When this story first broke, I encouraged all churches to have some sort of policy in place. It's important to think through these things.

For me, I have no interest in our building housing funerals for non-members of the church.

I really just don't see the point in it. If the people have a church, use it. If not, why use "a church" for a funeral?

Churches "hosting" funerals is not a big issue in my area. Indeed, such hosting is a bit outside of the norm. Most funerals are hosted in funeral homes. Church funerals are, in general, a rarity, and usually done for faithful members of that particular local church. I think that is the best policy.

That being said ... I would conduct a funeral service for anyone on a neutral site. But I would be most careful about hosting funerals in our facilities. At that point the funeral ceremony becomes a part of the witness of our church. I would make sure that the officiant(s) and worship plans were in line with our doctrine and vision. Indeed, I would verify the same for any wedding hosted in our facilities.

http://geoffbaggett.com
http://sbcimpact.net

How far have we strayed oh Lord... Why is doing a funeral a political statement now and not a dignified way to celebrate the ending of a persons life? This is a tragic subversion of the church today.

I would do a funeral for anyone, on any site. I can not think of an exception to that rule. Life is life and it is worth a celebration no matter the circumstance of the person who is now deceased.

Carl,

Did you read the same post I did? The only ones making the statement were the man's family ... who wanted to turn the funeral into a homosexual celebration.

They were not being asked to "do" a funeral. They were just asked to provide the building. When the funeral failed to meet their moral and doctrinal threshold, they pulled the plug.

Life is worth a celebration. But the question must be, within the church, what kind of celebration?

What if the family of a Wiccan priestess asked to use your church building for a funeral ... complete with their own "priest?" Would you toss them the keys and simply tell them to vacuum the floors when they're done?

How far have we strayed, oh Lord? Indeed.

http://geoffbaggett.com
http://sbcimpact.net

Better to build bridges to alternative community than to burn them. I don't see allowing that funeral as an endorsement of homosexuality, but rather a demonstration of Jesus' unconditional love and mercy, as well well as proper respect for the deceased. To answer the question about how far have we strayed from the Lord, I think the church strayed a long time ago from the ways of the Lord when it began no longer extending the same grace and mercy to others that Jesus granted to them. I'm am absolutely certain that this church or any other doesn't have to go to the homosexual community to find sin; there's plenty of it going on in every church that is committed every day, yet is often justified as ministry. We would do better to remove the planks from our own eyes before pulling splinters from others.

Dear J.W.

Please reread the original article.
The reason the High Point Church canceled the funeral service was because the family of the deceased wanted a homosexual minister to officiate and a gay men's Choir to perform.
Had the family not insisted on these conditions,the funeral would have taken place at the church. Just as most business establishments have a "No Smoking on the premises" policy, the High Point church has a policy of not conducting funerals that would dishonor what they believe in. To cancel the funeral service is their prerogative.

Too often we begin to worship our buildings. The church is composed of the people, not the bricks and mortar box where we gather. To host a funeral in our worship space for someone whose lifestyle we may disagree with (wicca, gay etc.) is to me an act of hospitality. Guidelines for building use is a must but do we truly seek welcome our modern day tax collectors, lepers and outcasts? Are we really following Jesus or simply saying good things about him?

There is a couple, who are my old friends, that attend a large episcopal church that is pro-gay. We have argued the sexuality issues for years. They are pro-gay, revisionist, liberals who reject the authority of Holy Scripture.

They talked about having their funerals in their gay church, so I asked them to consider a funeral home because my family will not enter a gay "church" because this is sacrilege and desecration.

We had to separate and now we no longer see each other.

I have personal connections to some in the Turtle Creek Chorale, and it is a misstatement to call it "a choir of homosexual men." While the Chorale does indeed have many strong ties to the homosexual community, there are many straight men in the chorale, and the choir does not call itself a "Gay organization." See the wikipedia article.

This might seem like I'm nit-picking, but I think the Church needs to be very careful in the language we use when talking about sexual identity. Making gross misstatements like this is not helpful.

About the question at hand, I want to be slow to pass judgment. But I do wonder if High Point could have seen this as an opportunity to welcome sinners, rather than an opportunity to condemn the homosexual lifestyle. My guess is that they have repeatedly made that position abundantly clear. This could have been an opportunity to show how the church isn't threatened by the presence of sinners.

sometimes, when I read stuff like this & see comments & reactions that it triggers - i ask myself: are we all reading the gospel, the good news of Jesus, the same way ?

Turtle Creek Chorale is no more a gay choir than Prestonwood Baptist is a white church. Episcopal churches are no more gay churches than evangelical churches are churchers for people who hate

Is it any wonder that Barna reports that people see Christianity as judgmental (87 percent) & hypocritical (85 percent) ?

i am a sinner - you are a sinner. that is the shared reality. but more powerful than that is the fact we are God's beloved - all of us

DJ and Nate make excellent points. I can't study the life of Christ and ignore the fact that he received everyone with open arms yet, 2000 years later we still don't get it. We still think we have to shun any demographic of people who don't meet our stringent spiritual criteria.

Allowing a group of people, many whom are struggling under the burden of a lifestyle which most of them wish they didn't have to endure, to hold funeral services in your church makes a tremendous statement of unconditional love, mercy and grace to them, possibly opening the doors of their hearts to the same hope we have found in Christ, rather than the judgment, rejection and humiliation they must typically face by so many of us who call ourselves Christians.

Why do we fear satan more than we trust in God's amazing grace and power to protect us and guide us as we endeavor to reach out to an increasingly desperate society who is perishing without knowing God's loving embrace and eternal hope? Why is that so difficult for us, yet it is so easy for us to kick spiritual sand in their faces, pushing them further and further away from finding the only Hope any of us will ever have?

Perhaps we had better kneel down, start drawing in that sand, and begin saying to each other, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."

This was a sad and tragic lost opportunity.

I have conducted funerals for many non-believers, regardless of their background. It is an opportune time to present the gospel. When the deceased is a non-believer, the family usually uses a funeral home. I have opened up our church for funeral services where other ministers participated. It was not a good service. Some took the opportunity to make theological or personal statements. I allow the use of our church only if I am the only one to officiate the service. This is to help the family and to maintain the witness of the church, because many attendees do not know much about the church.

I am troubled by some comments that funerals are a celebration of life. When the deceased is a non-believer, what is the reason for the celebration? We should grief for the deceased because he/she had been condemned to the lake of fire.

Joe,

I cannot say better. I absolutely agree. According to the article, it appears that the church was willing, especially if the service was honoring the Lord. If the service cannot be honoring the Lord the way we understand from the Bible (i.e. celebrating homosexual lifestyle), we should draw the line and say to other people that if we do those things we are not honoring and reflecting who God is. We, as Christians, love other people because they bear God's image, but it doesn't mean we let them celebrate the sinful behaviors and lifestyle. If we do, 1) we don't love God of the bible and 2) we don't properly love others who do not understand who God is.

Sincerely,
John

Hi to all,
Ok, here are some probably controversial questions on which I would like to receive feedback.

Why does the Church do funerals and weddings at all? Where was this practice instituted in the Scriptures? If these practices were not instituted in the Scriptures, are they just cultural practices or rites that at some point the Church decided to "adopt" because it was thought there should be Christian "equivalents." What would be your opinion of a church that decided not to do wedding or funeral services for anyone?

DJ and Nate make excellent points. I can't study the life of Christ and ignore the fact that he received everyone with open arms yet, 2000 years later we still don't get it. We still think we have to shun any demographic of people who don't meet our stringent spiritual criteria.

Allowing a group of people, many whom are struggling under the burden of a lifestyle which most of them wish they didn't have to endure, to hold funeral services in your church makes a tremendous statement of unconditional love, mercy and grace to them, possibly opening the doors of their hearts to the same hope we have found in Christ, rather than the judgment, rejection and humiliation they must typically face by so many of us who call ourselves Christians.

Why do we fear satan more than we trust in God's amazing grace and power to protect us and guide us as we endeavor to reach out to an increasingly desperate society who is perishing without knowing God's loving embrace and eternal hope? Why is that so difficult for us, yet it is so easy for us to kick spiritual sand in their faces, pushing them further and further away from finding the only Hope any of us will ever have?

Perhaps we had better kneel down, start drawing in that sand, and begin saying to each other, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."

This was a sad and tragic lost opportunity.

personally, i'm always weary of the "it's not in the Bible, therefore..." debate. that being said...

there is certainly a precedent for the importance surrounding a burial, at the very least for the patriarchs (Abraham et. al.). their deaths are all recorded, and it is often stated that family and community turned out to bury them. and remember joseph, who honoured his dying father's request about where he would be buried? there is a strong theme in the Bible that the end of the life of a believer is a solemn occasion to be observed in community, though this present debate is obviously about the life of a non-believer.

i salute the church's decision to disallow their premises to be used for the preaching of a message they don't support. everyone does that - think of all the colleges that have disallowed Christian groups like campus crusade to use their facilities! the fact is, people perceive where the message is being preached as being supportive of the message. and no organisation wants to be misunderstood.

Dana, I totally agree with your comment. Its time Christians stand up to the world and become the warriors God intended us to be. Alowing the service to be held out of "compassion" and selling out on your priciples is a sin. I believe this was a test for this body and they passed with flying colors.

Just a point to clarify the fact that Jesus embraced "sinners" and the unclean which is being made to justify the position that the church should have allowed the funeral service to be conducted in the way detailed in the article. It sounds as though the service would have validated and glorified a homosexual lifestyle - this in clear contradiction to what the High Point leaders believe and teach (and which is only an option if you reject the authority of scripture). Jesus DID embrace and keep company with sinners, but he took them, loved them, healed them and taught them His way. He didn't validate their sinful lifestyles - he told them to leave their sin and follow him into life. That said, the evangelical church should be seeking opportunities to reach out to and share a message of love with this marginalized of all groups and in so doing humble itself with regard to the nature of this sin - stop classifying sin and put it all back into one category - Pride (self as god)

Am I missing something? A man who lived a Homosexual lifestyle and his family wants to have it in a Christian church, with a Homosexual minister presiding over the service. Sorry but I agree with the church's decision. Yes Christ loved and ministered to sinners as we should, but this man is dead, his time sadly is passed, so celebrating his life and glorifying his lifestyle, would as 1 John says calling God a liar. Do you want to minister to the homosexual community, then go where they are, and also welcome them to your church for services, just dont put the stamp of approval on the lifestyle by celebrating it in a house of Christian worship. And to the writer who mentioned judging. Yes as believers we are to judge, actions not intentions. Only God knows the intentions of the heart, we all see the actions.

I strongly disagree with any comment stating that it is acceptable to allow groups into the Church to perform a ceremony that contradicts your Church doctrine. More so, I think it dangerous to assume that a Church that doesn't allow this is disregarding the call of Jesus Christ.
If my Church opposes homosexuality as an acceptable "lifestyle" (which we do oppose) and allow a ceremony which glorifies it; how can we have any doctrine at all.
The statement that individuals like wicca and homosexuals should be allowed to participate in events at your Church is an act of hospitality, is another dangerous statement. What about Satanists, Atheists, Sexual Predators? Shouldn't we allow these individuals with opposing views use the Church for funerals and weddings that celebrate their beliefs? Where is the line drawn.
For those who oppose homosexuality, whether or not allowing a homosexual minister to perform a ceremony celebrating the homosexual lifestyle would reflect badly on them is not the point. The point is; doesn't a Church have the right to dictate who they will allow in or not allow in the Church to perform ceremonies?
While I agree timing was an issue. This should have been taken care of before the day before the ceremony. I cannot agree that this is against the very call of Jesus Christ to love the sinner, unconditionally. To love the sinner, does not necessitate the need to shorten the standards by which we live.

Isn't it amazing how God-Fearing people can RATIONALIZE almost anything, making black look nearly pearly white, and white look charcoal black. If Jesus took a whip and cleared the temple of those misusing God's House, aren't there things that are an abomination today? This seems to be a no-brainer.