I have no reason to ask this, except that recent events here have Made me generally skeptical about anyone claiming anything…
…is there some reference to the Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory that predates, say, this month?
Can’t find a date on it, but this Salvation Army web page confirms the name and title. Though their spelling lacks the final e in the last name.
I Googled his name and there are several references to both his position in the Salvation Army and to his recent interview.
FYI, here is another Australian Salvation Army page, from the main organization, not just the territorial division, that lists Craib as the main contact for media questions related to the Salvations Army’s position on human sexuality.
Any media person in all of Australia is supposed to talk to him first with their sex related questions.
Thanks. A hoax would be insane, I know, but now I am paranoid.
Public post debating the issue:
http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/theological-forum/dont-blame-the-bible.html?s=1077788709
Official response to another similar foot in mouth in another state here:
Which suggests they are working towards changing their position.
Belonging to organisations where you support many of their beliefs but strongly disagree with some must be tough work.
Otara
The first link is not a debate at all, it’a an opinion article and is at best tangentially related to the comments by Major Craib. The second link apparently addresses some earlier posted SA policy regarding homosexuality, which may or may not be what Craib was defending with his comments. The article doesn’t quote what exactly the SA is now “distancing itself” from.
The point of the first link was to show there is internal debate on this issue, its an opinion piece on a Salvo site. I wouldnt call it particularly tangentia.
The second was to show they’ve had ongoing problems recently with members speaking publically, and causing a media reaction. Gay marriage is coming up for a conscience vote here, so theres probably a lot of concern they’re going to cause as much damage to themselves as they did when they campaigned against homsexuality being legalised in NZ. I hope it does.
Otara
So do I.
In fact, I have some relatives who call themselves Christians, but I call them Paulists. They pretty much align themselves with the Apostle Paul, and follow his ways, but always seem to forget the actual teachings of Christ. They hate gays, think women should know their place, etc. They always seem to back themselves up with quotes from Paul.
Christ though? They don’t seem as keen on His words…
I think folks like them should branch off and form a new religion, and leave Christianity to those who actually follow Christ.
The first story is undated, does not reference whatsoever the Craib comments at all, and expresses an opinion that many prejudiced people use cherry-picked biblical references to back up their own prejudices. It references homosexuality as well as other issues such as slavery and even diet. There is no suggestion that anyone is debating the contents of this paper, internally or externally.
It is tangential to the extent that it may well have been posted long before Craib made the comments in the OP.
Before you get good and sore at Paul (as distinguished from the Salvation Army spokesman), take a look at that same letter to the Romans–Chapter 12, Verses 17-21, and note who is supposed to exact revenge and who* isn’t .* 
Well if you dont find it useful, fair enough.
Otara
Yeah, according to Jesus. Relevant texts: Matthew 5:21 and 5:39.
Yeah, and it seems the Sixth Commandment says the same thing.
Paul of Tarsus merely elaborated on the teachings of Christ (and those of his writings which are preserved in the Bible are divinely inspired it should be noted along with the gospels). In fact he fully freed Christians from the legalism of the Law (if one were to read Galatians).
I have to agree with this. If you want to hate and or kill someone, then have enough balls to be open about it.
I have my own beef with the Salvation Army. When my brother and sister and I were kids, and we had been going to their Sunday school for a while, our Dad was real sick and couldn’t work. The SA promised us some food and stuff for Christmas, which was approaching (1959). They did not follow through with the promise. This is not as severe as the issue presented in the OP of this thread but it still bothers me. 
And that’s not sufficient cause for outrage? Rights movements wouldn’t get very far, saying “Oh that’s just the usual stuff.”
Yeah! What are they going to do–beat us to death with their stupid little red buckets?! Bring it on, I say!