You may indeed have a point Peter, in the way I have conflated two separate issues. I still think we should be careful with language even with regard to orthodoxy when we are communicating virtually. I also believe some of the questions Jody asked were unknown to some of our predecessors.

As to a confessional statement, I am not opposed to such an idea; but I am not part of the Fulcrum leadership team; I am just an ordinary punter like you.

Of course those who would argue for such a position vis-a-vis Jesus and the 'Beloved Disciple' would also believe that the Fourth Gospel has limited historical value with regard to the words and actions of Jesus. Cannot have it both ways!

Thanks all.

Each time Messy Church happens in our context; it is different - there are different people. There are no pre-conditions about membership. Pluralist's question is interesting, because it not just about Messy Church. Our main morning service is a slightly catholic Eucharist. I give communion to all who come (no questions) and if a child puts their hands out, I never refuse; even if I offer a prayer of blessing alongside. The Parish, and therefore Church, has been largely white; recently this has changed; so our community changes; and has (if anything) a more evangelical feel because of the differences offered by those who are newer.

Discipleship is key. I would argue that it is impossible to disciple effectively simply on the basis of a 20 minute sermon/talk/discussion on a Sunday morning.

May the conversation and journeys continue.

I have no problems with robust debate. I think some of the strident language involved poses a problem in a virtual setting like this Forum. As we do not know each other, nor the journey each one of us is on; a critique of a position can read like criticism of a person. Thus, I cannot accept for a moment that Jody is being "unorthodox" or DaveW is "homophobic". Words can point us to particular conclusions; but are not the whole truth about a person.

As an Evangelical minister, I would urge each of us to be careful about not only what we say; but how we say it. This does not rule out strong statements. The scriptures are full of such examples; but many of those examples were done in the context of relationships, which were not restrictd to the virtual world.

Thanks, Jody.

It is interesting that within Messy Church the meal might be seen as eucharistic. I think that the meal that Paul talks about in his Corinthian correspondence might be indicative that the context of the eucharist was much larger than we envisage it today. Messy Church though asks no questions about belief to be included in the meal. One thing that is for certain, we live in a changing world; and as Christians we need to respond.

The Parish Church that I lead has for about a year run Messy Church. For those unfamiliar with that visit www.messychurch.org.uk. We have a number of families who come along and join in who have had nothing to do with the institutional church. We welcome anyone asking no questions. We create things together. We worship together. We eat together.

All this is good. Very good. It could be described as a Fresh Expression or a new congregation.

When does something like this become recogisable as a Church? What are the hallmarks of Church? Just some questions. It would help me as I reflect to have a bit of a conversation

The questions that Jody asks are deeply pastoral and consonant with a gospel that is fundamentally inclusive. Moreover, they are questions that parish priests like me are increasingly having to ask. They are not the only ones of course. We do not live in a world where everything is clear-cut. Nothing has changed there. The followers of Jesus after the resurrection struggled with whether a Gentile could be a follower of Jesus as a Gentile - and there were good people on both sides of that debate; even though I believe that the side which "won" were being faithful to the God revealed in the Hebrew Bible. There were good people on both sides of the Reformation battles too.

I am an Evangelical. I do my best to submit to the Lordship of Jesus. I love the Scriptures, and believe that they are divinely inspired and authoritative for belief and praxis. The Scriptures need to be carefully interpreted within the community of believers. I am not a member of the Fulcrum Team, nor do I personally know anyone on it; although I have exchanged tweets with both Jody and + Graham.

My point is simple: our rhetoric at times turns people off. It is rude. It is sometimes offensive. I find myself having to apologise to Gay men and women when my Evangelical friends are so strident that they appear to forget that there are human beings at the centre of this debate; and the gospel demands that we show courtesy and respect.

May each one of you know God's rich blessing at this time. Perhaps we can agree to be truthful, but loving; filled with grace - for grace has no limits.

I am afraid I do not and did not find the Covenant offensive; I voted for it; and will press those in authority over me to continue to look for the good of Christians in other parts of our Anglican Communion.

Lots of questions. I am not sure I am competent enough to give even partial answers.

User 3664 - you may well be right. Maybe I am hypocritical on the issue.

Jeremy - I guess I would not want to go against my bishop - that it seems to be one of the bases of being an episcopal church. I am not sure either, for me, how clear scripture is on this issue. I vere between being very conservative to open to the possibility to acceptance. My lack of being sure on the issue means I am on a journey. What I feel I cannot do is pretend that I am clear about the doing a service of blessing; and then regret it afterwards; open to the fact that I might find the experience enjoyable.

I feel I can go to the ceremony; for having explained where I am on my journey to the couple, they are happy for me to be there. If they are willing to have me there, then on the basis of shared friendship, I am willing to go.

Bowman - Yes, you may be right on all counts.

I repeat my desire to avoid personal remarks. We cannot accuse those we do not know.

Jeremy - The situation is this, although it is only my side. A couple who have asked me to officiate at the blessing of their civil partnership are good friends to me and my family (eating together, visiting together). They asked me to officiate. I have declined, although I will be there. They are fine with. They know me well enough to know that I am on a journey. My problem is not that two or three of their guests are outraged by by refusal but their accusations about my supposed bigotry, even though they have know idea who I am.

People on all sides of the debate would do well to be rigorous in debate, but very slow to personally condemn another.

For the record, they really are fine with my refusal and honesty.

I think I am in agreement with David W. I am an evangelical Anglican priest. Like many evangelicals, I have a good number of friends who attracted to people of the same sex. In recent times, I have expressed caution over whether I can support theologically such relationships. As a result, I have been accused of being a bigot. The interesting is that it is no one who knows me who make such accusations, but those who do not know are quick to judge. Perhaps there is a moral within this little pericopae for the wider debate?

Kevin

For my part as an Anglican parish priest, I just want to express my appreciation for all that Rowan Williams has done for the Church since (and before) his enthronement as archbishop of Canterbury. It is true that he has weaknesses, but he has an unswerving faith. I have often wondered why my colleague evangelicals have been unable to see his orthodox beliefs. If others in our Church and Communion had dealt with Rowan with the same grace and generosity he has dealt with those with differing opinions to him, then we may have been in a different and healthier place.