“Stand your ground,
putting on the belt of truth and the body armor of God’s righteousness.”
(Ephesians 6:13 NLT).
Very recently, a pastor of a church in Florida cancelled doing a
funeral and the comments made inspired this commentary. It would appear that
the masses making very negative statements about the pastor and Christianity
are born out of a lack of knowledge about how God expects all to live. When the
family of the deceased (a gay man) requested the funeral to be held at the
church, they apparently forgot to inform the pastor of the man’s lifestyle and
when the pastor discovered it in the media, he made a decision to stand on the
principles of God’s Word and now most feel justified in attacking him and his
beliefs. Some of the comments appear to have been made from little to no
knowledge of the circumstances when one commenter posted, “I bet he (the
pastor) didn’t have a problem taking his money every week.” My question is,
“Was the deceased a member of the church or was it just “his family” who were
members?
What does it mean to be a member of a church? Well, for some
that answer would vary and for some—who attend regularly—they just go to be
going. Most churches—whether part of a larger institution or they are
independent—have by-law and a constitution by which the church is run. Granted,
there are many churches who make exceptions in various situations, but that by
no means should nullify the original intent of those by-laws whatever they are.
And most certainly, having by-laws in place should not be a recent to make a
spectacle of a pastor.
I don’t know about most of the Christian community, but I am
really tired of the church being made out to be a monster simply because most
of us have principles—based on the bible and tend to live our lives
accordingly. For those who don’t have a clue—live your life any way you want,
but when you die—go the funeral home and leave the churches out of the equation
that negates life in Christ Jesus.
Not too long ago, a similar incident surfaced and had people
embroiled in judgment against Marvin Winans. That scenario—the church’s refusal
to dedicate a child who had been born out of wedlock brought out the worst in
non-believers and even had me questioning what some of the so-called believers
had to say. Very simply put—the media failed to say whether the woman in
question was a member of the church (they simply stated she attended), and then
failed to ask the woman why she refused the “private dedication service” that
was offered. Of course, the general public seldom gets “accurate information
from all parties involved,” we only get what the media wants to publish. I don’t
which is worse—sensationalism hounds or those who are “so upset” with the
pastors.
Part Two posted tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment