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.

those of you who believe homosexuality is a choice might want to consider jesus' attitude towards the samaritans. were they a group by choice or by nature?

either way, jesus--unlike the righteous jews of the day--musta not had much of a problem with them.



bisexual for sure. please don't take that as a condemnation or an insult because i don't intend it to be.

i can tell you for a fact--and no, i'm not lying, not even to get into someone's pants charlessci--i couldn't do it in any circumstance (and it ain't as if i haven't found myself in 'any circumstance' before so it ain't purely hypothetical).

Why? If he made us, why shouldn't he care about us? If he cares about us, wouldn't he care that we do what is best for us?

Jesus did not directly address many things such as prostitution or pornography. Does his silence means that he condones these activities?

Thanks Little-whip for the other article reference. It does put a slightly different spin on things. If the family was insisting that the objectionable photos be on display at the funeral, that would obviously put the church in a bind and it is understandable that they would back out.

In the first article the family claimed that the church knew from the outset about Sinclair practicing homosexuality, this article seems to give more evidence that this was not the case.



It seems to me that the church did attempt to compromise by offering to make other arrangements. Why would the family want to have the funeral in a place that did not accept what they apparently accepted about their loved one?

"bisexual for sure. please don't take that as a condemnation or an insult because i don't intend it to be."

Taken as you meant it, as well as I can fathom it. And I've never actually tried that. And, I most likely won't be. So, maybe I in fact could NOT have sex with another man. I don't know, and I don't really care.