There is a maelstrom brewing around High Point Church in Arlington, Texas. Church officials had offered to host a funeral for a homosexual man, Cecil Sinclair, even going so far as to agree to feed 100 guests and create an elaborate photo presentation about the man’s life. However, the family neglected to inform the church that Mr. Sinclair’s homosexuality would be featured prominently, with pictures containing obvious homosexual content on display. Understandably, the church would not be party to the exhibition of sin, and its offer was rescinded.
The family is mad, some of the media is mad, and I’m mad too. What irks me, though, is an invidious double-standard: Homosexuals and their sympathizers often expect a special dispensation from rules that apply to everyone else, while Christians are expected to dispense with their rules.
I’ll first echo a point church officials have made, only my example will be different. It’s understandable that Christians may offer their services to known homosexuals, as we’re all sinners; however, most of us sinners don’t expect our characteristic sins to be on display in a church service held on our behalf. Why, if a man had been a compulsive philanderer, would we expect that a church shouldn’t have a problem displaying sexually suggestive photographs of him with gaggles of gals? It’s absurd.
If this would be readily understood if the individual in question were a fornicator, why not when he is a homosexual? Do they want to be treated like everyone else or don’t they?
This situation reminds me of the case of Rev. Eugene Robinson, the cleric who declared his homosexuality and was then was elected bishop by some Episcopagans. It was such a grand victory for inclusiveness, such a bold show of tolerance, allowing the Brave New Worlders to puff up their chests and boldly go where no half-man had gone before. Seldom pointed out, however, was that Rev. Robinson had left his wife and children upon receiving his netherworld epiphany. If a normal man had done so to be with another woman, would he be exalted and elected bishop? No, the attitude would be quite different, as he just might be labeled unfaithful and irresponsible – if not a pig. Rev. Robinson, though, well, was “brave.” I guess being a homosexual means never having to say you’re sorry.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Putting aside the bigotry and homophobia which run though this entire piece (I'm sure we'll get that later), you did miss one part of this story. The church actually offered to pay for their entire funeral at another location, which seems more than generous.
The question it all raises for me is what the hell did the family of the dead guy think they were doing going to a fundie church in Dallas for his funeral. Unless they were trying to provoke an incident I don't understand why they'd even want to do it.
Dave
2 - Doug Hunter
'The church actually offered to pay for their entire funeral at another location, which seems more than generous.'- Dave Nalle
That fact doesn't fit with the oppressor-victim storyline so it was purposely omitted. Predictable media spin.
3 - Clavos
Note to Doc,
Per your recent request, consider this your Official Clavos Reminder NOT to post comments on this thread...
This has been a Public Service Announcement.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
4 - Clavos
One fact omitted from the story, but nonetheless potentially relevant:
Just WHAT "homosexual activity" was depicted in the display?
An article in the Dallas Morning News says this:
"The family also disputes Mr. Simon's statement last week that "very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging" were among photos relatives submitted for a church-produced memorial slideshow. A CD of the photos the family says it gave the church does not include such images."
Which is what I suspected: Even if the images of same sex hugging and kissing had been included, to object to them WOULD be discriminatory, because it's a certainty that such images in a hetero display would have raised no objections whatsoever.
Mr. Duke failed to mention the nature of the images (or their alleged non-existence) on purpose, IMO, because that, too, would have weakened his argument.
5 - Dr Dreadful
Thanks, Clavos, but if you'll remember, the rule was not that I shouldn't post at all on a Duke thread, but that I should endeavor to change the subject.
It's a little early in the game for that yet, so I'll stand back for now.
BTW, I tried the Dallas Morning News link, but it gets stuck on an ad featuring a young lady who, judging by the expression on her face, appears to be suffering from a severely obstructed bowel.
6 - Clavos
Doc,
I'll put this as delicately as I can; perhaps your computer is obstructed. Where have you been surfing lately?
I just tried the link and got the story.
7 - Zedd
Clavos,
Thinking caps are free! Hey, put it on sometimes.
You have to understand that this is a church and not a government building. A church exists because of a philosophy or a theology. In their theology, homosexual engagement is a sin. The church is there to help people not to sin. The church does not say that homosexuals are any different and should be treated any differently but that engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin (much like stealing or fornicating or adultery or any sin according to the bible). Now putting images of the sin being committed IN THE CHURCH would be counter productive. It would be a condoning of the behavior. In THEIR BELIEF it’s like putting up pictures of the guy robbing a bank or cheating on his wife. In THEIR BELIEF it’s the same thing Mr. Civil Liberties.
The real question would be: what was the family thinking? If they wanted the man's service at that church, why did they not simply have other slides of his, I'm sure, complete life. Did the guy fish or hang-glide or volunteer or ski? I'm sure they left out shots of him being drunk at some bar or any other acts that he may have committed that would go against the church's teaching.
It seems to me that these people were picking on this church for believing what THEY BELIEVE. That is shameful on their part.
Why would they choose to bury their loved one in a church that doesn't espouse their beliefs or the beliefs of their dearly departed? They might as well have tried to have the funeral at a Mormon place of worship or a Mosque. It's silly and bullying.
Why should Doc not post and you should... MATE.. sigh.
8 - Clavos
"Why should Doc not post and you should... MATE.. sigh."
You might want to check the reference before you rush to judgment, Zedd. In this case, you have no idea what you're talking about.
And, regarding the church's reaction:
Here, too, you don't know what you're talking about. The gist of my comment only referred to Duke's presentation of the case. I offered no direct implication about the church's action.
I know you like to disagree with everything I post, but to avoid making a fool of yourself again in the future, I suggest you read my comments a little more carefully from now on before you jump in to disagree.
9 - Ray Ellis
That ad goes away after a few seconds, Dr. D.
10 - Zedd
Clavos
Other reports say that there were images of a homosexual nature.
I live in the area.
Besides the church doesn't HAVE TO bury anyone that they don't want to bury.
Gosh.... I just realized that you may not understand how churches operate. I am sorry for the wise-gal comment. Do you know that if you have committed fornication, for instance, in most churches that are of a fundamentalist nature, you can not serve in the church or receive communion? You have to go through a period of atonement. If you are "in sin" you are obligated to step aside and receive counseling and repent before the church. Some churches require that you go before the entire church body and ask for forgiveness. Within the faith, it is appropriate for believers to admonish one another in love. It is not looked upon negatively to remind a person of their commitment and obligation as a Christian. It is thought to be a good thing to tell someone that they are in the wrong, as for as their Christian walk. The person receives the admonishment with humility and repents. Their secular rights (?) don’t play a role what-so-ever, because they became a Christian and joined the body of their own volition and may choose to disassociate any time they so choose.
Now knowing this, does it make the church's decision more understandable?
11 - Zedd
Clavos
I really don't like disagreeing with everything you post.
I was asking a sincere question.
Remember, I was in on the "Selwyn article subject change thingy" so I knew about Doc.... I was just wondering why you were posting and saying to Doc not to. It was a genuine question. Relax.
12 - Clavos
"Now knowing this, does it make the church's decision more understandable?"
Once again, I wasn't addressing the church's stance, Zedd, only Duke's.
13 - Dr Dreadful
Ah, I finally got through to the article. When I tried before, I got that little countdown thingy saying the page would load in (x) seconds, but it kept resetting. This time, the ad didn't appear at all. Shame, really, it was quite amusing.
It's something of a storm in a, as I suspected, teacup. I can see both sides here. The church is clearly not following the example of its own founder: even a cursory reading of the Gospels should demonstrate to anyone that Christ would not have turned his back on Mr Sinclair. As for the "very strong homosexual images" they fell back on as an excuse, well, for the love of Mike (pun kinda intended), it's not as if they wanted to display porn. If it was brothers hugging, or a father and son, it wouldn't have been any kind of deal.
On the other hand, Mr Sinclair had a relative who worships there, and so the family should have been aware of the church's nature. I think that Mr Sinclair was not a member himself: so, apart from the insult and hurt they should have been keenly aware that they were setting themselves up for, they don't really have a legitimate beef. Unless you're Daniel, you don't walk into the lion's den and expect kitty to sit down at your feet and start purring.
14 - Nancy
Zedd is certainly correct in her statement that churches don't have to serve anyone they don't want to. I don't understand what some of you seem to feel she misinterpreted from the article? She seems to have 'gotten' it to me.
Actually, I'd have to agree with the author, that one does indeed wonder what was going thru the family's mind(s) to try to push this through with a fairly conservative religious organization of any denomination? As for photos of kissing & hugging being acceptable if they were hetero as opposed to homo, some folks find photos of kissing & hugging of any sort to be offensive. Again, it depends on what KIND & how intense that kissing & hugging is. I should think a peck on the cheek would be OK - but a full tonsil-cleaning & groping session would not. After all, I really don't care for photos of even hetero lovers pawing each other in public; let them save that for their private photo albums. IMO no one should be foisting explicit or suggestive photos of one's affection on the public, regardless of the gender/species of the object of those affections.
15 - Clavos
Precisely, Doc.
And Selwyn has presented it, speciously and withholding some of the facts, as something much more important than that.
16 - Dr Dreadful
Exactly, Clavs - it's that ol' homosexual agenda again. They're trying to recruit our children!
I'm sure folks like Selwyn more than half-believe that somewhere in San Francisco, in a secret lair deep beneath the streets of Haight-Ashbury, a gay Ernst Stavro Blofeld-type figure is lurking, dictating via an open phone line the Sinclair family's every move and dispatching his trusty henchqueens to send all those scurrilous e-mails to the pastor. Mwuuaah-ha-ha-ha!!!
17 - Zedd
Gotcha Clavos. I apologize.
I wrote the post before I read your new post.
----------
I have to add that it is Christians however who have displayed an inaccurate view of what they are intended to be.
1. The politicization of the faith is a major deviation from the message of Jesus Christ
2. Christians also require non-Christians to live as Christians, holding them up to the same standards.
3. American Christians confuse American values like capitalism, and American patriotism to be synonymous with Christianity.
What resulted is a public which wants to “correct” the Christians and make them more in line with the message of love that they are supposed to present. What becomes problematic is that the public doesn’t understand the message; how it works. The public expects platitudes and democracy when the faith requires something totally different, which Christians are failing to demonstrate; humility. This is where the challenge lies.
18 - Jesse
Yeah, it seems to me that either this was a complete miscommunication and misunderstanding (stupidity can often be traced to lack of clarity), or the case of a muckraking family. In this case, the church seems to have taken a rather even-handed approach.
Of course, this has automatically led to the homophobic mud-slinging and issue-transference that characterizes this whole debate. Selwyn takes up the straw-man tactic of putting words in the mouths of the opposition, painting the whole political left as naive, unapologetic relativists... a characterization that simply does not hold.
Let me repeat: the inexplicable funereal decisions of one family do not represent the whole gay-rights (aka human rights) advocacy community. Most of us would rather let you have your megachurches to yourselves.
19 - Doug Hunter
"I'm sure folks like Selwyn more than half-believe ..."
Exactly, people justify their own silly arguments and positions by building up the other side as a hateful and destructive strawman. The truth is this isn't part of some pro-gay conspiracy and it's also not some horrendous and vile action on the part of some homo-hating church members.
The question becomes why is it news?
20 - Nancy
My question is, why are homosexuals supposed to be 'recruiting' people? How do you 'recruit' people to something that is inborn? That's like recruiting people to get blue eyes. Very odd.
21 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"The question becomes why is it news?"
News, gentle readers, is what you make to be news. This twentieth comment about a change in plans of a funeral gives a clue to what you all consider news.
The comment section after the articles mirrors the readers and their interests....
22 - Zedd
Nancy,
I think the idea is that by presenting homosexuality as being inborn in ALL who profess to be homosexual, it forces those who question their heterosexuality to believe that they MUST be born homosexual. I've had gay friends who insist that there are not such people as bisexuals. That they are just closeted homosexuals who haven’t found the courage to admit to themselves that they are homosexual.
However I don't think that people think that there is literally recruiting going on
.
23 - Colin Ricketts
What troubles me most is a seeming obsession with homosexuality on behalf of some churches - and bugger me (teehee), if it isn't starting to appear in the lovely United Kingdom too.
You rarely see evangelical churches protesting outside military bases for example - when they wish to live in a Christian country and, as far as I recall, RULE NUMBER ONE in the biggest red letters you can imagine is, Thou shalt not kill. Purpose of military base? Killing. Job of soldier? Killing. Do they ban military men from funerals too. I don't think we should have to listen to talk of moral relativism from an organisation which took that RULE NUMBER ONE and made of it the concept of the 'just war', that would just be silly now. Perhaps I am wrong though, and when an angry Jesus returns he will indeed make his first priority the levelling of gay bars.
24 - Zedd
Wait a second, this church is being victimized. No one else.
Let's not get carried away here....
25 - Doug Hunter
"Job of soldier? Killing."
It is well established that the biblical reference is to murder. Society has differentiated self defense and national defense from murder for centuries as well. It's fine to try and play dumb and conflate the two, just don't expect everyone else to go along with your fantasy.