# Church Cancels Funeral



## momi (Aug 8, 2014)

...after finding out deceased was gay. 


Julie Atwood was standing at her son's casket when the phone rang. The church where her son's funeral was scheduled to be held the next day decided to abruptly cancel the service, after the pastor learned the deceased was gay and his obituary listed a surviving "husband."

Atwood said she was told it would be "blasphemous" to hold the services at the church because her son, Julion Evans, 42, was gay.

"It was devastating," she said. "I did feel like he was being denied the dignity of death."

Evans' husband, Kendall Capers, says the pair were partners for 17 years and married last year in Maryland. Evans died at home after a 4-year battle with a rare illness called Amyloidosis, which destroys organs in the body.

He says the obituary named him as "husband," and that their marriage was no secret.

"Everyone who knew us knew about our relationship," he said. "We didn't keep secrets."

The family asked for Evans' funeral to be held at New Hope Missionary Baptist Church in Tampa.

Atwood, Evans' mother, says she was baptized at the church as a child and several of her family members still attend. Atwood's current pastor agreed to preach the funeral, but they needed a large church, like New Hope, to accommodate hundreds of mourners from across the country. New Hope agreed and the service was scheduled for July 26.

But when the obituary published in the local newspaper, everything changed.

T.W. Jenkins, pastor at New Hope says was not aware of that Evans had a husband or was gay until members of his congregation saw the obit and called to complain. They did not think it was right to have the funeral at their church.

http://www.wfla.com/story/26213876/family-says-church-canceled-funeral-because-son-was-gay


Jenkins said his church preaches against gay marriage.

"Based on our preaching of the scripture, we would have been in error to allow the service in our church," Jenkins said. "I'm not trying to condemn anyone's lifestyle, but at the same time, I am a man of God, and I have to stand up for my principles."

Because of the late change of plans, Evans' family scrambled to make new funeral arrangements, with less than 24 hours to prepare. They were unable to notify everyone, though, and some mourners showed up at the church and missed the funeral.

Capers said that was the worst part. He wanted the funeral held in a church but said he would have understood the church's position. But to cancel during his husband's wake, he said, was “disrespectful” and “wrong.”

"This is 2014, this is not the 60s or the 70s,” Capers said. “So at the end of the day I just want his wrong-doing to be exposed.”


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 8, 2014)

momi.... this saddens me.   I truly understand not performing a marriage ceremony, that's just a given.    However, to deny one's burial rites (and Rights), this is just grieving.   

I pray for this family.  I pray with my heart.  To me, this is just wrong and i*t is no secret to anyone, here in this forum and outside of it how I feel about the 'agenda' that the gays have for redefining marriage and the sin of the lifestyle.   *

However, THIS... is beyond anything that I would ever deny them.  

If at no other time, this family and those of his heart that he left behind, they need the loving warmth of Jesus to embrace them and bring them to Him in full and total surrender, if nothing more. 

  




momi said:


> ...after finding out deceased was gay.
> 
> 
> Julie Atwood was standing at her son's casket when the phone rang. The church where her son's funeral was scheduled to be held the next day decided to abruptly cancel the service, after the pastor learned the deceased was gay and his obituary listed a surviving "husband."
> ...


----------



## bellatiamarie (Aug 8, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> momi.... this saddens me.   I truly understand not performing a marriage ceremony, that's just a given.    However, to deny one's burial rites (and Rights), this is just grieving.
> 
> I pray for this family.  I pray with my heart.  To me, this is just wrong and it is no secret to anyone, here in this forum and outside of it how I feel about the 'agenda' that the gays have for redefining marriage and the sin of the lifestyle.
> 
> ...



ITA... The man is dead.. My goodness!! His funeral and his lifestyle are two totally different things.  The pastor might as well deny holding funerals of known liars, thieves, fornicators, etc., at his church as well if that's the case! ALL SIN IS UNRIGHTEOUSNESS!! I'm sorry... I don't agree.with this either.


----------



## momi (Aug 8, 2014)

Those were my thoughts initially - I said "why would a church allow a person as a participating member and then deny to hold his funeral?"  And then I read the article again for clarity.  This wasn't his church - his pastor was willing to eulogize him but their church was too small and they asked that the service be held at a church with a larger facility.  So it wasn't his church that denied the family it was the church they were using as a venue.

Personally I believe if the deceased family had informed the church from the beginning that he was *married to a man* this could have been avoided.  The family could have held the service at their own smaller affirming church or a venue that was comfortable with his situation.  I only pray that a lawsuit isn't next.


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Aug 8, 2014)

^^watched this on the news last night, the pastor claims that he wasn't told that Mr. Evans was gay, but read it in the paper 'after'


----------



## momi (Aug 8, 2014)

bellatiamarie said:


> ITA... The man is dead.. My goodness!! His funeral and his lifestyle are two totally different things.  *The pastor might as well deny holding funerals of known liars, thieves, fornicators, etc.*, at his church as well if that's the case! ALL SIN IS UNRIGHTEOUSNESS!! I'm sorry... I don't agree.with this either.



Thanks for replying - 

Unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly - his pastor did agree to hold the service and give the eulogy.  

Do you think the church that was asked to hold the service as the right to refuse to allow them to use it as a venue?


----------



## briacait (Aug 8, 2014)

I don't really understand why it matters that he was gay.  This is terrible. This same church probably does funerals for all kinds of things they preach against.  Someone was trying to make a statement and this wasn't the right time. Those church members should be ashamed of themselves for calling and complaining.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Aug 8, 2014)

Someone should have been up-front with the pastor of church where it was to be held.  That puts him into a precarious position as promoting homosexuality.  I agree that the man should be serviced but this whole thing could have been handled differently and truthfully.


----------



## BostonMaria (Aug 8, 2014)

I was very saddened by this as well. I think they should have allowed the funeral services.


----------



## momi (Aug 8, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> Someone should have been up-front with the pastor of church where it was to be held.  That puts him into a precarious position as promoting homosexuality.  I agree that the man should be serviced but this whole thing could have been handled differently and truthfully.



I agree. I'll be watching to see how this plays out. 

Churches refuse services for all types of reasons though. Some churches even refuse to hold services for non-members so this isn't exactly outside of the norm.


----------



## LiftedUp (Aug 8, 2014)

momi said:


> I agree. I'll be watching to see how this plays out.
> 
> *Churches refuse services for all types of reasons though. Some churches even refuse to hold services for non-members so this isn't exactly outside of the norm.*



Some churches where I live do not perform funeral services for persons who commit suicide because it is committing murder.  

I think that the family is wrong and should've been upfront from the get go.  

I do not believe that the church should compromise their values owing to death.


----------



## LoveisYou (Aug 8, 2014)

God has the worst PR

This is atrocious


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 8, 2014)

I would have allowed the service. A soul has passed on and only God knows where his eternity is being spent. If nothing more than to bring one or more of those remaining to Jesus in full repentance and deliverence.

Tears are welling up in my eyes because he may not be with Jesus but in the torment of death, hell and the grave. Dear God have mercy upon us all.

Both sides are error for not obtaining the full expectations of either side. They indeed both are. Neither side should have agreed to this venue without all facts being confirmed beforehand. This was carelessness for both sides. 

BOTH the Family and the Pastor were / are irresponsible ... and equally so.

Being overwhelmed with grief has no bearing here; if for no other reason knowing the height of controversy with homosexuality, especially with Churches, the Family should have ASKED first and foremost if the deceased being gay is an issue....Period.

Now I can see this entire thing blowing up simply as ammunition set against Religious Rights and *for this reason only* I stand with the Church's decision ... We as a Church must defend our rights. I surrender nothing except that of loving this man's soul whom I do not know, yet for him I grieve as if I did.

Yes... I would have allowed and preformed his last service here on earth.


----------



## bellatiamarie (Aug 8, 2014)

momi said:


> Thanks for replying -
> 
> Unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly - his pastor did agree to hold the service and give the eulogy.
> 
> Do you think the church that was asked to hold the service as the right to refuse to allow them to use it as a venue?



Well I guess the church does have the right to refuse since that's what they did... I really don't agree with it.  My point is that there are funerals held in churches DAILY for liars, thieves, murderers, etc... Sinners.

Would that pastor have made the same decision if the deceased man were straight and married to a woman and a member of the congregation called him and told him that the deceased man was having an affair with another woman? Would he refuse to allow the straight adulterer's funeral at his church?


----------



## momi (Aug 8, 2014)

bellatiamarie said:


> Well I guess the church does have the right to refuse since that's what they did... I really don't agree with it.  My point is that there are funerals held in churches DAILY for liars, thieves, murderers, etc... Sinners.  Would that pastor have made the same decision if the deceased man were straight and married to a woman and a member of the congregation called him and told him that the deceased man was having an affair with another woman? Would he refuse to allow the straight adulterer's funeral at his church?



bellatiamarie - if this church is allowing services for any and everybody and then refuses this one then yes I would say they are wrong and holding to a double standard. However if there is no history of this then I'd say they are well within their rights and consistent. 

Shimmie - you are right. Both parties should have been more forthright in providing and gathering information. This could have all been avoided.


----------



## momi (Aug 8, 2014)

LiftedUp said:


> Some churches where I live do not perform funeral services for persons who commit suicide because it is committing murder.  I think that the family is wrong and should've been upfront from the get go.  I do not believe that the church should compromise their values owing to death.



You are right. Suicides, drug dealers, unbelievers...


----------



## JaneBond007 (Aug 8, 2014)

The problem is the eulogy or sermon.  Would someone have attempted to spread doctrine in opposition to the church at that point?  I can see the pastor's position, esp. since he probably feels his congregation was defrauded and endangered theologically.  He could hold the service and direct it as he sees fit.  I'd do that, at least.  And the church does service drug dealers etc., but they don't promote the lifestyle by allowing just any type of eulogy.  I'm sure they could just pull somebody from the mike.


----------



## felic1 (Aug 8, 2014)

This was an interesting thread. While they should have told the host pastor that the man was "married" to a man, at what point do we as saints apply a mechanism that will allow gay people to hear the gospel and repent? There has to be a preacher with the true word. When will that population be allowed access to repent? We are so headstrong with our opposition to homosexuality because of the " flame points" assigned to this sin. What would Jesus do? I believe that the Lord is not pleased with our focus on blocking their coming to church. He did not black ball Mary Magdalene, the woman with the issue of blood, lepers, or the woman at the well. Also in trouble  was the lady taken in adultery. We may want them to quit but just as we needed to hear the word, repent and become delivered, it is not often that groups of gay people show up at a church unless they are undercover. Opportunities for their deliverance have to be made available. Thoughts?


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 8, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> The problem is the eulogy or sermon. Would someone have attempted to spread doctrine in opposition to the church at that point? I can see the pastor's position, esp. since he probably feels his congregation was defrauded and endangered theologically. He could hold the service and direct it as he sees fit. I'd do that, at least.
> 
> *And the church does service drug dealers etc., but they don't promote the lifestyle by allowing just any type of eulogy.*
> 
> I'm sure they could just pull somebody from the mike.


 
The bolded is key.  Performing the service without endorsing the lifestyle.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Aug 8, 2014)

It happened at our principal's memorial.  No one knew she was gay as a nun had a lover and most found out just before the memorial or at the memorial.  Just the same, the services cme under whatchamacallit...I'm so tired I can't think lol.  The rites follow the same order.


----------



## frizzy (Aug 8, 2014)

Aren't all sins equal in the eyes of God?  Aren't we all sinners?  
IMO the pastor is not doing the work of the Lord by refusing this family.


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 8, 2014)

felic1 said:


> This was an interesting thread. While they should have told the host pastor that the man was "married" to a man, at what point do we as saints apply a mechanism that will allow gay people to hear the gospel and repent?
> 
> *There has to be a preacher with the true word. When will that population be allowed access to repent?*
> 
> ...


 
felic1, I agree with your whole post.   The point is this, a person's death is not a sin, if it were than none of us would see Jesus.    

Something else to consider.   None of us know what a person's last thoughts or words were before taking that last breath.  For all we know, this person may have been asking God for forgiveness all throughout his sickness.    There are so many Christians as doctors, nurses, etc., whom God has placed in hospitals, hospices, clinics, who are lead to minister to those who are dying and indeed many, many, many have received the Lord before passing on.  

I can personally bear witness to this as I've been called upon to come and pray with several family members who were dying and they were so humble and so gracious to know that Jesus still loved them and would still receive them before they passed on.   

I support them fully and completely for not performing a gay marriage, I fully support any Church or Minister, to not do so, for that is indeed sin.   

*But dying is not sin* and as a Minister who has taken an oath to serve God and humanity, they would be honoring God by Ministering anyone's funeral service.   Hearts are hurting and there's no better time for reaching out to them with Jesus and planting incorruptible seeds of loving care and deliverance.  

In all honesty, Ministry is not 'pretty', it's not.  It's not a social club.  We're called to Minister, at any day, any hour.   When someone comes to us for prayer, we don't judge or choose ... we pray and with our hearts in it.    

It's not about pick and choose, and if we're really and truly called to Minister, there would be no denials other than not advocating sin.   Too many Ministries are being glamourized today.  The flash, fast living, having only the popular names invited to speak.   Where's Jesus in all of this?


----------



## Always~Wear~Joy (Aug 8, 2014)

I know his spouse. This is really heartbreaking to see him and the family go through this.


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 8, 2014)

frizzy said:


> Aren't all sins equal in the eyes of God? Aren't we all sinners?
> IMO the pastor is not doing the work of the Lord by refusing this family.


 
frizzy, you are correct, we are all sinners.  The problem with the gay agenda is that it is 'Unrepented Sin'.  Homosexuality as with all sins must be repented of.   I speak of this among the living and active in this sin without repentance.     

This man who has passed on may have repented in his heart before dying which is *one* of the problems I have with his service being denied.


----------



## momi (Aug 8, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> The bolded is key.  Performing the service without endorsing the lifestyle.



In this case the deceased's gay affirming  pastor would have been performing the eulogy  so aside from the host pastor pulling a Kanye - he would have little sway over what was preached across his pulpit. 

You all have given me much to consider...


----------



## momi (Aug 8, 2014)

frizzy said:


> Aren't all sins equal in the eyes of God?  Aren't we all sinners? IMO the pastor is not doing the work of the Lord by refusing this family.



No all sins aren't equal - while all separate us from God some sins are weightier than others. 

I'll post scriptures in the morning.


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 8, 2014)

Always~Wear~Joy said:


> I know his spouse. This is really heartbreaking to see him and the family go through this.


 
I'm very sorry for this man's passing and the family's grief. 

But I do have to ask why the family did not cover all bases when making these arrangements.   And we cannot use 'grief' as an alibi, especially with the height of controversy with homosexuality.  

They are not without responsibility in this occurring.  They cannot escape being held accountable for not covering this while making the arrangements.   Both sides are at fault.   

The family is just as responsible for this occurring as the Church involved is.  The family knew the situation, and when seeking a Church they needed to inquire if it would have been an issue.  As much as I disagree with the Church's decision and their actions, the actions of the family are just as irresponsible.  There's no getting around this. 

I need to reaffirm that I'm not excusing the Church's behavior, however the thing that really bothers me with these gay situations, is that they cry fowl when truly they have just as much part in the 'fowl' as the other party.


----------



## Farida (Aug 8, 2014)

Funerals are for the living...we should try as much as possible to accommodate those left behind.


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 8, 2014)

momi said:


> *In this case the deceased's gay affirming pastor would have been performing the eulogy* so aside from the host pastor pulling a Kanye - he would have little sway over what was preached across his pulpit.
> 
> You all have given me much to consider...


 
Ohhhhhhhhhh, okay.   Got it, got it     I read this on the train after work, so I am really just 'catching' up with the facts.   

I thought the Pastor of the Church was asked to perform the service.  I'm sorry for that misunderstanding.  

I maintain that BOTH sides are accountable for this outcome.  They should have been open with each other with every detail.   

I would have still 'allowed' the service, with the agreement that I would be able to minister as well.   There would be a written agreement regarding the service...up front and clearly defined.

Thank you momi.   This is a truly touching situation.


----------



## momi (Aug 9, 2014)

frizzy said:


> Aren't all sins equal in the eyes of God?  Aren't we all sinners?
> IMO the pastor is not doing the work of the Lord by refusing this family.



frizzy - although all sins without repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ lead to death, some sins carry a greater weight of punishment than others.  

Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is *guilty of a greater sin*" John 19

the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.  “*And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of flogging, will receive but few.* Luke 12

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 1 Corinth 6

Hope this helps :Rose:


----------



## LadyRaider (Aug 9, 2014)

Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is *guilty of a greater sin*" John 19

John 19 would be the chapter... .which verse is this? What translation are you using?

ETA: I found it. It is John 19:11. Historically that verse has been used to say Jews killed Jesus, also the basis of the sin of committing suicide (Judas) is the only unforgivable sin. I don't see any context for it being used to refer to homosexuals as he certainly wasn't thinking about them in that context. But you know... the bible was used to justify slavery, so no telling.

Your second verse is about a servant who knows what they are supposed to be doing vs one who doesn't and getting flogged by their master? Not really about sin in the eyes of God, perse. I can't find any reference connecting to sin in the eyes of God, or homosexuality. 

Your third verse doesn't seem to apply either. You really don't have to guess what was most important to Jesus. He was pretty clear about the poor and the least of these as his greatest priority. Anything he left up to "interpretation" is probably suspect, re: justifying slavery, black inferiority, Jewish hatred, homosexuality as some super sin, ad naseum.


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 9, 2014)

LadyRaider said:


> Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is *guilty of a greater sin*" John 19
> 
> John 19 would be the chapter... .which verse is this? What translation are you using?
> 
> ...


 
Where in the Bible did Jesus 'promote', protect, endorse homosexuality?  

It is still sin, there's no getting away from it.  The sadness is that precious souls are being deceived and destroyed for the defense and endorsement off it, which hindering their repentance and deliverance from it. 

These lies that Jesus never condemned homosexuality is pathetic and an escape from reality.   When in pure and total truth He never endorsed it.  

However, Jesus did endorse Marriage between One Man and One Woman...

*Jesus said,* _"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" *(Mark 10:7-8).*_ 
*One man. One woman.*

In Matthew 15:19, Jesus condemned a host of sins, one of which is pornea, translated as "sexual immorality"; it is also the origin of the word pornography (sexual sin). 

In Matthew 15:19, Jesus included all the sexual sins prohibited in the Old Testament, such as pre-marital sex, adultery, homosexuality, incest, bestiality...

There is absolutely no endorsement by Jesus for homosexuality, but there is salvation, repentance and deliverance for those who will choose Jesus over this sin as with all sins.  

Something to consider about 'greater sins':  Out of all of the sins committed, sexual sin has the greatest penalty and with homosexuals the most deadliest... HIV / AIDS.   And this disease has not been put on hold nor has it been 'saved' by gay marriage.   For it is even occurring with lesbians, not just men having sex with men.  

The Bible is speaking loud and clear via the consequences of this sin.


----------



## felic1 (Aug 10, 2014)

Suicide is difficult for survivors. It may take the family off guard. If murdered people can have a funeral what prohibits a suicidal death from having a tribute. While we may not preach the dead person into heaven, can we assist the family by embracing them with the love of god? These rules and doctrines cause us to miss opportunities that might lead survivors to their salvation. Just a thought.


----------



## LadyRaider (Aug 10, 2014)

I don't think homosexuality was one of Jesus' issues. In the grand scheme of things... how important is that one? You have 33 years on earth to make a difference. Where are you going to start? Feeding the poor, correct?


----------



## momi (Aug 10, 2014)

LadyRaider said:


> Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is *guilty of a greater sin*" John 19
> 
> John 19 would be the chapter... .which verse is this? What translation are you using?
> 
> ...





I'm not sure if you had a chance to read the entire thread - my response was to the posters' comment below.  I was not comparing homosexuality to other sins in my reply.

_Aren't all sins equal in the eyes of God? Aren't we all sinners? 
IMO the pastor is not doing the work of the Lord by refusing this family_

Having said that - all sins are not equal in the sight of God.  Even in the OT a person could make restitution for theft but adultery and other sexual sins in certain cases there was no restitution - only death.  

In the case of sexual sins: which include homosexuality and fornication 1 Corinthians 6:18 puts this type of sin in it's on category.  Sinning against your own body which is in fact the temple of the Holy Spirit is a blatant attack against your own flesh.  

Also there is a special emphasis on those who know better but do not do better - which I think is the case in the John 19:11 scripture.  Pilate definitely sinned by allowing an innocent Man to be condemned to death - however his charge was not as significant as Judas' who walked and served with Him daily, witnessed His miracles, heard Him teach and then betrayed Him. 

To your point that Jesus' mission was to feed the poor I'm not sure how you can make that case.  He came to lay down His life to save the lost. ETA: In fact He is quoted saying "the poor you will always have with you"...


----------



## momi (Aug 10, 2014)

felic1 said:


> Suicide is difficult for survivors. It may take the family off guard. If murdered people can have a funeral what prohibits a suicidal death from having a tribute. While we may not preach the dead person into heaven, can we assist the family by embracing them with the love of god? These rules and doctrines cause us to miss opportunities that might lead survivors to their salvation. Just a thought.



I don't know of any church that practices this - but I do know that it happens and I tend to agree with you. 

My dad always tells me that funerals aren't for the dead but for the living - so preach to the living.


----------



## momi (Aug 10, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> Where in the Bible did Jesus 'promote', protect, endorse homosexuality?
> 
> It is still sin, there's no getting away from it.  The sadness is that precious souls are being deceived and destroyed for the defense and endorsement off it, which hindering their repentance and deliverance from it.
> 
> ...



Thank you Sis. Shimmie. People who hold this view (and the numbers are growing) aren't being true to the text.  It's sad really - when I was in the sin no one ever tried to convince me that my ways were pleasing to God.  In addition to my mother, there was always an aunt, or a grandmother, or a church member that reminded me that time was short and I needed to come as they say "back to the Lord."  I can't imagine what state I would be in if they had endorsed and rubber stamped my sin.


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 10, 2014)

felic1 said:


> Suicide is difficult for survivors. It may take the family off guard.
> 
> *If murdered people can have a funeral what prohibits a suicidal death from having a tribute. *
> 
> While we may not preach the dead person into heaven, can we assist the family by embracing them with the love of god? These rules and doctrines cause us to miss opportunities that might lead survivors to their salvation. Just a thought.


 
There are so many cases where the Bible and a prayer were found along side or within the arms of a person who had taken their life, where before their last breath they were asking God for forgiveness. 

No one knows the heart of a person before they die; no matter the cause of death, no one other than God knows what they breathed into the heart of God before leaving here.   

I agree as well that their death deserves tribute.   :Rose:


----------



## momi (Aug 10, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> There are so many cases where the Bible and a prayer were found along side or within the arms of a person who had taken their life, where before their last breath they were asking God for forgiveness.  No one knows the heart of a person before they die; no matter the cause of death, no one other than God knows what they breathed into the heart of God before leaving here.  I agree as well that their death deserves tribute.   :Rose:



I agree Shimmie. The Bible is clear on the unforgivable sin and it's not suicide.


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 10, 2014)

momi said:


> I agree Shimmie. The Bible is clear on the unforgivable sin and it's not suicide.


 
momi, I can remember people saying that those who committed suicide would never make it into Heaven.   I truly believe that this was used as a 'deterrent' to make one think twice before taking their life.    

However, I don't want anyone who may be considering taking their life to 'run' with this and feel they are free to die by their own doing.   Life is too precious to end sooner than it should.  What looks or feels impossible to live with today, can always change for the better.   

God still says, 'Choose Life".


----------



## Galadriel (Aug 10, 2014)

LadyRaider said:


> I don't think homosexuality was one of Jesus' issues. In the grand scheme of things... how important is that one? You have 33 years on earth to make a difference. Where are you going to start? Feeding the poor, correct?



Since engaging in homosexual sex is a mortal son that separates you from Jesus Christ and leaves you in danger of Hell, it is an important issue. Mortal sin is a huge issue, and it's THE purpose for which Jesus came into the world.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Aug 10, 2014)

LadyRaider said:


> *I don't think homosexuality was one of Jesus' issues.* In the grand scheme of things... how important is that one? You have 33 years on earth to make a difference. Where are you going to start? Feeding the poor, correct?



Really LadyRaider? What about here in Matthew 19, Jesus affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman PERIOD:

3 Some Pharisees came to *Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to [c]divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 

Or how about this line from John:

15 If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Or this one from Mark:

30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 

If you love God, you will try to avoid sin.   If you love your neighbor, you will speak the truth in love about sin to keep him/her from going down that road.  2 men or 2 women cannot become one flesh.  Their union is null and void.  You are focusing on physical hunger and poverty.  There is a fate worse than being poor in this life and it's hell.  I don't care how many mouths you feed in this life, if they end up in hell, it really won't matter.*


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Aug 10, 2014)

You know what?  I want people to STOP PLAYING.  I want people to stop deluding themselves into calling sin correct and righteousness sin.  I am so sick of it.  How in the world can 2 men or 2 women engaging in sexual intercourse be correct???  How can that ever be correct?  Just STOP IT.


----------



## momi (Aug 10, 2014)

Belle Du Jour said:


> You know what?  I want people to STOP PLAYING.  I want people to stop deluding themselves into calling sin correct and righteousness sin.  I am so sick of it.  How in the world can 2 men or 2 women engaging in sexual intercourse be correct???  How can that ever be correct?  Just STOP IT.



STOP PLAYING is right. 

Or at least stop pretending that you are right when you know good and well you are wrong.


----------



## mensa (Aug 10, 2014)

*Belle Du Jou*r,

Blessings to you for not being afraid to speak the truth.


----------



## felic1 (Aug 10, 2014)

LadyRaider said:


> I don't think homosexuality was one of Jesus' issues. In the grand scheme of things... how important is that one? You have 33 years on earth to make a difference. Where are you going to start? Feeding the poor, correct?



LadyRaider   Hi Sis! I just wanted to resond to your post. Jesus's ministry drew him to outcasts. He had empathy for people that seemed discarded by their community. Mary Magdelene, the woman with the issue of blood, lepers, the lady taken in adultery, mother's with dead children and no other means of support. He cleansed people that were not supposed to be present. He healed the blind who could not participate, and disabled folks that could not help themselves.

The jewish society in Jesus's time was very punitive. In most of the biblical epics that we see, the jews were real quick to pick up a rock. They always had big ones like papaya sized. I think people may have joined in stoning for entertainment. There were homosexual people in Jesus's time. Maybe they were on the down low. Jesus had gifts, to reveal mens hearts. In him dwelt the fullness of the godhead bodily. He said if you have seen me, you have seen the father. if you have heard the father, you5dg cc will hear what I say. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their acts of perversion. If there be 10, God would not destroy the city. The towns were overtaken with corruption and wiped out. We cannot ignore the fact that homosexual people cannot be fruitful and multiply.
It is an unclean practice. Jesus knew the hearts of people. We cannot forget that these towns were wiped out as well as the camps of the children of Israel when Moses was on the mountain receiving the 10 commandments. The place got torn up for that mess. Our God is clean, pure and holy. He is without sin. He is asking us to come out from among them.


----------



## LadyRaider (Aug 11, 2014)

Jesus was a new covenant. He died for the sins that occurred at Sodom and Gomorrah. You make it seem as if his death meant nothing. 

Refusing the funeral was probably up there with Judas' "greater sin." Hurting people and denying them access to God is when sin gets up there. 

I am always torn on the subject because I attended a great church in Austin, Texas. Kicked out of the Texas Baptist Convention for allowing blacks to attend the church, (then readmitted when times changed) for having a female deacon, (then readmitted when times changed) and finally in the mid 1990s for having an open homosexual as a deacon (that readmittance hasn't happened yet.) 

So you can see why I make connections to a long history of using the bible for hate and separation? 

But the reason I'm torn is that when my church was the only baptist church that welcomed Gays... they came out of the woodwork. I mean there were so many of them wanting to be welcomed in a place of worship that they "ruined" my church. LOL. Overrun. I actually stopped attending because they changed the church so much. I had different needs in a church family. But it was sad because they wanted to be welcome in a place of God so bad. 

My new church is small town conservative and white. I just prefer white churches because I like highly educated Pastors... the Ph.Ds. 

But having Austin sensibilities, I really have to stay out of Sunday School. Fox News Racial Views preached in Sunday School. (Blacks were better off as slaves, you know? I heard that in Sunday School.) And of course Gay hatred (very subtle though... they are not mean people.)  

But my pastor, The Rev. Doctor Sandlin himself, said that there are a WHOLE lot of sins to get through before he needed to focus on sexual sin. Heh. He's a good one.  I believe that's what Jesus would say (and did communicate based on his own words and the focus of his life's work.) 

What good came of denying a homosexual a funeral? Did it make other sinners feel more "pure," superior? Was that Jesus' message? That there was a hierarchy of sinners?


----------



## JaneBond007 (Aug 11, 2014)

Homosexuality wasn't on the low-down in the Roman and Greek centered society at the time of Jesus. They had huge sex industries involving all sorts of unholy acts, with children and even animals.  I think it's important to realize that Jesus never came to overturn the laws that were revealed at Sinai.  

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.


Surely, Jesus had much empathy for all humanity to show us all how to live.  But the sin itself cannot be ignored and made as inconsequential.    His way was showing us compassion as well as equality.  And we're all equally sinners.  But instead of putting people to death by laws, people put themselves to spiritual death unrepented and even reap judgements of illness upon themselves.  Every mortal sin we commit, someone somewhere is going to suffer indirectly from the consequences of it.  We suffer directly.  Compassion and the means of repentance over capitol punishment?  I'm no theologian but it's a possibility?  

We are still accountable and them having put this pastor in danger of promoting theological untruths was very unfair and was done on purpose.  The deceased's pastor should have serviced him at his small building, then had the overflow at the cemetery.  They did this as a show and to promote their "new gospel," using the unsuspecting new pastor as the venue.


----------



## felic1 (Aug 11, 2014)

LadyRaider  Hello Sis! I do not undersand what you mean by he died for the type of sins committed at Sodom and Gomorrah. I am not attempting to put you down. You said I make it seem like his death meant nothing. As a fellow christian, we know that we were redeemed by his blood. If I have offended you in any way, I will apologize. Have a great day to everyone!!


----------



## Mortons (Aug 12, 2014)

If we are to judge people by their sins even in death, no one should get a funeral service. Surely we have all committed something that the Lord despises. Why bother with funeral rites period? 

I'm one who thinks that funerals are for the living. The dead are with God for Him to judge (not you any longer). Let the Lord take care of the souls he created, and we can take care of the grieving on earth as good stewards.


----------



## CoilyFields (Aug 13, 2014)

Why cancel the funeral?  It had nothing to do with his life choices and everything to do with the grieving process and laying him to rest. ..wherever that resting place may be. I see this as no different than a pastor doing a funeral for a fornicator of a heterosexual persuasion. He's not offering approval or support for his choices. 

The only way I could understand was if the pastor had this same policy for everything;  no christening oow kids, no marrying people who fornicated, no funerals for adulterors etc.


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 14, 2014)

I see it also from the standpoint of keeping one's word.  God holds us to our word.  

With the above said, I still strongly hold the family accountable for NOT getting this clear while making the arrangements.   When my mom passed away, as sad as we were,  we STILL made sure that 'ALL' was in order... 'ALL'.  We made sure that all of the particulars were in order.    

Anytime anyone makes arrangements with ANY venue...for whatever reason.. 'ANY' ... it is imperative to have all of the 'understandings' in check... period.   And this family cannot use their grieving as validation.   

As I re-read the article, no one in the family was taking accountability for not checking with the Church regarding it's policies.   They (the family members of the deceased) were wrong to not do so.  They knew that this was a CHURCH, it is their fault for not being upfront with the Church about the deceased's lifestyle and if it would be an issue. 

All of this talk from the partner (not a valid spouse) about their relationship not being a 'secret' to anyone, is not credible, as the mother of the deceased clearly stated that the Church was one that she 'USED' to belong to... key words here:  'Used to'.    It was their responsibility to confirm with the Church if the person being in a gay lifestyle would be acceptable or not.   

All of this _'woe is me'_ from the family and their cries that _'the Church done us wrong' _is only going to end up as a backfire to them (the family).   

All of these attacks upon the Churches are only going to end up as_ 'the boy who cried wolf'._  It's going to fall upon death ears as folks get tired of playing pity pat with grown adults.

*It is still a Church!*  Regardless of what the media and the gay agenda are trying to paint picture perfect about gay acceptance (which in truth is gay bullying / enforcement), the Church still has to honor the Word of God which will never change and will always call this lifestyle 'SIN'; and it is a sin which is *un*-repented as the fight for it entails...they do not want to acknowledge that this is a lifestyle that God forbids (which includes Jesus), which in turn, the Church cannot endorse nor support.

Now as a Minister, I personally would have performed the service and/or allowed it.  If for no other reason that I gave my Word and for the love of Jesus Christ who died for this dear life now passed away.  

However, all of this blame on the Church who declined is not valid...for both sides are equally accountable.


----------



## Laela (Aug 14, 2014)

> Funeral - A funeral is a ceremony for celebrating, respecting, sanctifying, or remembering the life of a person who has died.  Funerary customs comprise the complex of beliefs and practices used by a culture to remember the dead, from interment itself, to various monuments, prayers, and rituals undertaken in their honor. Customs vary widely between cultures, and between religious affiliations within cultures.



As much as a funeral is to comfort the living, it sounds like the pastor was put in a precariously conflicting situation and was not given a choice as to how to honor/respect or celebrate this person's life considering his beliefs.  The family should have told him.


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 14, 2014)

Laela said:


> As much as a funeral is to comfort the living, it sounds like the pastor was put in a precariously conflicting situation and was not given a choice as to how to honor/respect or celebrate this person's life considering his beliefs. The family should have told him.


 
Laela, I agree.  They should have shared all of the details beforehand.


----------



## momi (Aug 16, 2014)

Laela said:


> As much as a funeral is to comfort the living, it sounds like the pastor was put in a precariously conflicting situation and was not given a choice as to how to honor/respect or celebrate this person's life considering his beliefs.  The family should have told him.



I agree Laela - but I guess since they felt that their lifestyle was perfectly appropriate then others would as well. 

The lesson learned for me is to ask the right questions! Having said that - with recent legislation asking questions about someone's sexuality/gender could be against the law. 

My goodness.


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 16, 2014)

momi said:


> I agree Laela - but I guess since they felt that their lifestyle was perfectly appropriate then others would as well.
> 
> The lesson learned for me is to ask the right questions! Having said that - with recent legislation asking questions about someone's sexuality/gender could be against the law.
> 
> My goodness.


 
momi, You know what?  

When I had finally taken the time to re-read the article, it is apparent that there is a strong delusion with a high expectation that this lifestyle is supposed to be considered normal by everyone.

Quoting the partner:  

_"Everyone who knew us knew about our relationship," he said. "We didn't keep secrets."_

Yet, this relationship wasn't shared with the Church which would have prevented the outcome. 

Why am I sensing a 'conspiracy' behind this?  While it seems 'why would it be', yet there's something about this that keeps saying 'conspiracy', that an 'agenda' is beneath this.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Aug 23, 2014)

You can know about someone's lifestyle.  You can also feel sorry they died.  Two different things that don't necessarily cross the same tracks.


----------



## Shimmie (Aug 24, 2014)

LadyRaider said:


> I don't think homosexuality was one of Jesus' issues.
> 
> In the grand scheme of things... how important is that one? You have 33 years on earth to make a difference.
> 
> *Where are you going to start? Feeding the poor, correct?*


 
I'm just taking time to read through each post in this thread and I noticed that I needed to comment on this only for the sake of clarity...not for offense or contention.

The* First Miracle and Act* that Jesus performed here on earth was in celebration of a Marriage... The Wedding at Cana, which was indeed *not* a gay marriage but the Marriage between One Man and One Woman, under God.

John 2

_5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”_

_6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons._

_7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim._

_8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”_
_They did so, _

_9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside _

_10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”_

_11 *What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.*_

Not long after, Jesus took a whip and turned the tables of the 'money changers' (thieves) who were disrespecting the Temple of Worship.


----------

