners (of any faith). As for Wiccan/pagans telling people how they should celebrate… well, we do have the occasional rift between the British Traditionals and the more eclectic American brands of Wicca, but again, it tends to be amongst ourselves and not reported in the media.