If he gives a speech/sermon that “many married Presbyterian ministers are tempted toward adultery but defer to God’s Will and His Word. Similarly, I am tempted in other directions. So long as we all recognize that the Bible is the final authority, merely having these temptations is not a barrier to serving God,” I’m happy with him. If, like so many gay activists, he thinks that having carnal desires gives him the right to revise scripture and overrule God, then he has no business in the pulpit.
I am sure he is a virgin, and has no sexual partners, and isn’t engaged in any adulterous liaisons.
Are you kidding?
Yeah, ordain a minister that you wouldn’t want babysitting your children. What could go wrong? Something about “being beyond reproach”.
Pollster1: “So long as we all recognize that the Bible is the final authority, merely having these temptations is not a barrier to serving God,” I’m happy with him. “
That is both naive and not scriptural. Why did Paul give guidance about church leaders? Were they supposed to be any believer, or we they held to a much higher standard than regular members? Answer: they were supposed to be held to a much higher standard. For example, they could only have one wife, not be divorced, and even their children had to be well behaved.
Why? Because you don’t pick people who are struggling with homosexuality or other serious sins in positions of leadership. That is exactly why so many churches today are in the shape they are in. They have put wolves in charge of the flock! A truly Christian homosexual would certainly realize this and not put his needs ahead of the church.
It may not seem fair to block a homosexual from leading a church, but this isn’t about fairness. Church leaders are supposed to be the best of the best with a track record of resistance to temptation. This is something one shouldn’t take any chances with. It’s that serious, because the health of the flock is dependent on who is selected to minister to it!