0
   

Texas church cancels funeral for gay man

 
 
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2007 11:52 pm
A Texas church that agreed to host a man's funeral reneged on its promise after learning that the man was gay, according to The Dallas Morning News. Cecil Sinclair's funeral was to be held Thursday at the High Point Church in Arlington, Texas.

Sinclair was diagnosed with a heart condition six years ago and died Monday at age 46. His brother, Lee, is a member of High Point Church. The pastor at the church is the Reverend Gary Simons, brother-in-law of nationally known preacher Joel Osteen.

Members of the High Point Church prayed for Sinclair after his diagnosis. When he died of an infection from a surgery intended to sustain him for a heart transplant, a member of the church staff was immediately sent to minister to the family, the article said.

Church officials planned a 100-guest meal and a slide show to commemorate Sinclair's life. Some of the photos his family selected, however, proved too controversial for church members.

"Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging," Simons told the Morning News. "My ministry associates were taken aback."

There was also a dispute in the officiating and sequence of the memorial service, which Sinclair's mother, Eva Bowers, said could have been rectified.

In the end, the nondenominational church said it would not hold the funeral because Sinclair was gay, which went against High Point's doctrine.

"Can you hold the event and condone the sin and compromise our principles?" Simons said in the article. "We can't."

According to the article, he was a Navy veteran who served in Desert Storm and a singer in the Turtle Creek Chorale. (The Advocate)

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid47984.asp
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,105 • Replies: 119
No top replies

 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 09:26 am
Their decision seems rather silly and sad but I don't suppose any church is required to preform services for any person that they don't want to preform services for.
0 Replies
 
danny boy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 03:44 pm
I thought Jesus saves??? Question
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 01:32 am
boomerang wrote:
Their decision seems rather silly and sad but I don't suppose any church is required to preform services for any person that they don't want to preform services for.


No, but they agreed to perform the ceremony and reneged when they found out he was gay, leaving the family high and dry in their moment of need.

It's like saying "We're sorry, we love your son, but we can't be associated with something like this. Think of our image."
0 Replies
 
Bohne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 06:03 am
That's pathetic!
If I was a member of that church, I would leave immediately.

I hope some members agree with me!
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 09:56 pm
Most likely some pathetically few members do agree with you.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 04:32 am
CerealKiller wrote:
boomerang wrote:
Their decision seems rather silly and sad but I don't suppose any church is required to preform services for any person that they don't want to preform services for.


...they agreed to perform the ceremony and reneged ...


That's breach o' contract. Even if a contract was not signed, the family can argue that there was a quasi-contract in place and that the consideration offered was the publicity (and butts in the seats) that the funeral would have provided to the church.

The family should definitely sue -- even if they lose, it'll be disastrous publicity for the church.

And yeah, I agree -- I certainly wouldn't stay at a church like that. What an insult to the family.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 05:12 am
danny_boy wrote:
I thought Jesus saves??? Question

passes to Moses.....shoots....he SCORES!
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 10:10 am
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 11:16 am
CoastalRat wrote:


CR:

Excellent post! :wink:
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 11:24 am
I can see both Jes' and CR's points. On the one hand it WAS a breach of contract. On the other there may have been a question that the church had okayed the service without knowing the details.

Jes- As an attorney, I think that this is something that is in your bailiwick. Let's take another example. A man agrees to paint a house eggshell, sight unseen, for a certain amount of money. When he comes to the house, he finds that the walls are badly cracked, and the house had been formerly painted a very dark shade. In other words, in order to have the house painted satisfactorily, he would have to do an unusual amount of preparation, and would have to put numerous coats of paint on the walls.

Does the painter have the right to renege on this deal, or is it his tough luck that he did not make more detailed inquiries before he agreed to do the job for a certain amount of money?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 11:59 am
In looking at the topic again and at my post, I realized that the link I thought I added that points to the article from which I got my info was left out. I do not mean to take credit for the info provided. So in all fairness and in full disclosure, the article is hereby linked.

HighPoint Church Article
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 12:30 pm
your fact source seems to have missed a few facts, CR

Quote:


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5054460.html

Their timing was bad.

~~~

Interesting church.

http://www.churchunusual.com/institute.html
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 01:56 pm
ehBeth wrote:


Why is this an issue? I would assume the obit ran the day after the death, and that the church did not start getting info from the family on the service until probably the day after his death. So the timeline would go like this.

Sinclair dies
Church official agrees to help with service
Obit appears in paper
Materials provided by family for video tribute
Church officials realize family is making his homosexuality a centerpiece
of the service based on photos and planned choir and speaker
Church backs out of service but finds another place for family to have it
and offers to pay for it (and produces video with offending material)
Family refuses

So yeah, of course the church would have backed out after the obit ran. Of course, I am trying to figure out what it means that they "clumsily" backed out. But I bet that word was thrown in simply to ridicule the church. Nothing new there.

Now I will grant you, if I were a family member, I would be ticked off. But I don't see any fault here with the church's decision.

Personally, the church went above and beyond any obligation they had to a man who was not a member of the church. They provided meals, comfort to the family during his final days, etc. But all anyone can focus on is that this church would not hold a memorial service at their property for a man who lived a lifestyle that the church holds to be sinful. And even then they would have had the family not wanted to make his homosexuality the centerpiece of the service.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 02:03 pm
Bad timing.

Good lawsuit.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 02:04 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Bad timing.

Good lawsuit.


Could be. Only time will tell.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 02:22 pm
ehBeth wrote:
your fact source seems to have missed a few facts, CR

Quote:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5054460.html


And a few more facts from the above source.
Quote:
High Point's reaction to news that Sinclair was gay ranged from bumbling to insulting. First, church leaders claimed that the funeral was canceled because Cecil's family had prepared a slide show with "very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging." Sinclair's family said this is untrue.

Later, Simons told the Dallas Morning News that the situation was comparable to a congregation member losing a son who was a thief or murderer. High Point might offer a service, Simons said. "But I don't think the mother would submit photos of her son murdering someone."


CoastalRat wrote:
What a difference a few facts make, huh? Of course, most here on A2K still won't see it that way, but at least everyone will have the facts.


Quite right about the importance of facts CR. Just imagine the horror if a church member had been exposed to one of those inappropriate for Christian eyes photos. Keep your head up and don't let us unwashed A2K heathens spoil your view.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 02:25 pm
Simons didn't help his case much with those statements, did he.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 02:41 pm
As I see it Pastor Simons was equating photos of kissing and hugging with photos of murdering, so no.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 02:50 pm
The church may have the right to host service for whomeever they wish but the word "tacky" comes to mind here. Canx'd the day before the scheduled services??? Nice.... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Texas church cancels funeral for gay man
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/07/2022 at 08:10:41