PCC Cancels Singers Appearance Because One Is Gay

ALAYMAN said:
Would they be sitting in respectful attendance to the preaching of God’s word or leading congregational worship via an ensemble?

By the way, you sidestepped the seriousness of my question. Is that indicative of your capitulation to rhetoric from the current cultural zeitgeist relating to LGBTQ issues?
Click to expand...
They’d be sitting in attendance like any other first timers.

To answer your question, I’d draw the line with a performer convicted of certain crimes. For example, a convicted pedophile, murderer, rapist, etc.
 
Huk said:
I disagree. The group was only there to perform music, not teach politics or a lifestyle. This is no different than politically liberal colleges refusing to allow a conservative speaker on campus because some snowflakes begin to complain and protest.
Click to expand...

Fine to disagree, but by having the group there at their invitation, they are endorsing the group as an institution, if not individually.

A liberal PRIVATE college is perfectly welcome to refuse conservative speakers... PUBLIC colleges should be open to various points of view that reflect the public, and roughly 40% (so I've heard) of the public is conservative.
 
Walt said:
Fine to disagree, but by having the group there at their invitation, they are endorsing the group as an institution, if not individually.

A liberal PRIVATE college is perfectly welcome to refuse conservative speakers... PUBLIC colleges should be open to various points of view that reflect the public, and roughly 40% (so I've heard) of the public is conservative.
Click to expand...
Part of a well balanced education includes being exposed to different beliefs, although in this case, it was merely barbershop singing.
 
Huk said:
Part of a well balanced education includes being exposed to different beliefs, although in this case, it was merely barbershop singing.
Click to expand...

It's not just the singing if one of the group was openly a sodomite, which God's word condemns as an abomination; by having them, PCC would be endorsing it.

It's the exact same thing if there was an practicing wife-swapper or adulterer in the group: they should not come.
 
Walt said:
It's not just the singing if one of the group was openly a sodomite, which God's word condemns as an abomination; by having them, PCC would be endorsing it.

It's the exact same thing if there was a practicing wife-swapper or adulterer in the group: they should not come.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here when I say that I’d be surprised if most barbershop quartet singers aren’t gay. Maybe back in the 1920s they weren’t, but in the 2020s, color me skeptical.
 
Huk said:
They’d be sitting in attendance like any other first timers.

To answer your question, I’d draw the line with a performer convicted of certain crimes. For example, a convicted pedophile, murderer, rapist, etc.
Click to expand...

The apostle Paul was a murderer, and David probably could be considered to have taken stolen virtue, so I think your moral system needs a bit of tweaking. As to my answer to your question about how I'd receive the gay folk in my church, I thought my answer was clear enough, but to nail it down, they'd be welcome to sit and learn, but not lead or minister as long as they were in open unrepentant sin (of any kind, not just sodomy).
 
ALAYMAN said:
The apostle Paul was a murderer, and David probably could be considered to have taken stolen virtue, so I think your moral system needs a bit of tweaking. As to my answer to your question about how I'd receive the gay folk in my church, I thought my answer was clear enough, but to nail it down, they'd be welcome to sit and learn, but not lead or minister as long as they were in open unrepentant sin (of any kind, not just sodomy).
Click to expand...
Nothing about this secular group’s visit was ever meant to be ministry related. They were knowingly hired as a non-ministry performance for the students/staff/maybe community. Conservative like to call out liberals for cancel culture. It seems the door swings both ways. I hope PCC never invites the Florida Orchestra to perform. Imagine having to scour 200+ social media profiles to figure out if some guy is playing an instrument other than a trombone!
 
Last edited:
ALAYMAN said:
Lol, you’re not a very good libertarian, nor an honest Baptist 😉
Click to expand...
I’m not 100% libertarian. I do think a private college has the right to do whatever they wish, but I just think in this case it did more damage than good. As far as being an honest Baptist, I’d struggle to label myself a Baptist per se, although I do attend a Baptist church.
 
Huk said:
Nothing about this secular group’s visit was ever meant to be ministry related. They were knowingly hired as a non-ministry performance for the students/staff/maybe community. Conservative like to call out liberals for cancel culture. It seems the door swings both ways. I hope PCC never invites the Florida Orchestra to perform. Imagine having to scour 200+ social media profiles to figure out if some guy is playing an instrument other than a trombone!
Click to expand...

You are abusing terms: this is NOT "Cancel Culture" - they are not demanding that the group disband or out to destroy them: at PCC, a private college, their group does not reflect the values they stand for, and therefore the invitation is canceled. I have no problems with a (private) Jewish college canceling some group if, say, there was a member that contradicted their values... or a (private) liberal college that doesn't want evangelists on campus or to speak.

You do bring up an interesting point about inviting some orchestra... I assume they would not invite them if they had members openly practicing sodomy. I don't think it is necessary to scour social media to find something against someone: it depends on how open it is, I would imagine.
 
Walt said:
You are abusing terms: this is NOT "Cancel Culture" - they are not demanding that the group disband or out to destroy them: at PCC, a private college, their group does not reflect the values they stand for, and therefore the invitation is canceled. I have no problems with a (private) Jewish college canceling some group if, say, there was a member that contradicted their values... or a (private) liberal college that doesn't want evangelists on campus or to speak.

You do bring up an interesting point about inviting some orchestra... I assume they would not invite them if they had members openly practicing sodomy. I don't think it is necessary to scour social media to find something against someone: it depends on how open it is, I would imagine.
Click to expand...
I just happen to think if a Christian college knowingly invites a non-Christian group to perform (whether it is an a cappella group, a jazz band, the Harlem Globetrotters, a traveling circus, etc.), then the expectation should be that you accept there will be performers within the group who do not reflect the school’s institutional values. To expect otherwise is just absurd and unrealistic.
 
Huk said:
Nothing about this secular group’s visit was ever meant to be ministry related.
Click to expand...
but you are the one that made the comparison to gays coming to a church service of mine, and how they would be treated. So your question was a comparison of apples to oranges by your own reasoning. However, I would disagree with your assessment about this not being a ministry related event. Could you sustain that reasoning?
 
Last edited:
Huk said:
They’d be sitting in attendance like any other first timers.

To answer your question, I’d draw the line with a performer convicted of certain crimes. For example, a convicted pedophile, murderer, rapist, etc.
Click to expand...
As opposed to one who openly defies God by his own sinful lifestyle?
 
ALAYMAN said:
but you are the one that made the comparison to gays coming to a church service of mine, and how they would be treated. So your question was a comparison of apples to oranges by your own reasoning. However, I would disagree with your assessment about this not being a ministry related event. Could you sustain that reasoning?
Click to expand...
You’re quite adept at liberally seasoning the dish, but you lack an ability to evaluate the efficacy of the seasoning on it afterwards. Go back and review why I asked you that question (which, for the record, came after you brought politics and honesty into the equation).
 
Huk said:
You’re quite adept at liberally seasoning the dish, but you lack an ability to evaluate the efficacy of the seasoning on it afterwards. Go back and review why I asked you that question (which, for the record, came after you brought politics and honesty into the equation).
Click to expand...
No offense intended, as I'm merely pointing out what appears to be a mis-prioritization and inconsistency (from a conservative evangelical/fundamental perspective) of principles in your thinking, as well as conflating distinctions that are worth differentiating (like ministry leadership vs "laity"). The most recent evidence of that I'd point to is your answer to Tarheel. He points to the reality that PCC is standing on the Biblical principle that an openly licentious lifestyle is cause to disassociate or disfellowship from the offending party, whereas you resort to the Legal rationale for supporting why you believe that PCC should kowtow to the ethics of secular culture. The singing group in question made it clear with their response to the situation that they would have hoped to continue the relationship despite PCCs religious objections. Their stated reason for maintaining the ongoing relationship was so that The Kings singers/folk could foster a sense of "inclusion". Their intent is clear, that they don't see a problem with the lifestyle, and that is their legal prerogative, but it clashes with PCC's legal AND moral rights based on an informed Biblical consciousness and conscience.

The joke about your politics and ecclesiology wasn't meant to offend, and if I did so I apologize.
 
ALAYMAN said:
No offense intended, as I'm merely pointing out what appears to be a mis-prioritization and inconsistency (from a conservative evangelical/fundamental perspective) of principles in your thinking, as well as conflating distinctions that are worth differentiating (like ministry leadership vs "laity"). The most recent evidence of that I'd point to is your answer to Tarheel. He points to the reality that PCC is standing on the Biblical principle that an openly licentious lifestyle is cause to disassociate or disfellowship from the offending party, whereas you resort to the Legal rationale for supporting why you believe that PCC should kowtow to the ethics of secular culture. The singing group in question made it clear with their response to the situation that they would have hoped to continue the relationship despite PCCs religious objections. Their stated reason for maintaining the ongoing relationship was so that The Kings singers/folk could foster a sense of "inclusion". Their intent is clear, that they don't see a problem with the lifestyle, and that is their legal prerogative, but it clashes with PCC's legal AND moral rights based on an informed Biblical consciousness and conscience.

The joke about your politics and ecclesiology wasn't meant to offend, and if I did so I apologize.
Click to expand...
I specifically asked you that question because you are in the process of entering the ministry. We had a gay couple visit my childhood church years ago when I was a teenager. (As I’ve previously mentioned, I grew up in a very conservative IFB church in the South.) Upon arriving in the lobby, a small group of church men began making snide remarks meant for the visitors to overhear. My pastor was nearby and witnessed what was happening and, to his credit, quickly scolded the church men and said they should be ashamed and everyone is welcomed to visit, and more than likely, it might be the only time in those unsaved gay guys lives that they’ll be in a church where the Gospel will actually be taught.

I completely agree that PCC is welcome to have any performers they want or turn away those they don’t. However, I wonder in the long run if that one singled out gay guy was better served by Christ by being rejected or if they had allowed his group to perform. I guess we’ll never know.
 
Huk said:
I specifically asked you that question because you are in the process of entering the ministry. We had a gay couple visit my childhood church years ago when I was a teenager. (As I’ve previously mentioned, I grew up in a very conservative IFB church in the South.) Upon arriving in the lobby, a small group of church men began making snide remarks meant for the visitors to overhear. My pastor was nearby and witnessed what was happening and, to his credit, quickly scolded the church men and said they should be ashamed and everyone is welcomed to visit, and more than likely, it might be the only time in those unsaved gay guys lives that they’ll be in a church where the Gospel will actually be taught.

I completely agree that PCC is welcome to have any performers they want or turn away those they don’t. However, I wonder in the long run if that one singled out gay guy was better served by Christ by being rejected or if they had allowed his group to perform. I guess we’ll never know.
Click to expand...

I think your point is worthy of consideration, especially in the illustration of church attitudes and how NOT to deal with those visiting us. I see this culture war stuff up close and personal via politics. I am a conservative, in every area of life, politics included. But I don't believe in letting my politics lead me to attitudes and conduct that is unbecoming towards those who are at odds with my conservatism. However, I do see this acrimony serving as a wedge amongst evangelical/fundamental believers when they encounter "liberals" in their worship venues, and it ought not be allowed to drive a wedge between us (of course that street runs both ways though).

If this was merely a concert (I don't know if it merely was that or not) and PCC has made a habit of having secular performances before this I think that they could have allowed the group to play and yet offered public policy commentary as to their opposition to the LGBTQ+ agenda/principles, demonstrating principled clarity while showing grace. Of course the mainstream media and leftists wouldn't be satisfied with that either, which is why this sort of thing is becoming much more difficult to navigate without lots of heat and lot along with plenty of casualties (and copious amounts of differing opinions).

By the way, as a sidenote, the history of my name (A LAYMAN) has a lot to do with a disdain for some forms of the clergy/laity distinction, and though I am currently our assistant pastor, please notice I didn't change my FFF handle to THE RIGHT REVEREND ASST PASTOR ALAYMAN! 😁
 
I would say in a church setting regarding visitors, the goal would be to show Gods love to the unsaved, not getting them to change their lifestyle. Same with those who live in any other type of sin. If you had to be sinless to get saved then none of use would be. I'm considered sinless only because Jesus already paid for those sins. When discussing Christianity and salvation with the lost, I do not dwell on any specific sin (for all have sinned) I focus on a savior and what he did to pay for our sins.

Once someone is saved I believe the holy spirit along with individual teaching and discipleship is the place to address biblical rules and standards.

At a Christian college where people are training for the ministry and for other careers in a controlled "Christian" environment, having someone who publicly advocates for a non-biblical lifestyle perform would be unwise. It would weaken the schools position on that issue. Those parents and preachers back home that recommend, promote and support PCC because of their positions on such biblical issues would loose faith in its leaders.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top