Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Society|Wed, Aug. 15 2007 04:24 PM EDT

Texas Megachurch Harassed for Refusing to Host Pro-Gay Memorial

By Ethan Cole|Christian Post Reporter

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 »

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:57 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "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!!!

  • Sun Sep 09, 2007 9:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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......

  • Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:29 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "I really think they tried to do what was right"

    That's a joke, right? Who would Jesus reject?

  • RBB »
    Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:18 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    WiccanTexan-

    I hope we meet up again, I've enjoyed our chat. Till next time :)

  • Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:57 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "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!

  • RBB »
    Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:06 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:53 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • RBB »
    Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:03 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:58 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    “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.

  • Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:51 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    "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?

  • RBB »
    Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:07 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    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.

  • RBB »
    Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    RBB:

    “The family couldn't help but know where they stood.”

    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 have to wonder exactly what this "ministering to them" involved. ……If it was one of the former, it's even less likely they would have known anything substantial about the man.”

    I wonder as well. 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. This is one reason, IMHO, that megachurches get such skepticism hurled their way. They simply seem too big to have that personal touch (although I must admit, I do like Joel Osteen’s approach. We watch his show on Sundays sometimes.)

    “It sometimes seems like Christians can't win. If we supply aid, then we must be willing to compromise and should do more. If we don't supply aid we're judgmental, mean-spirited, and bigoted.”

    I think that’s human nature in general. Pagans have the same issues within our own community, we just don’t get the same media press as Christians do. Lucky you. ;) I don’t think a lot of human beings are ever really satisfied with what they think other people ought to be doing.

    “He is the embodiment of God, the God of the Bible. While He is loving and compassionate. He had no patience for those who disobey God. His new way of thinking is to try and impress on people that they had to obey God, not just pay Him lip service while doing what they want.”

    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?

    “Last night in occurred to me. What would have happened if the family had simply held the man's funeral there without trying to make it, as the article title put it a "pro-gay memorial" service? It seems like they suddenly didn't just want to bring the man out of the closet, but wanted to make it a celebration of his gayness (is that a word?)”

    It’s a word now! ;) Again, I don’t believe we’re being told the whole story. 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?

  • Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Agreed RBB

  • RBB »
    Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:29 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    It's so sad today that people are so ignorant of what the situation of the church is that they can make charges of people being Pharisees without having a clue what the Pharisee's problems really were, and less about the state of the church. It's just a catch all phrase that shows ignorance as far as I'm concerned. I see that said, I simply cease to read or care what other comments the person has to make.

  • Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 7

    WiccanTexan said: "That’s a very basic answer to a complicated journey, but it’s a summary."

    Bravo! Well summarized answer to a deeply personal question. Wicca is something that I don't profess **but** the information they put-out has helped many people to learn about things they've either taken for granted, forgotten or both. For example, my mother-in-law had never heard the start of summer called "Summer Solstice", both I and my wife were shocked. I was even taught those basics when I went to Lutheran school as a kid. I'm still shocked when I find people that don't realize why Easter, Christmas and a host of other chosen celebrations were decided to be celebrated on those days. Again, even back when I went to Lutheran school I learned those facts. So to the Wiccan community I applaud for having that information out there for those who weren't taught them. Oh and unlike the church not a single Wiccan/pagan has EVER said people should celebrate those days their way, they've just offered the history to those who want it.

  • Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

    "theseer01" said: "...None of the disciples died of natural causes, save John."

    Prove that claim please.

  • Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 7

    ""We did decline to host the service – not based on hatred, not based on discrimination, but based on principle," Simons told The Associated Press."

    What a liar. To discriminate means to treat one group or person differently than another. So what the church is doing IS discrimination, Simons just doesn't like the negativity to that word so he's hoping people are dumb enough to ignore its definition.

    **However** the church has the right based on their principles (which is discriminatory) to decline them for whatever reason they want since they are a private religious organization.

    The sad part is how the church today has become like the pharisees of Jesus time because what SImons is doing here is demonstrating "who is my neighbor" mentality. It's his way of being able to ignore the commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." In this case the lie is him twisting the definition of discriminate. It's like when someone says "well we love the sinner but hate the sin" what a load of nonsense, I used to say the same thing but it's nothing more than a way of ignoring them which your biblical Jesus called the religious authorities of the day hypocrits over. (actually he called them brood of vipers but that would violate your censorship rules here).

  • RBB »
    Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:12 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    Pax2you-

    I'm sorry, but you seem very confused on what you do and don't believe. You don't however seem confused with your hatred for Christians who believe differently from you. I'm sorry you feel that way. All I can suggest is that you gather more real experience before condemning so many people that you don't know.

  • RBB »
    Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    WiccanTexan- Till Monday....

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    RBB. Wonder if we know all of the details surrounding the memorial. Keep in mind, it is the author of the article that chose to describe this as a "pro-gay memorial" service" - that is the headling the author chose to characterize this. That was the author's opinion and the article, because of this, is more of a Commentary, than a news report. I have reviewed many other sources on this case, and in none of them, even in publications that have relgious affiliations, make any claim that the family wanted to hold a PRO_GAY rally of sorts. Nowhere is that claimed, except in the headlines of this article by this author? It is the author who is turning this story into a 'celebration of gayness', not the family or the participants in the memorial. If you look carefully at most of the 'articles' on this website, you can't ignore that they have a slant. Consider, what if the title of the article was "Mega Church turns family away and denies Navy Soldier a Christian memorial service to uphold it's Homophobic Anti-Gay stance: Is this how we 'support the troops? ask some Veterans." Hmmm, now that sounds a bit slanted too, doesn't it.

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:19 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    Wiccantexan and theseer1 make my earlier point. Fundamentalism has done more to turn people off to God than has brought people closer to God. Recent studies show most young people are rejecting religion in higher numbers than ever before. Young people from fundamentalist families, particularly mega church affiliates, soon leave the church after graduating college. The appeal of a mean spirited, unloving religion drive people to find other expressions of spiritualism. Wiccnatexan found Wicca to be comforting and fulfilling - something that was lacking in hsi/her previous affiliation. I can totally relate. I was raise in a very religious home, practiced my faith through and beyond college. It was only within the last 10 years, more closely to the last 8, that my interest in organized religion has waned. But I haven't lost my relationship with Christ. That goes on. What has totally turned me off is probably what turns off secularists in other countries of the Middle East - the loathing of pius self appointed voices of God pushing their fundamentalism and nationalsim on everyone. I don't want any part of it. Fundamentalism is evil. We see it be used in Islam, Protestansim, Cathaolicism, and Judaism to mention a few. No religion is immune from having it become hijacked. I love Christ. I love the sinner, but I do not love the sin of those who use Christ to promote their racism, their bigotry, their hate. Christ never hated anyone. Not even those who put Him to death. Nor did Christ ever turned away anyone, ever. So why is it that those who claim to follow Jesus feel so compelled to turn away those who Christ would welcome? I just don't get it.

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:57 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    There are many who have used the bible to justify all sorts of atrocities through out time. I hold the bible dear, but also recognize that it is a historical document, assembeld by the Catholic Church and then reformed by the English King James, head of the Anglican Church of England excommunicated by the Catholics. So, although I look to the bible for inspiration, I do so knowing that men with political agenda were involved with its asembly. Even those who formulated what is basic Chrisitan doctrine from the Council of Trent and Nicea, I have to recognize that these were men, perhaps inspired by the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless, sinful men with agendas. For me, the fundamental principle of Christianity lies solely in the CREDO: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;by whom all things were made;who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead;whose kingdom shall have no end.And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    hey RBB, what I was trying to say was just to reaffirm what Jesus says that "only through Christ can we be saved". That being the case, I don't think it necessary at all for us to need to do anything - all the work is done by Christ Himself. His sacrifice has done it all for us. It is thru Christ we are saved whether we like it or not. It is His decision. Jesus was merely just stating a fact, that savalation is achieved only thru Him and Him alone. His sacrifice has won us salvation. I can do nothing to faciliate my own salvation - it is only thru Christ that it is possible. Our rebith in Christ is thru Christ's for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that we may be saved. Our salvation is fully dependent on Christ - at His choosing, not because I do this or I do that or I fail to do this. Christ brings us to a new life, a reborn life. This is what Jesus meant.

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    RBB, leaving work now, but I will address your post on Monday. To everyone else, a very interesting discussion so far!

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Nerohdam, thanks for asking. It was the hypocrisy of the institution that led me away from Christianity. When I first proclaimed myself to Jesus Christ, I had an inner emotional shift that has never been equaled to this day. It put me on very solid footing, even in my darkest hours, that there was a Divine presence in the world. The love was so pure, so powerful, so intense, I cannot begin to describe it in text. However, the church itself left me cold. So I asked, “where do I go where my questions will be answered, where this experience makes sense when shared with others?” And here I am today. Through study and experience, I have found a serenity in Wicca that was not found in the earthly church. I never got angry with God, I never left the presence of the Divine. I simply realized that, seeing and understanding the profound complexity of the creation around me and within me, that God having many paths to the center made perfect sense. The Holy Spirit is the divine spark that illuminates us with the wisdom and knowledge of the Divine. How each person walks with that knowledge is personal. That’s a very basic answer to a complicated journey, but it’s a summary.

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:48 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    I recently discovered the Christian Post. I enjoy reading the different thoughts and passionate responses to today's issues, but there is one thing that troubles me. As a follower of Jesus Christ I expect to be treated with distain and hatred. None of the disciples died of natural causes, save John. Each disciple died at the hands of ungodly people. We live in a world that still needs Jesus. We live in a world that hates (for all of its talk of tolerance) Jesus. But we also live in a world of people who still accept Christ's work daily.
    Some on this post have made truth claims that are both accurate and awesome. Others have made excuses and justifications for things that Jesus is not just going to let slip by. And that is okay... Jesus said that is always going to be this way. Then one day it will be His way. But right now my call is to love, serve, and pray. I cannot save anyone, that is the Holy Spirit's work. SIN divides, SIN destroys, SIN calls wrong right and right wrong. If we are secure in our relationship with Jesus the noise made by a sinful world will disappear. I'm not advocating ingoring sin, but focusing on it like we have is destorying our mission. We are going to die someday whether by the hands of tolerance or by our aging flesh, but one thing will stay constant we will stand before the Lord of Glory and there will be no debate about sin. Christ's love

  • RBB »
    Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    WiccanTexan -
    A very close family member of mine is gay. I know what it is to hide what she is from friends, family, church. I'm sorry but I have no doubt that they could have, and would have, hidden what this man's life was, especially from the church, especially if they knew (which I'm sure they must have) what their beliefs were. I think the article said that the brother not only attended the church, but also worked there. The family couldn't help but know where they stood. I have to wonder exactly what this "ministering to them" involved. Was it simply praying for them, helping his brother through the ordeal of losing a family member, pastoral visits, or more hands on, like meals, laundry and cleaning. If it was one of the former, it's even less likely they would have known anything substantial about the man. Particularly in such a large church.

    The work they did in relationship to the family was just simple compassion. It sometimes seems like Christians can't win. If we supply aid, then we must be willing to compromise and should do more. If we don't supply aid we're judgmental, mean-spirited, and bigoted.

    I used to have a view of Jesus, that was maybe a bit like yours. When I was growing up in the church. My image of him got all rolled up with the views of the world, and what I thought Jesus "should be like". Actually reading the Bible, from cover to cover, totally changed my view of Him. I'm afraid that the person you describe is nothing like the real Jesus. He is the embodiment of God, the God of the Bible. While He is loving and compassionate. He had no patience for those who disobey God. His new way of thinking is to try and impress on people that they had to obey God, not just pay Him lip service while doing what they want.

    I have to agree with you about those who are what you call Sunday Christians. It is a belief you have to live. You just need to make sure that the belief you are living is the one that God (Jesus) spelled out in the Bible. You have to love, be compassionate, treat people as you would want to be treated, in all aspects of your life everyday. You must be willing to do things like turning the other cheek and forgive those who hurt you and those you love. Not an easy life. BUT...you also have to obey Gods commandments. That isn't what "saves" you, but it is necessary, and what He taught.

    Last night in occurred to me. What would have happened if the family had simply held the man's funeral there without trying to make it, as the article title put it a "pro-gay memorial" service? It seems like they suddenly didn't just want to bring the man out of the closet, but wanted to make it a celebration of his gayness (is that a word?)

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wiccan what made you become a non-Christian out of curiousity? Not trying to attack you but based upon my experience I don't think I could ever leave the presence of the Lord. I may get angry at God but to leave makes me wonder if you really gave your heart to the Lord. The wiccan group is such a different spirit than that of the Holy Spirit that I am afraid you have been deceived by something when you "first gave your heart to Christ". Again just curious ...

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "In the New Testament, Jesus spent time with the hopeless, the hurting, essentially, the unlovable. These are all true, but Jesus was not content to leave them this way."

    Correct, his goal was to lead them to salvation. However, his process was to open the door and let them make the decision. He didn't withdraw from them if they didn't do it when he wanted them to. This church, on the other hand, deepened the burden of this family based on a dead person's lifestyle, less than a day before the memorial was to occur. They might have been involved in the planning part, but obviously not that involved in actually finding out about the deceased until the 11th hour.

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:08 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    jcisfiction, I must say for the record that, compared to other forums I've been on, this one is very polite even in the disagreements. Christians on a Christian board are going to quote scripture; just take that as a given and proceed with your own points.

  • jab »
    Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:06 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    In the New Testament, Jesus spent time with the hopeless, the hurting, essentially, the unlovable. These are all true, but Jesus was not content to leave them this way. Everyone wants to talk about "casting the first stone" but they forget John 8:11 where Jesus says, "...go and sin no more". Everyone wants to paint a picture of a Jesus who was all accepting, but forget about the rich young ruler that Jesus told to sell everything. Jesus didn't accept him as he was and that man went away "disheartened" (Mark 10:22). And I'm sick of being called a Pharissee because I don't believe that people should twist the Bible to make it seem like it gives them freedom to "believe whatever they want to believe". These same people will turn to Matthew 7 and say "judge not", well let me ask you a question. How is it that verse 15 of that same chapter tells to "beware of false prophets" if we can't "judge" who's false? Its because the seat of Judgment belongs to Christ, but I have the responsibility to discern who is false SO THAT I WON'T BE "taken captive by philosophy and empty deciet"(Col 2:8). I just have to ask the same question Jesus did in Luke 6:46, "Why do you call (Jesus) 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what (He tells) you?"

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    jab,

    "Wiccan Christians? Please."

    Who said anything about that? They're two separate faiths.

    " As a Christian, one thought keeps coming to my mind...if this man and his family didn't attend church in life, and had no time for God during those years, why do they suddenly need the Church and God for a funeral? So, maybe its just a building...it was the same building the week before, did they attend then?"

    jab, you do have a good point there. However, it was the brother of the deceased, who was an employee and member of the church, that requested the church's prayers and ministering. So, wouldn't you consider this family participation?

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    “Dear Wiccan~ I know that Jesus Christ did not lead you into something contrary to His Word. That's not even debatable. However a spirit of some kind certainly did.”

    ForloveofTHECROSS, it is beyond my ability in text to be able to show you what the Christ spirit did for me in my life. So we’ll leave that to, “it’s between God & me.” Not being a Wiccan (to use your own terminology), you have no idea of how/why God led me here.

    I’m not a Christian now, but my experience as a born-again certainly gives me insight on what was considered in this church’s decision. And I disagree with it.

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    “I have to ask, from your question "how was this man's sexuality disguised". What exactly do you mean.”

    RBB, I meant that in their time of grief and preparation for this man’s death, it seems only natural that this family would have brought up his sexuality in the course of talking to the ones ministering to them. I get the impression that it would have come up, especially with the very public service including it that was requested.

    “As to all the work the members did in relationship to making food, helping with the media presentation, and offering to pay for another facility, that is what I would call showing compassion without compromising their beliefs.”

    I’ll have to disagree with that. They were still, in essence, supporting the same memorial service that focused on his homosexuality. They just didn’t want it in their building. However, if they were truly not “compromising their beliefs,” wouldn’t it make more sense to not participate at all?

    “You say that you have a deep respect for those who "walk as Jesus did". I have to ask what you think that is.”

    My definition of that is that the story of Jesus shows a man who was a living embodiment of “do the right thing, do the compassionate thing, even if no one else agrees.” He defied the ruling religious conservatives of his time. He embraced the company of social pariahs as people worth saving, and worth the effort. He didn’t care about social image, had no problem with speaking out about new ways of thinking/acting in an extremely restrictive society. Those and other things are the qualities I look at. It doesn’t include, for me, Sunday Christians and people whose personal actions contradict their moral righteousness.

    Does that clarify it more for you?

  • Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:08 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    As to not oversimplify the Christian faith:
    James 2:20
    "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"
    Let him who has ears listen.

  • RBB »
    Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Actually what those verses say is that only through Christ can we be saved. If biblical scholars have been debating their meaning then they have been wasting time that could have been spent on studying passages that really needed debate.

    I have no interest in whether something pertains to a "classical Protestant line". What matters is what scripture says. The Bible also says that we must follow God's commands, and repent of our sins, among many other things. Something that this church and others like it are doing to the best of their ability.

    Until you actually have some experience with mega churches, fundamentalists, and the Bible, you might want to refrain from calling them names. That might be construed as judgmental, intolerant and bigoted.

  • Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:00 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    RBB: You provide 2 very important verses..
    "John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

    and
    Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."


    I imagine bilbical scholars since the canon was selected, have debated the meaning of these passages. Might I offer up this possibility: Thru God's grace and the gift of His Son's Passion, Death, and Resurrection, won for all of mankind the gift of salvation. That thru this, we are all saved for once and for all. Drawing upon a classic protestant line of thinking, there is no act or work that we can do to win salvation - that it is only thru Christ we can be saved - surely then, it must be the case that salvation is a gift without need of work or deed on our part to initiate. Then, by that reasoning, only God knows who that gift is bestowed upon irrespective of any act performed by the individual. I submit, therefore, that no active act, including the overt act as some people refer to as "being saved" or "accepting Christ", be necessary to obtain salvation. For if God wills that His gift of salvation be bestowed, it shall be bestowed irrespective of anything anyone does or fails to do.

  • Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:18 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

    I must admit, I have lived a rather insulated life. My Christian personal religious experience has grounded in traditional liturgical apostolic mainline Christianity, so my experience with Christians from these so-called Mega Churches is rather limited. I get the impression that some are Fundamentalist Christianist while others are more in line with traditional reformed protestantism. The former scare me alot. These are the ones who interweave nationalism and fundamentalism into a dangerous mix in my opinion. I have often wondered, as I suspect alot of Christians have, as to what form the Anti-Christ would come. I am now convinced that Satan is making use of fundamentalist nationalism to pushing people away from God. If you think about it, what a clever, and Satan is a very clever angel, and bold way to lead God's people astray than to do so in the name of God. I mean, what a totally anti-Christian, diabolical way to get his foot hold on the souls of mankind. Who would suspect it? It is so easy. Think about it. Those of you who don't see something just inherently un-Christian about the way this Mega Church acted in this case - not out of love for one of God's creations, but just to stand by some percieved need to distance themselves from the lifestyle of the man so as not to appear as if they are condoning it. In thinking about this reason, and the emotion surrounding it and the various comments made here in favour of that church's position - what emotion, what feeling, what is it that comes to your mind? Surely it cannot be love for the sinner while hating the sin, for if that were the case, surely one would say "Certainly, hold the memorial and pray that God may forgive the man for his sins", but no - that does not appear to be the reaction at all. Moreso it seems the message is "Cast out the sinner, let us have nothing to do with him for he is unworhty - he is not welcome." So, what is the reaction to this by others? It paints Christianity as an intolerant bigot infested religion, not of love as it claims, but of piousness, self rightousness, and exclusiveness. A religon only for the sinless, the perfect, the wonderful. It sure makes Chrisitanity seem very unattractive.

  • Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:45 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

    Armor-1, by your logic, Jesus should not have only cast the stone at Mary Magdeline, but should have stoned her to death since that is what the law required. She was obviously unworthy and Jesus was just condoning her sinful lifestyle by allowing her to live. Yup, should have stood by His principles and put her to death.

  • Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:34 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    dgnymn, I would not be so arrogent to say I claim to know what Jesus would say to anyone on judgement day. To me, that is a rather blasphemous claim and I think we tread too close to Jesus' prescription that we should not judge others lest we be judged by that same measure. I think God is infinitely merciful, just and loving - so much so that He will welcome all who accept Him -even the sinner. Oh, surely there will be a time of purification needed - we all are sinners and as such fall far short of what God expects of us. Nevertheless, God's love is infinite and beyond our feable understanding. So, in humbleness, I cannot say what God will do. All I can hope for, is that God will look upon us wither mercy and love and offer us redemption thru his gift of grace.

  • Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:18 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

    Fortheloveofthecross - a few points of factual clarification. According to the Oxford English dictionary, the definition of sodomy is quite precise - it is a noun meaning anal intercourse. It is not synomous with homosexual sex, though homosexual sex can certainly involve sodomy. Heterosexuals that practice sodomy are not homosexuals, therefore, your inference that the terms are one in the same is incorrect.

    If the sin of sodomy is what irritates you and is sufficient cause to deny a practicing sodomite a funeral memorial service, then surely other such sins as discribed in Leviticus should similarly exclude people from such services. Sins such as eating pork, conuming meat from animals other than those that have cloven hoves and chew their cud, women who fail to clense themselve in the ceremonial bath during menstruation, mixing linen with cotton, eating meet seathed in its mothers milk, etc etc. Certainly sins that violate any of the big 10 should not be welcome, expecially adulterers. I would classify remarried divorces in this group too "for what God has joined together let no man put usunder". Yes, there are far too many sinners in this world, and by all rights, they should all be excluded - not just the evil gay people, but the fornicators, adulterers, blasphemers, and all who violate the Torah should just off with themselves and stay the H away from the pius righteous among us. For surely, the Lord did not come for these inferiors, but for the righteous. And if you believe that, then may the Lord have mercy on your soul. AD MAJREM DEI GLORIUM. Et in nomine Domini, et Filii, et Spiritu Santi. AMEN.

  • Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:02 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Dear Jcisfiction,

    There is only one major question which needs to be answered by you, and that is, "what will you do with Jesus Christ?" And another - "Will you make of no effect the Cross of Christ, where He laid down His life for your sins and for the forgiveness of your sins?"

    One day, either now or later, you will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, and the question will be asked, "why should I let you into My heaven. You who said you didn't want or need Jesus' love?" And you will stand as an empty suit, a sinner not saved by grace, and banished forever into a Christless eternity.

    While you may believe you have a life, Jesus said that "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through me." Now is the acceptable time. Now is the time of salvation!!

  • jab »
    Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:32 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 2

    There are many who will claim some form of Christianity...I refer them to Matthew 13:1-23. This is the parable of the Seed Sower. I think many "Christians" should hold an evaluation and see how their "fruit is coming along". Wiccan Christians? Please. As a Christian, one thought keeps coming to my mind...if this man and his family didn't attend church in life, and had no time for God during those years, why do they suddenly need the Church and God for a funeral? So, maybe its just a building...it was the same building the week before, did they attend then? I think the Church went above and beyond in showing the love of Christ while standing firm on their faith. The Sanctuary is holy and sacred to God, they had every right to deny its use in a secular service.

  • Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:49 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

    Simple Answer. WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, REFERR TO GOD'S MANUAL, THE BIBLE!!
    The Office of Clergy is a Holy Office established in Leviticus. There are qualifications to be Priest,Elder,or Deacon. If you can't meet the standard, too bad. What is Holy, we are to keep Holy. The Old Testament tells how He Dealt with those who desecrated what He valued as Holy. To take a pedaphile and allow them to run the nursery People would riot. To have a rapist counsel the young women people would be furious. Pitchforks and torches would be brought out if a thief were the treasurer. The Priest/Pastor position is Holy, and The person as even more riding on his or her shoulders. To have what God says is an abomination as a Priest over his people is a slap in the Face to God, and devious to the people. So, people need to meditiate on this mistake they made, either reverse it, or everyone backing them need to be excommunicated! They can work it out with Jesus, but this is not to be tollerated. Simple.

  • RBB »
    Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    jcisfiction-

    If what you said was true...... " I don't want or need Jesus's love. The only people that are blinded are those of your who let a fairy tale control your life. I am a perfectly happy person who is living a fulfilling life and it has nothing to do with anything you or the other sheep in your flock believe"......Then you wouldn't be on this site. You would be happily leading your fulfilled life, not trying to argue your doubt away here.

  • RBB »
    Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:16 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    WiccanTexan- I would support the churches decision in regard to any case where the person was living in unrepentant sin.
    Sorry, but in my opinion a promise is a very serious thing, not just telling someone you agree to something. I don't see this in any way as a promise.

    I have to ask, from your question "how was this man's sexuality disguised". What exactly do you mean. I've nursed several people through death. Are you under the impression that someone who is dying of cancer, ALS, or whatever this man died of, somehow looks different if they are gay or straight? When someone is sick and dying, there is no telltale mark to distinguish one from another. The only way to tell is if someone tells you, just as when someone is well.

    As to all the work the members did in relationship to making food, helping with the media presentation, and offering to pay for another facility, that is what I would call showing compassion without compromising their beliefs.

    On your question about if the family hid his homosexuality you would have to ask the family, but I would hope you would wait until they have had some time to grieve. As to if the church didn't want anything so openly gay, of course they didn't, it is completely against what God commands in the Bible. That is why, I believe, if they had been aware of the situation from the start they wouldn't have made the original arrangements.

    You say that you have a deep respect for those who "walk as Jesus did". I have to ask what you think that is.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Listen to Sermons by  
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links