Church learns vet was a sinner, cancels memorial

That is just wrong in my book. I personally don't think that being gay is a sin. I think you are born that way or not. I never chose to be a heterosexual. I just have always been attracted to men. That doesn't make me better than someone else.

Even if you believe being gay is a sin like you said is it really THE sin to end all sins. How many people do you think have been laid out in this church that committed sins? All of them?

What Would Jesus Do? - I believe he would reach out in love not condemn in judgementalness. "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people that you do unto me". I guess they denied Jesus a funeral service. Or how about the plain and simple golden rule, do unto others as you would have done to you. Would they want this done to them?

It seems to me that in order to judge the pastor's actions as being consistent with whatever doctrines and rules they had set for themselves concerning homosexuality, we would need to know a bit more information than the link provides.

For example, by the link, it seems that the pastor and members of the church may not have known the man was a practicing homosexual. If they had known and were consistent with church practice and Biblical teaching denouncing homosexuality as a sin, then they would have counseled him about it.

There is not enough information in the link to denounce the pastor outright for making the decision not to conduct the funeral service of a man actively practicing homosexuality especially if it was revealed to him at the last minute.

The fact that the church made what seems like more than adequate provisions for the funeral service to be held elsewhere was the very next best thing they could do.

Oh no, an organization that actually upholds it's standards, even in the face of public ridicule? Whatever shall we do with such ethics and intergrity!

It's nice to be able to rewrite the Bible according to what we WANT it to say!

While I agree homosexuality should not be an "unforgivable" sin, I didn't make the rules as to whether or not it is a sin!

Would Jesus reach out to this person? ABSOLUTELY! But would Jesus pussyfoot around the sin in this man's life? NO!



I've said it before, Para, and people like Loca only confirm this. If they have their way, churches that teach according to the Bible will be outlaw churches within a generation or two. They will have their tax exempt status removed, then, when they try to operate WITHOUT their tax exempt status, the government will attempt to prosecute them repeatedly for trivial legal transgressions.

It's nice to see our "tolerant" one does not practice what she preaches, and is intolerant of people like this! Man, I want a glass house, too!

You've nailed it, Gideon. This is already happening in Canada where it's a big "no, no" saying homosexuality is a sin, actually it's a hate crime. The end point of the homosexual agenda is to silence the Church who in the end is the only institution that will stand up against the homosexualist juggernaut and their agenda.

Truth is, there is no sin that is unforgivable. All that's needed on our part is recognition of the sin, repentance, and a firm will not to sin again...when that happens...ALmighty and Merciful God will do His part and forgive the sin and it will be remembered no more.

Christ told the woman caught in adultery "to sin no more".

If she did continue in adultery and died unrepentant in that sin or if this guy in the article died in his sin of homosexuality, then the Bible tells us what has happened to his soul, check out the first link. Jesus will condemn him and that is very hard for people to 'hear'.

"Even if you believe being gay is a sin like you said is it really THE sin to end all sins. How many people do you think have been laid out in this church that committed sins? All of them?"

Being sexually attracted to the same sex is not a sin. Lusting after them is a sin, as is lusting after someone of the opposite sex. Having sex is a sin, unless within the construct of marriage, which is between a man and a woman.

If a man was living with a woman not his wife, would they have not done his ceremony? That's living in sin just as the homosexual lifestyle is sin. Conduct does not make the person though - while Loca believes that a homosexual is a separate creature from the rest of us, born that way, I believe homosexual conduct is a choice. BECAUSE CONDUCT IS A CHOICE. I could right now choose to go out and have sex with another man. I'm not going to, but I could. Would that make me a homosexual, born that way? No, it would make me a HUMAN BEING with choices regarding his actions. People who choose to make that a lifestyle, however, are definitely to be reached out to by the church. But, as Gideon said... you can't 'pussyfoot' around the issue of the sin in his/her life. Just like a person having sex outside of marriage, or committing adultery, or prostitution, or lying, or whatever it is needs to be confronted.

As for physical attractiveness being the basis for who you should sleep with... that's always been shallow. Physical attractiveness changes based on the day, your mood, how long you've known someone, whether you're bored with them, whether they changed their own appearance somehow, their mood, the way they look at you, and any number of other factors to do with how you and they interact.

Well said Jythier! It's a matter of choice and conduct what people do.



It was good of the church to arrange for the service elsewhere and I can't say I blame them because the man's lifestyle is not in their beliefs and if they made that abundantly clear before they should stick to their policies. It's just inconvenient to the family and friends of the man who died.





"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"...in a manner of speaking.

No comment on the actions of the guy's church. I will say it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

One weird thing I DID notice was that the closest thing to the word "homosexual," if you updated those two passages using the King James version, was "effeminate." How strange. Wonder why that is? Hmmm...*ponder*...hmmm...*shakes head* It's a mystery! Unless it isn't.

as far as i know there are only two unforgivable sins. murder and suicide.

not killing as in a war.



i looked it up effeminate (comparative more effeminate, superlative most effeminate)

Positive
effeminate
Comparative
more effeminate
Superlative
most effeminate


(of a man or boy) Having behaviour or mannerisms considered typical of a woman or girl.


1. (of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.
2. characterized by excessive softness, delicacy, self-indulgence, etc.: effeminate luxury.

it seems that some gay men fit this difinition.

the ones who want you to call them woman. not that i have or ever will do that.

Thanks for posting the definition. It makes one thing clear - while some gay men might be effeminate, effeminate does not equal homosexual.

I guess someone just decided they were qualified to rewrite the bible. I'm sure it was divine inspiration. The guy that was divinely inspired before wasn't divinely inspired enough, I guess.

That is the thing of it. Most of us aren't biblical scholars and can't read the original version whether it was in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic etc. There are versions that try to be a literal word for word translation and others are more paraphrases that seek to be more easily readable. Homosexual wasn't even a concept or word until the 1800's.

Another point that seems easily missed is that Jesus never condemned gay behavior. There are so many things in the Bible that were acceptable at the times they were written in but not anymore. I don't understand why people can't understand that people use the Bible to justify their prejudices. The Bible condoned polygamy, slavery, etc. many things that we don't believe are right today. The bible says that if a woman's husband dies and he doesn't have a son, his wife should sleep with all of his brothers until she conceives. That's biblical, at the time it was written that was acceptable, now it is not.

It seems like people who want to find a biblical justification for their actions or beliefs can find it. Instead of reading the Bible as a spiritual guide, they look to it only for a single Bible verse that they can quote in defense of their beliefs.



Do you think that this church has never held funeral services for people who have committed these sins?

I think I am going to have to write a separate article. I will link back.

That's a flat out bold faced lie, Loca. Even the staunch advocates of homosexuality would call you on that. It has had its place in every major culture throughout history, and I'm certain they had a word for it.



It's more than a single verse, Loca. I could show you a whole lot of verses in that direction...in the Old AND the NEW Testament.

Again, you're bigotted against these churches, Loca. That's hypocrisy at its finest.



Now THAT is a salient point, and THAT is the issue here, honestly. I think the church has a right to uphold its values in the services it performs, but the question is, are they overlooking other sins while playing up homosexuality.

BUT...one of the issues here had to do with a video tribute that showed this guy with his lover. That was part of the memorial service and part of the objection. Do those who patronize prostitutes or lie have videos EXTOLLING these lifestyles at their funerals? The ONLY thing I would consider comparable to this would be if an unmarried heterosexual couple that had a sexual relationship without being married put a video tribute up. Would the church refuse their funeral as well as the homosexual couples? I don't know about THIS church, but I know of many churches that would.

By the way, Loca, I am glad that without knowing Hebrew, Latin, or Greek, YOU can claim to be enough of an authority to call conservative Christians liars.

My point has been missed or DISmissed...not sure which. Doesn't natter.

The Christians only have one thing to go on for their beliefs. The Bible. And the more zealotous ones will claim that the Bible is the very word of God and was delivered to man through divine inspiration. My point is, how is it that it keeps changing? The only way it could change and still be valid is if it was further divine inspiration, and how can one be more divinely inspired than another? Is the mind of God so in flux? If it is, then why? Rational statement, anyone?

I wish they'd just face it. Men/women write these books - God does not, and "divine inspiration" is just a rationalization for what they write. Lack of thinking forsakes the brain God gave you. Become divinely inspired yourself, and forsake that book. You don't need it. You can figure out all of this on your own without an everchanging roadmap written by people that would control you.

To deliberately ignite debate over homosexuality using an individuals unfortunate death is not the brightest idea on the block. The Pastor was right to uphold his and his church's beliefs. If they disagreed with them, they should have gone to another church that accepts such funerals. Long standing members of the congregation? Why when that Church clearly held those views. Personally I dont think it matters a hoot whether he was homosexual or not, but that Church has an equal right to uphold its beliefs.

There are better more sane ways to make a statement - however right it may be - than using a dead body to make one.

Agreed.

While it pains me that the mans family had to suffer about the Church refusing to bury him, he {the dead-man} was responsible for his actions and his family was too, what were they thinking showing a tribute in church with two men 'being affectionate" towards each other? I think if not for the 'IN YOUR face" tribute to homosexuality they would have buried the man quietly.

Thank you so much to everyone for your comments. This is exactly why I wrote this, so we could have this discussion.

However, after further reflection I do feel that maybe I was a little hasty in my condemnation of the church. Let me share a few more thoughts with you:

First of all, as I mentioned, I do believe that the practice of homosexuality is a sin, as is having sex outside of marriage, lying, coveting your neighbors house, gossiping...my personal beef is with the idea that homosexuality seems to be treated as something so much worse than other sins.

On further review of the original article, it is clear that the Mr. Sinclair (the deceased) was not a member of the church, he was just employed as a janitor there. If he had been a member, most likely his sexuality would have been known and the church would have dealt with the issue prior to his death. We can only guess as to what might have been the outcome then.

It is "he said - she said" as to whether or not the church officials knew that Mr. Sinclair practiced homosexuality when they agreed to do the funeral. Although it seems to me that if they had known at that point and agreed, they would not have backed out later. But again this is just speculation. It is also "he said - she said" about the photos for the tribute. The church officials claim that there were "pictures of men 'engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing.'" The family on the other hand claims that none of the pictures included any affection. We may never know the truth.

We are getting into scary territory when we want to dictate what a church can and cannot believe. I agree with lulapilgrim and foreverserenity that the church has every right to, and should, stand by its principles.

However, I think churches everywhere are in a difficult position these days. If that church had hosted the funeral, would it not have made news because their actions condone homosexuality when their words condemn it? Those hypocrites.

And it is important to note that although the church did not feel comfortable hosting the service in their facilities, they "offered to pay for another site for the service, made the video and provided food for more than 100 relatives and friends." They did their best to find a balance between ministering to the family and appearing to condone the practice of homosexuality.

Ultimately I believe the church in this particular situation did the best it could.

However, speaking hypothetically, would they have done the same, or even have felt threatened in the same way if say, he just had a live in girlfriend? We can not know, but I think it is something to think about. Are we, as Christians, putting a rating system on sin? Are we allowing the world to influence our stand on issues?

It is easy to condemn someone else's sin harshly because you don't struggle with it. What if it were your father, brother, sister, mother, friend? What if he/she were a life long member of the congregation? What if, after your loved one has died the church officials find out about an ongoing sin in the person's life and they decided not to host the funeral?

While we, as Christians, are clearly called to holiness, and to abstain from sin, God's grace is great because he knows it will not be possible for us to be perfect in this life. Ultimately, he gets to decide, not us. We do not get a vote on who gets to go to heaven. Once a person has passed on, is it really worth making and issue over? Can you change anything? All you can do is cause more grief for the family involved.

Once again, I think the fact that Mr. Sinclair and his family were not members of the congregation comes in to play, on both sides. If they had been members, they most likely would have dealt with this whole thing inside the family instead of making it a public affair. As Zydor points out, it is sad that they seem to be using his death and the circumstances surrounding the funeral to make a statement.

I'm going to attempt to respond to this, but we may need to have an entirely different thread.

The things that you mentioned were things that were acceptable during the Old Covenant. Since I am not God, I can not explain all the whys and wherefores of what He did in the past. What I do know is that when Jesus came, he was not only a religious radical, he was a political radical as well. However, instead of writing us a new set of laws he took a different course: change from the inside out.

God had laid out the laws in the old covenant to help his people live lives of holiness. Instead they continually rejected, ignored and perverted the laws to their own liking. Which he knew quite well they would do. He allowed us (not us actually, the Jewish people) years and years, generations and generations of living under the old covenant so that they would realize that it would never fully work. All of that was in set up for his ultimate plan of salvation: Jesus. When Jesus came he proposed a new covenant, not one written on paper but written on our hearts. A covenant of love. Such love that our natural response, once we understood and accepted that love, would be to desire to follow him. Principles of honesty, fidelity, devotion are present in cultures and religions throughout history because these principles are truth, they are the reality of how to live this life to the fullest.

Perhaps you think I have not responded at all to your initial claim, but I think it is important that we step back and see the big picture. It is an incredible picture that I have only recently began to clarify in my mind. I don't believe I will ever be able to fully grasp the beauty and wisdom in God's plan for mankind because I am merely mortal. However, even glimpsing the smallest part of its beauty throws all the "rules" into a new light. I could show you scriptures to combat specifics in your claims, but you would just write me off as simply trying to find a biblical justification for my actions or beliefs instead of reading the Bible as a spiritual guide. The Bible is my spiritual guide, as well as my guide for how I live out my life. In the light of my love for God and the love he calls me to have for humans around me, I follow his teachings.

Actually, I covered it in post #14. But it does bear repeating.



I personally believe the family is trying to work to set a precedent banning churches from teaching their faith. This smacks of "setup" all the way down the pike.

She's not Christian now, she's "Unity", which is basically just a "pick and choose" religion. Loca can throw out any verse that ain't convenient for her, and still be a good practitioner of her faith!

Although homosexuality was a part of the culture at Sodom and Gomorrah, it is not the primary reason why it was destroyed. Ezekial 16:49-51 spells it out pretty nicely.

unless human beings today differ greatly from those of our ancestors living in isreal roughly 2000 years ago, it seems likely 10% of jesus' audiences might have been gay--thus giving him plenty of opportunity to reach out, condemn or acknowledge them however he chose to do so.

by all four accounts, he had no problem offering an opinion on a variety of important issues. none of those had to do with homosexuality. divorce is a whole other story. (yet most christians--including catholics--have no problem finding loopholes there.)




died in the 'very act of homosexuality'? strange since he forgave the woman caught in 'the very act of adultery'? appears to me you're making judgements he reserved to himself as reported by john throughout that very same chapter.

Agreed on that point, kingbee!



I really don't buy the "10%" argument, but let's for the sake of argument say that it is a legitimate figure. I see it as highly unlikely that a Jew in Jesus' era would be "out" about their homosexuality, with the penalties being so dire. We'll chalk this point up in the category of "good point, but not necessarily one that supports a position".

Jesus was FAR more concerned with our being compassionate to our fellow man than anything else. According to Jesus' own words, refusing to feed the hungry could punch your ticket through to the hothouse in the afterlife. Again, a point many selectively ignore.