“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!