Australia: Sydney girls school Kambala abuse parents about homosexual gay teachers

Kambala Anglican girls’ school at Rose Bay is being celebrated by the media and other LGBTQ advocates for the way it handled complaints about homosexual teachers.

The school received legitimate complaints from two families about their daughters being exposed to educators whose private lives they deemed to be in conflict with the school’s Christian values. These parents have a right to raise legitimate moral questions to the governing Board of the school regarding their Christian employment policies and the hiring of open homosexuals which are contrary to scripture.

Instead of addressing the homosexual complaints directly with the two families, school council president Sally Herman penned an ugly letter to all parents in order to abuse, humiliate these two families who raised a genuine concern about the lack of ethics and adherence to its Christian foundation. Futher, information was leaked openly to the media to again embarrass any person who stands against the baord.

“In recent days, two families have stridently expressed their displeasure at Kambala for, in their opinion, not living up to our Christian values by hiring and retaining teachers who are gay,” Mr Herman wrote.

“At the core of their concern is the opinion their daughters may be exposed to messages or values that they do not personally agree with.”

Already Herman made the issue personal. She chose not to address the moral conflict of homosexuality and a Christian school, but simply chose to attack. 

The letter, seen by news.com.au, was sent at a time when the national Safe Schools program — designed to protect same sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse students — is under attack and as Australians prepare to vote on a same-sex marriage plebiscite.  Recent research out of John Hopkins, of over 200 studies now have clearly discovered there is no such thing as homosexual orientation, and transgenderism and that youth grow out of this immoral confusion. Will the school maintain false unscientific ideology or science?

Ms Herman, a former student at the school, said staff and students “from many faiths, ethnicities, sexual orientations and political convictions proudly call Kambala ‘my school’”.  Unfortuantely, how can a Christian schools employ people from other faiths. The answer - it is not a Christian school.

“Kambala does not discriminate, positively or negatively, when hiring staff ... All staff, regardless of their role, are selected on merit, empathy and their commitment to supporting the Christian ethos of the school. 

NOW NOTICE THE BIBLICAL LIE

“We are a school community whose composition reflects the diversity of the broader community that we service." IF THE COMMUNITY IS FILLED WITH ATHEISTS, HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER -  THAN OUR SCHOOL SHOULD REFLECT THAT. IS THIS NOT THE LOGIC OF THIS STATEMENT?

She said “love isn’t an optional extra” at Kambala, rather: “We practice love even when it is hard to do. We take the command of Christ seriously when He said, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’.”

WELL THERE WE GO - SHE TAKES THE COMMANDS OF CHRIST SERIOUSLY! YOU CAN'T GET MORE HYPOCRITICAL THAN THAT

 As Creator, Law-Giver and King, the Lord’s condemnation of such homosexual behaviour is absolutely plain.

The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much.

The exegesis of the Sodom and Gibeah stories (Gn. 19:1–25; Jdg. 19:13–20:48) is a good case in point. We must resist D. S. Bailey’s widely-quoted claim that the sin God punished on these occasions was a breach of hospitality etiquette without sexual overtones (it fails to explain adequately both the double usage of the word ‘know’ (yāḏa‘) and the reason behind the substitutionary offer of Lot’s daughters and the Levite’s concubine); but neither account amounts to a wholesale condemnation of all homosexual acts. On both occasions the sin condemned was attempted homosexual rape, not a caring homosexual relationship between consenting partners.

The force of the other OT references to homosexuality is similarly limited by the context in which they are set. Historically, homosexual behaviour was linked with idolatrous cult prostitution (1 Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46). The stern warnings of the levitical law (Lv. 18:22; 20:13) are primarily aimed at idolatry too; the word ‘abomination’ (tô‘ēḇâ), for example, which features in both these references, is a religious term often used for idolatrous practices. Viewed strictly within their context, then, these OT condemnations apply to homosexual activity conducted in the course of idolatry, but not necessarily more widely than that.
In Rom. 1 Paul condemns homosexual acts, lesbian as well as male, in the same breath as idolatry (vv. 23–27), but his theological canvas is broader than that of Lv. Instead of treating homosexual behaviour as an expression of idolatrous worship, he traces both to the bad ‘exchange’ fallen man has made in departing from his Creator’s intention (vv. 25f.). Seen from this angle, every homosexual act is unnatural (para physin, v. 26), not because it cuts across the individual’s natural sexual orientation (which, of course, it may not) or infringes OT law (contra McNeill), but because it flies in the face of God’s creation scheme for human sexual expression.

Paul makes two more references to homosexual practice in other Epistles. Both occur in lists of banned activities and strike the same condemnatory note. In 1 Cor. 6:9f. practising homosexuals are included among the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God (but with the redemptive note added, ‘such were some of you’); and in 1 Tim. 1:9f. they feature in a list of ‘the lawless and disobedient’. The latter is especially important because the whole list represents an updated version of the *TEN COMMANDMENTS. Paul parallels the 7th commandment (on adultery) with a reference to ‘immoral persons’ (pornoi) and ‘sodomites’ (arsenokoitai), words which cover all sexual intercourse outside marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual. If the Decalogue is permanently valid, the significance of this application is heightened still further.

It has been suggested that the meaning of arsenikoitēs in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 may be restricted to that of ‘male prostitute’ (cf. Vulg. masculi concubitores). Linguistic evidence to support this view is lacking, however, though the word itself is certainly rare in literature of the NT period. It seems beyond reasonable doubt that Paul intended to condemn homosexual conduct (but not homosexual people) in the most general and theologically broad terms he knew. His three scattered references fit together in an impressive way as an expression of God’s will as he saw it. As Creator, Law-Giver and King, the Lord’s condemnation of such behaviour was absolutely plain.


BIBLIOGRAPHY. H. Thielicke, The Ethics of Sex, E.T. 1964; D. H. Field, The Homosexual Way—A Christian Option?, 1976; J. J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, 1977.

Field D. H. (1996). Homosexuality. In D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer, & D. J. Wiseman (Eds.), New Bible dictionary (3rd ed., pp. 478–479). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.