Church cancels gay man's funeral

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, there's absolutely no imaginable excuse for this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's no such thing as 'a gay funeral' or 'a straight funeral'. What a ridiculous concept.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Hi jmfcst...or is GaussLaw jmfcst? It's hard to tell these days.

I'm pretty sure GaussLaw's not jmfcst. I think this guy might be (I wouldn't say announcing himself with a weirdly concrete and literalist interpretation of Matthew 8.22 is a dead giveaway but it's certainly suspicious), which is sad because treating 'a gay funeral' as a sensical concept is obtuse even for him.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What did the family want the pastor to say, "I typically comfort surviving family members by referring to eternity when conducting a funeral, but since I believe homosexuality is sinful, can we just skip over eternity?"

As opposed to in all those other funerals he's conducted for notorious non-sinners, I'm sure.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I understand Christianity at least adequately, thank you. I've heard this all before and am perfectly clear on the distinction between repentance and non-repentance. I simply don't believe that the pastor is the one with the ability to reliably identify that distinction and believe that one should err on the side of hope.

Framed this way I'll concede that this is perhaps for the best if the pastor felt that he really couldn't have brought himself to conducting a mutually acceptable eulogy, sure, but I'd still say that's his problem, not that of the bereaved.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I simply don't believe that the pastor is the one with the ability to reliably identify that distinction and believe that one should err on the side of hope.

If a pastor believes someone is living a lifestyle that is in open rebellion to God, the only hope he could honestly offer was the possibility of a death-bed repentance.  And I don’t think the family would have appreciated that kind of eulogy or even agreed of the necessity of a death-bed repentance in their loved-one’s case.

Furthermore, I agree pastors are often faced doing eulogies for those they think fell short of the goal and will then practice good taste, and in kindness to the bereaved, focus the eulogy on the parts of the life of the deceased that were mutually commendable while leaving the sins unmentioned.    But, in this case, I kind of doubt the family would want a eulogy that doesn’t acknowledge the deceased was gay.

On what basis do you doubt that? Serious question; you seem to have a somewhat more in-depth understanding of the ins and outs this story than I do.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the responsibility of funeral arrangements, which include the responsibility to find someone to give a mutually agreeable eulogy, rests with the bereaved.

The pastor rightly concluded he couldn’t give a mutually agreeable eulogy and stepped aside out of respect of the bereaved.  After all, as odd as it may seem, funerals are for living.
[/quote]

That's not really the sense in which I meant it was 'his problem', but whatever.