Church refuses to host funeral of gay man

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Thumper

This is one of the great challenges facing churches right now. The homosexual lobby is so aggresive that they will stop at nothing until they have pushed their way into every fabric of our society. The church did the right thing. They were hoodwinked but made the best of a bad situation. It seems now that when we are doing this type of thing in the community we are going to have to be much more cautious of folks we know little or nothing about.

Originally Posted by Guy

What is going to happen eventually is that churches and pastors will end up doing funerals only for people they know personally or can check out very easily.

I think it will come to the place where it is a "members only" deal when a funeral is held at a church. Seems that a "christian funeral" would only be given to those that claim christianity. All others can go to the funeral home and have a civil burial.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by chosenbyone

I don't think that the homosexual agenda (lobby) has any relevance with how this matter was handled. I viewed it as a failure of that church to not have known this man that they employed and his spiritual state. Perhaps, if someone would have gotten to know who was on their payroll, all of this could have been avoided.

What was most troubling was to see a family left bitter and angry with a negative impression of Christians. I hope that someone at that mega-church would reach out to them and not just completely toss them to the curb.

Chosen,

unless I am misunderstanding, it was the homosexual persons relative (brother) that was the janitor, and not him.

[Dora]

"The church's pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons"


The 5,000-member High Point Church was founded in 2000 by Simons and his wife, April, whose brother is Joel Osteen, well-known pastor of the 38,000-member Lakewood Church in Houston. Now High Point meets in a 432,000-square-foot facility in Arlington, near Dallas.


Wonder if Joel Osteen would condone this type of thing.

This was a huge mistake and cast a bad light on their ministry. Very sad...

[Rico]

Originally Posted by chosenbyone

I don't think that the homosexual agenda (lobby) has any relevance with how this matter was handled. I viewed it as a failure of that church to not have known this man that they employed and his spiritual state. Perhaps, if someone would have gotten to know who was on their payroll, all of this could have been avoided.

What was most troubling was to see a family left bitter and angry with a negative impression of Christians. I hope that someone at that mega-church would reach out to them and not just completely toss them to the curb.

The person who died was not the church employee. He was the brother of the church employee.

[chosenbyone]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Chosen,

unless I am misunderstanding, it was the homosexual persons relative (brother) that was the janitor, and not him.

Thanks, stmatthew...I totally missed that this morning when I read the article.

[Margies3]

Originally Posted by Guy

What is going to happen eventually is that churches and pastors will end up doing funerals only for people they know personally or can check out very easily.

Our pastor already refuses to do weddings for anyone who is not - BEFORE te wedding - an active, committed Christian, preferably attending our church. If they are members of another church he will marry them only if their church is a long distance away and they want to be married in their hometown (and usually this would have been their home church in the past).

His stand is that marriage is a very sacred vow made before God and it INCLUDES God. If someone gets up there and makes that vow (including God in the equation) but doesn't really know the Lord, then they are making a mockery of something that we take very seriously.

[retsambeW]

Maybe I don't remember correctly, but I believe the article did say there were pics of the man and his....well, whatever you call it, that were supposed to be in the funeral. I would have refused also. Now, if they did not insist on those pics, I would have had the service. I would not have considering the pics because it would have indicated I condoned the lifestyle. I most definitely do not.

I do not believe this will hurt the church at all.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by retsambeW

Maybe I don't remember correctly, but I believe the article did say there were pics of the man and his....well, whatever you call it, that were supposed to be in the funeral. I would have refused also. Now, if they did not insist on those pics, I would have had the service. I would not have considering the pics because it would have indicated I condoned the lifestyle. I most definitely do not.

I do not believe this will hurt the church at all.

I would have canceled also, or agreed to continue with very strict conditions. absolutely no photos of the homosexual partner and no reference to him anywhere - whatsoever.

[retsambeW]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

I would have canceled also, or agreed to continue with very strict conditions. absolutely no photos of the homosexual partner and no reference to him anywhere - whatsoever.

Agreed.

[Sarah]

The leaders of this church was caught between a rock and a hard place. Like others have said, if the slides weren't shown, and the "partner" wasn't mentioned, they probably would have been better off going ahead with the service.

But after reading on this forum about R and D washing the feet of gay pastors in a church setting, I have to admit to read of this happening is rather refreshing......gives me a little hope that the religious world hasn't gone completely crazy.