My name is very much what it says on the tin, Simon Heron.

For many years I worked as a futures and options trader on the LTOM and LIFFE floors, wearing a series of ridiculous jackets, waving my arms around and spending other peoples money. I'm now a priest in the CofE, so wear a series of ridiculous clothes, wave my arms around etc etc.

Having trained for two years at Ridley Hall, I'm now starting my third year of four as curate of a parish in North Kent overlooking the Medway. The church building is located at the top of Frindsbury Hill, and we look down on Rochester Cathedral - but only physically.

I was a cradle Baptist, brought up in a church where, although never preached from a pulpit, there was an undercurrent of being fairly sure that the Roman Catholics weren't christians, and we were at least a little suspicious of the Anglicans.

I am a paid up (at least I think my subscriptions still in date) member of Fulcrum, and would describe myself as an open Evangelical, taking a traditional view on matters of human sexuality, as well as supporting womens ordination.

My inside leg measurement is 31, and I like good food, long walks in the park, and sunsets on the beach.

I have just reacquainted myself with 1 cor 5 9-11 - Paul at his most charming! I think it just shows that he never actually met Jesus as this teaching is in complete and utter opposition to the example Jesus gave us in his life.

I think you have this completely wrong Clare. In this small chunk of 1 Corinthians Paul says 'don't associate with a brother who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler.' These are people who claim to be followers of Christ, but exhibit behaviour at odds with this claim. Jesus harshest words were also for the 'religious' people of his time whose behaviour and attitudes were likewise diametrically opposed to the faith they professed.

Jesus spent much time with those who were judged sinners - prostitutes, tax colllectors and the like. In a similar vein Paul says that we should not remove ourselves from 'the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters.' Because, as he goes on to say, we would have to leave this world.

In these few verses, in what way is Pauls teaching in complete and utter opposition to the example that Jesus gave us in his life?

So it’s good news that 11 people who the Church of England has confirmed have been called by God to serve in his church can’t get jobs. What an extraordinary idea - Liddon, that's a phenomenally ungracious post.

The inference you make that these three colleges produce the worst new ordinands, is at best conjecture and at worst unpleasant mischief making. Whilst there has been some reported reticence among some DDOs to send people to Oak Hill, and more recently Wycliffe, Trinity could hardly be described as a bastion of conservativism, and I have not heard of a diocese that does not consider it an excellent place to train.

There are more evangelical ordinands than jobs - that’s not the fault of those who are in training. 

At my Daughters school, the current favourite grace is (to the tune of Addams Family)

For every cup and plateful

Oh Lord we're really grateful

Forgive us when we're wasteful

For we are family

Na na na na Amen

Na na na na Amen

Na na na na Na na na na Na na na na Amen

Theology seems fairly sound to me, and it's not in Latin!

In his speech at Reform, now infamous for all sorts of other reasons, Richard Turnbull spoke of the four defining marks of an evangelical.

He described them as being:

• Supreme authority of Scripture for all matters of faith and conduct
• Doctrinal marks - of which Substitutionary Atonement is central
• A personal relationship with a personal God
• Evangelism (not it seems ‘Mission’)

Rich Burley, now a newly ordained Curate, wrote a blog post describing how David Bebbington, in his book 'Evangelicalism in Modern Britain', writes of the four marks of Evangelicalism as being:

• Crucicentrism - the centrality of the cross, although not necessarily belief in penal substitution
• Conversionism - the need for personal conversion
• Biblicism - the centrality of the bible over tradition and reason, but not necessarily any doctrine of inerrancy
• Activism - the need to spread the message

I find myself a lot more comfortable with the second set than the first.

Ferns post and L Roberts reply demonstrate admirably a very significant part of the problem. However carefully and with whatever language we choose to use, those of us who cannot Biblically agree with 'same sex marriage/blessing' (or whatever term you use), will always be seen as homophobic/unloving/patronising.

Simon Butler, it may well be that my choice of the word 'littered' gave the impression that it was a common experience. That was not my intention. Unfortunately, due to the standards expected of clergy, when one falls, it makes the press, so the impact appears ( or maybe is) larger.

I have just been forwarded a press release about the Racing Reverend Simon Butler, curate of St Giles Church in West Bridgend.

Is this the same Simon Butler who posts on Fulcrum??? I think we should be told.

Liddon, the world of Christian ministry is littered with the battered remains of  good people of God who thought that they could handle other sex relationships without difficulty. Only a few months back I heard a talk given by a senior clergyman on the pressures of ministry given to a group of curates. A few short weeks later he'd left his wife of many years for another woman.

Good practice means that I would try very hard never to be alone with someone of the opposite sex in a one on one pastoral situation. Is this because I can't control any sexual urges? - No. You'll also be astonished to discover that neither am I irresistable to the opposite sex. I wouldn't expect anyone to withdraw from any kind of contact with the opposite sex, just be aware that temptations happen, and the best way to avoid them as to not end up in a situation where the temptations will arise.

Thanks liddon.

Read John's blog, and you'll be glad to know that my blood is still running as warm as ever.

Graham, I've been having a short but so far fruitful discussion with John Richardson of AM Chelmsford, part of which has been to do with the languge that we choose to use when discussing the position we perceive that the other party is taking.

Many times we use words which are pejorative, and make the mending of fences between evangelicals harder than it ought to be.

My point (finally), is that if your final sentance in your previous post had been:-

'Andrew Goddard does helpfully return people to the text itself and questions the Anglican Mainstream reading of the Advent Letter.'

I wouldn't find myself staying up this late to make a post I shouldn't need to.

Jody

I have not forgotten that Elaine is a real person, or how she was treated by fellow Christians and employers. Wycliffes behaviour in respect to Elaines dismissal has been astonishing, most of all the admittance that she was unfairly dismissed does not appear to contain any sort of apology.

So I guess my reasons for believing that Elaine should stop with this are two fold. Firstly, she has been proved right, she is in position where she is recognised as having been wronged. If the college still canot bring themselves to apologise for their behaviour, I wonder what will be achieved by going after the college itself.

Secondly, by taking a theological dispute to a secular court, I can't see how an outcome either way is good for either party, or for that mater the wider church. Look at the comments by the two indiviuals acting on behalf of Elaine and Wycliffe as reported in the press. One can't distinguish between evangelism and evangelicalism, and the other describes her as being the wrong kind of evangelical, much like the wrong kind of snow on the road. And these are the people who are acting on behalf of the two parties? What chance does a tribunal have in settling a theologcal dispute - because surely that is what i is. I don't believe that either Elaine or Wycliffe seriously believe that Open Evangelicals and Conservative Evangelicals have a different religion, it's a different theology - or as you say she was disriminated due to her type of evangelicalism. I don't think that'll be borne out in a religious discrimination case.

What would I do if I was Elaine? I would hope I would stop where she has got to now. But then I'm not the one who has been hurt, lied to, lied about, pilloried and mistreated. I perfectly understand why she goes on, I just wish she didn't feel that she has to.

As for the embarassing lack of grace in posters on Fulcrum, Jody, it was not aimed at you. When I was still writing my blog, I wrote a piece about how hard I find it showing grace to those in whom I can see no grace. I do fully feel for those whose experience of being in a CE church is painful, and I would say to them that for their own good, there will come a point when standing their ground ceases to be healthy, and its time to move on, as I believe you yourself discovered.

In the world of posting on message boards, it's easy to fire off a quick response rather than wait and refine your words. The disciplined response will mean that we can get rid of some of our caricatures. I'm not saying that Fulcrum is guilty on its own. All the Anglican blogs and boards share a similar problem, in that their brand of Christianity is unpleasantly defended, without room for listening and learning. Rev John Richardson has made a forward step, it may only be  a small one, but I hope it's not the last - After all, if memory serves me correct, we are supposed to be taking the good news of Jesus Christ  to the world, making disciples of all nations- not worrying if they're the right kind of evangelical.