Would Your Church Host a Gay Funeral?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, August 13, 2007
- Viewed 237
- (96) comments so far
Here’s part of the original Dallas News story about the incident:
An Arlington church volunteered to host a funeral Thursday, then reneged on the invitation when it became clear the dead man’s homosexuality would be identified in the service.The event placed High Point Church in the cross hairs of an issue many conservative Christian organizations are discussing: how to take a hard-line theological position on homosexuality while showing compassion toward gay people and their families.
But the dispute between High Point Church and the friends and family of Cecil Sinclair has left confusion and hard feelings on both sides.
Mr. Sinclair, 46, died Monday. He was a native of Fort Worth, a Navy veteran who served in Desert Storm helping rescuers find downed pilots, and a singer in the Turtle Creek Chorale, said his mother, Eva Bowers. He did not belong to a church.
His brother, Lee, is an employee and member of High Point, a nondenominational mega-congregation led by the Rev. Gary Simons. Mr. Simons is the brother-in-law of Joel Osteen, nationally known pastor of Houston’s Lakewood Church.
When Cecil Sinclair became ill with a heart condition six years ago, church members started praying for him out of love for his brother, Mr. Simons said Thursday. And when Mr. Sinclair died of an infection, a side effect of surgery intended to keep him alive long enough for a heart transplant, a member of the church staff was immediately sent to minister to the family, he said.
Both the family and church officials agree that the church volunteered to host a memorial service, feed 100 guests and create a multimedia presentation of photos from Mr. Sinclair’s life.
But the photos that the family selected alerted church officials that there might be a problem with the service, Mr. Simons said.
Here is part of what Pastor Gary Simmons had to say to the church yesterday:
High Point Church regrets the unfortunate situation regarding the memorial service for Mr. Cecil Sinclair. Mr. Sinclair was not a member of High Point Church, neither was any one in his family, except for Lee Sinclair, who is employed by the church. Lee requested for the church pray for his brother when he became ill. The church prayed for Mr. Sinclair both enthusiastically and faithfully. Lee called one of our ministers to inform him that his brother was in the hospital in critical condition.When the High Point minister arrived at the hospital, Mr. Sinclair has already passed. The church minister reached out to the family and tried to comfort them the best that he could. 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, there were some inappropriate images that alerted the church to the homosexuality of Mr. Sinclair. The family requested an associate of the Turtle Creek Chorale, an openly homosexual choir, to officiate the service and for the choir to sing.
They also requested an open microphone format to allow anyone in attendance to speak. High Point Church ministers would not be allowed to direct the service, or to have control over what was said or emphasized. 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. [applause.]
You can read more here at the Dallas News Religion Blog...
FOR DISCUSSION: How would you have handled this situation? Do you agree with High Point’s assessment and actions?
There has been much press during the past week about High Point Church offering to host a funeral for a man outside their church who had just died. Evidently, they offered their facility to the family of the deceased veteran for free; then discovered he was an open homosexual. The church then retracted their offer to the family, saying they could not host the funeral. Much has been written about the situation, and today you can read some additional response from the High Point pastor...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Leonard on Mon, August 13, 2007
Jeremy, not offended in any way, just pointing out the assumption. As for celebrating, that is exactly what they were seeking to do. No staff from the church were going to be a part of the service, thee had photos of male kissing to display, they had an openly homosexual choir, singing. It matters in that these were not people saying, Wow, what a mistake that was made in choosing this lifestyle, lets remember this person. They were saying, this is an accepted lifestyle, we celebrate that is who he was.
Imagine someone saying at a funeral, Old Joe here was certainly a glutton. This man never met an excess he did not embrace. But you know to say goodbye to him, we are going to have a ceremony embracing his gluttony, we have a choir filled with gluttons, all declaring gluttony is okay. You an I would never stand for that. Fill in your sin of choice. Adultery, lying, stealing, bigotry, and imaging the choir of skin heads singing.
No the church made the right choice, but I would say a difficult choice at the very least.
bobby on Mon, August 13, 2007
Hey Leonard,
Just so you know, in regard to your prior comment, if you read the full article, the church did offer to pay for a different facility. So it looks like you’re in agreeance there.
Leonard on Mon, August 13, 2007
Thanks Bobby, I just missed that. My bad.
Jeremy on Mon, August 13, 2007
Leonard,
I guess that’s where my problem is. I feel like this issue is being magnified JUST BECAUSE it is homosexuality. I don’t feel like many churches would care if it was some other sin. I feel like too many people feel homosexuality is worse than the others, just because it’s homosexuality.
I’ve been a part of a church that has celebrated the life of someone who loved to party. That wasn’t the focus of the service, and I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that everyone there was celebrating homosexuality—they were celebrating his life…not the fact that he was gay. And therein lies the problem that I have.
I don’t believe for one moment that the intention of the family was to celebrate homosexuality, or the gay lifestyle. They were just wanting to remember their friend, brother, cousin, who was gay.
Why is that so wrong?
Zach on Mon, August 13, 2007
BTW, it was noted that there was applause, which is different than noting that some applauded the decision. Given the notation and context, I doubt that this was figurative. This gives away their true attitude on the subject in my opinion. There’s no way that we should be joyful about such a decision, if we even feel that it must be made.
Danny Daniels on Mon, August 13, 2007
Leonard,
I agree…well said.
jimmy on Mon, August 13, 2007
I agree with Jeremy. I doubt this would have been a problem if it had been just about any other sin. What if the pictures of the slide show had shown unmarried heterosexual “life partners” kissing each other? Do you think the church would have passed on the funeral?
GR Guy on Mon, August 13, 2007
From what I’ve read, it sounds like this situation was handled in a very God glorifying manner. The church honored it’s commitment by offering to pay for an alternative site to host the funeral, while not compromising it’s own principles. I think this church can be held up as an example.
Leonard on Mon, August 13, 2007
After re-reading the articles again, I still stand by the decision of the church. It seems rather than a cruel act of homophobia, the church did not possess full information about the deceased. Some of the statements that stand out to me are as follows.
“Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging,” he said. “My ministry associates were taken aback.”
“And then, he said, the family asked to have its own people officiate the service. “We had no control over the format of the memorial,” Mr. Simons said.”
“The issue was not so much that Mr. Sinclair was, from the church’s perspective, an unrepentant sinner, he said. It’s that it was clear from the photos that his friends and family wanted that part of his life to be a significant part of the service.”
It was also noted that this was a significant part of the service by those who attended. The church produced the video, provided food and offered to pay for services. This is not a case of a church being cruel but rather gracious in the face of an ethical dilemma. They did not respond in hatred they responded with offers of support.
As for the difference between this and other sins, again I say, it was the intent of the family to make homosexuality a key part of this man’s identity as an acceptable way of living.
Put in any other sin you wish and ask this question. If a family wanted to do a funeral service at your church for a pedophile and they were accepting of his being a pedophile as a part of his lifestyle. They had an all pedophile choir singing, photos of the deceased with children, would you let them? That is not about homophobia or a double standard it is about a church standing by the scriptures teaching that homosexuality is a sin. It is about a church displaying grace to that family without compromising its standards. It is about a family openly declaring that homosexuality is okay and acceptable.
jimmy on Mon, August 13, 2007
Seriously, do you think the church would have (or should have) passed on a funeral if there were pictures of the deceased kissing a “partner” that they were not married to?
jimmy on Mon, August 13, 2007
A Hetero partner, that is.
Leonard on Mon, August 13, 2007
with all due respect, that is not the issue Jimmy. The issue is of a church saying it will not openly endorse homosexuality.
jimmy on Mon, August 13, 2007
I think it is the issue. The church tends to let some sins slide while placing a big emphasis on others.
Leonard on Mon, August 13, 2007
how would you have handled it were you in charge? If you don’t mind can I ask if you are a lead pastor?
jimmy on Mon, August 13, 2007
I’m not a lead pastor. I think I would have honored the commitment, had the service, honored the deceased, and shown love for the grieving. The gay community doesn’t need another reminder of how the church feels about their particular sin. They know what we believe. How refreshing would that be if we just loved on them without expecting anything in return?
Page 2 of 7 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Post a Comment