Where'd you hear this information? I'm hesitant to believe that a family would want a picture of their son 'touching another man's genitals' included in a video montage during his funeral.
Like this doesn't happen by accident a few times per day anyway! Right guys? I mean, it happens for y'all too... doesn't it.
I have to wonder if it is one of those things where the image looks dirty because the camera caught them at a funny moment and/or depth is lacking. Like most of the pics we use for newspaper quote games.
I think just the fact that he put his life on the line to save others and fight for their freedom, should at least grant him a decent funeral. That is just Bull Crap.
A friend of mine that works for the church I attend know someone over there. He emailed me the "statement" that the church released about this event. For the record, I am not condoning this action, but rather just passing on the info. to perhaps shed some additional light on the subject, as the article that was posted didn't contain much. Here is the text of the email as I received it (you could also probably check the church's website to see if it's out there): Statement by High Point Church in Dallas, Texas "Mr. Cecil Sinclair was not a member of High Point Church. Neither was anyone in his family except for the deceased’s brother, Lee Sinclair who is an employee of the church. Lee recently requested the church to pray for his brother who was ill. The church prayed for Mr. Sinclair both enthusiastically and faithfully. Lee called an employee of the church to inform him that his brother was in the hospital in critical condition. When the High Point Church employee arrived at the hospital, Mr. Sinclair had already passed. The church employee reached out to the family and tried to comfort them the best he could. The church did offer the family, free of charge, the use of its facility for the memorial service. It was not clear at this time that the family desired a memorial service that would openly celebrate the homosexual lifestyle of Mr. Sinclair. The family requested that the church produce a video of Mr. Sinclair’s life for the memorial service. When the photos were presented to the church the day before the scheduled memorial service, there were some inappropriate images that alerted the church to the homosexuality of Mr. Sinclair. One photo showed a man with his hand touching another man’s genitalia. The phrase “like hugs and kisses” used by a staff member to describe to the pastor the blatant homosexual reference was mild at best. The family desired an associate of an openly homosexual choir to officiate the service and for the choir to sing. They also desired an open microphone format to allow anyone in attendance to speak. High Point Church ministers would not be directing or have control over what was said or emphasized. It became clear to the church staff that the family was requesting an openly homosexual service at High Point Church – which is not our policy to allow. The decision was made to retract the offer to host the memorial service based on the fact that the service requested would be an openly homosexual service celebrating the homosexual lifestyle. It is important to emphasize that this was not a funeral service with a body to be buried, but a memorial service. The family was informed of the decision. The decision had nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Sinclair was a veteran. High Point does now, and has always, supported our men and women in the military. This decision was not based on hate, or discrimination, but upon principle and policy. Allowing an openly homosexual service in our facility would condone homosexuality as a lifestyle. We could not allow the homosexual lifestyle to be celebrated, flaunted or glorified in our church facility. We could not put inappropriate images on our screens or subject our members and possibly even our children to an openly homosexual service. We cannot condone what the Word of God condemns. The issue was not whether we would hold a memorial service for someone in a lifestyle of sin. We have assisted many families in this regard. The issue was whether we would allow an openly homosexual service that celebrated and emphasized homosexuality in our church. We love the homosexual, but cannot condone the homosexual lifestyle. We could not allow homosexuality to be glorified in this house of worship. To assist the family in securing another location, an alternative venue was paid for - which the family declined. We produced for the family the memorial video they requested without the inappropriate photos. We also prepared and delivered food for the family and one hundred relatives and friends. Our love for the family was demonstrated over and again in our many acts of kindness and concern. Many of our faithful members spent hours cooking and preparing the meals and our staff worked diligently to meet the needs of the family. Several of our staff members went to the memorial service in support of the family. The tone of the service did confirm our concerns. The church believes that the right decision was made and holds firm to its convictions concerning homosexuality. It is our desire to always demonstrate the love of Christ to all people in both word and deed. We would hope that the Sinclair family and the homosexual community would see our love for them through the many acts of kindness and outreach that we have extended to them. We realize that they may not agree with our convictions, but hope that they would respect them. We do love and pray for the Sinclair family and ask God’s strength and comfort to be with them during this difficult time."
I could not find the above statement at the church's horrible website. But it appears true based on this article from the DMN. Note that it does not mention the "genital" photo.
hmm if thats the case, then I have to support the Church's decision. It's too bad they couldn't work something out with the family though.
It sounded like the mother would've been receptive to a compromise regarding the disputed photos. Perhaps they didn't want murderers and thieves showing up for the service...
The only place online I could find the statement that the church released was this website: http://www.afa.net/hopechurchdallas.asp They also have a petition on the site to support the church's action. Evidently, there has been quite an uproar over this too, and the church is taking it pretty hard. Anyway.....the only place I can find the notation about the photo with "genitals" mentioned is in the church statement. It would seem that both sides are at extremes about the photos. The family states there are NO photos even showing anything remotely affectionate between two males, and the church is mentioning several photos with males embracing each other, and the "genital" related snapshot. I can't believe I just typed "genital related snapshot" on a Houston Rockets website.
Ok, that's weird. If the church wanted to seem like it was acting reasonably about it, why release a statement to the AFA - quite possibly the most vehemently anti-gay organization out there. Regardless, its stupid, juvenile, and counter-intuitive to "christianity".
Hard to say that, the DMN article didn't mention it. I think she was receptive to a compromise in that the Church could do an altar call but didn't seem to be willing to give up control of the proceeding according to the Church's statement. I don't really blame her, I wouldn't give up control of a loved one's funeral either. Not really sure if she wanted to celebrate his homosexuality or just that there were some happy moments in his life caught on film with his partner.
I say so because the article made you assume the brother picked the photos which later the mother claimed had vision and hearing problems. A lot of the details are unclear... I think it'd be reasonable for the family not to include pictures of any forms of PDA at a highly conservative church. While churches can be held to a higher standard, I don't think it should be exploited to fit a person's own needs. The church volunteered food and service. If the photos were a big issue, something could've been arranged. It's just some common sense...
It wasn't a funeral, despite what the article said. It was a memorial service. The funeral was evidently already scheduled elsewhere at a funeral home, or so I am told. So there was no disposition of the body, no burial, no casket, none of that. It was supposed to merely be a slideshow, some music, a gathering to commemorate his life. Anyway.....not sure if that alters your statement above. I would guess not. But just wanted to clarify.
I just find it amusing (in a real amusing way, not the FoxNews condescending way) how you rail against Christianity and then get mad when you think someone acts against the principles of it I think its all a little silly though. I'm sure things could have been worked out if there wasn't some stubborness from both sides of the fence. There could have been a way to honor him without going against the principles of the Church, and likewise there could have been a way to honor him whether he was a liar, cheater, or any other sin besides just homosexuality. I think this was a clear case of miscommunication that spiraled out of control.
I certainly am not intending to portray that kind of amusement! I rail against christianity as a religion. As a philosophic or even spiritual template I find it refreshing in its simplicity, tolerance, and pacifistic nature. That all being said, I find good christians like yourself, madmax, and rhester challenge me on some of my hangups regarding religion. I respect people who can hold to convictions. If you profess to hold to christian ideology, yet fail to meet the tenets, I can understand (I am a recovering christian, remember!). If you use it as a mask for bigotry, hatred, or ignorance - you have my contempt. That's a very simplified stab at why I post the way I do regarding christianity.
