[MACVSOG68]

I fail to see the validity of your comment since you indicate there are other qualified teachers. Or perhaps you didn't really mean that they were willing to sacrifice the quality of education in order to enforce their policies. That seemed to be what you were implying.

No, just that their priority was something other than education. If they later hire a qualified teacher, then from that point forward, the education is alright.

If they had failed to enforce their (quite biblical) policies with this teacher, then they would have been guilty of turning a blind eye to sin just as they did with the instances of pedophilia. Fortunately, they didn't do that this time.

I don't think that just being a homosexual is the equivalent of being a pedophile. I'm sure that's not what you were insinuating. One may be a sin, and I'm not going to argue that. But pedophile conduct must be an infinitely more disgusting sin in the eyes of God.

[MEGoody]

No, just that their priority was something other than education.

That's only a valid assessment if there are no other qualified teachers available. As has already been said, that is not the case.

I don't think that just being a homosexual is the equivalent of being a pedophile.

From a biblical perspective, there's no differentiation in sexual sin. It's all perversion in God's eyes.

"I'm sure that's not what you were insinuating."

The church should not just shrug it's shoulders at sin, period.