Simon, thank you for your sentiments regarding my exams, regrettably I think that they are somewhat doomed to failure! (I'm actually retaking them for the third and probably final time, I'm 20 now...). Fortunately, God's grace is not dependent on my grades and learning difficulties... Thank you for patiently tolerating my vacant pontifications!

I must profess I am curious as to what experience-based interpretation of the Bible entails and how far such a conviction goes. I am sure that I am going to get this wrong and I pray that you will be patient with my conservative evangelical biased waffling. You state that "the conservative view" of "the sinfulness of same-sex sexual activity" "seems to have led to immense harm and damage on individuals in church life and, key in my view, led to the gospel being seen as irrelevent (or against them) to the vast majority of gay people" and question whether such an interpretation "is truly godly and humane?" furthermore stating "The fact that so many gay people have been alienated from the church and from Christ by this viewpoint, does it not make you wonder if it's just plain wrong?".

It is not for me to judge, least of all somebody as esteemed as yourself, particularly with regards to my own immaturity in age and faith, and I am sorry if what I say offends. Yet it just strikes me that you seem to be making the link that because a group of people have found a view to be offensive, alienating and irrelevant to them that we ought to thus question the theology behind such a conviction. Whilst I think that we all ought to be constantly seeking to analyse our own theology and striving to remove the logs from our eyes with the aid of others, I think we should perhaps also be wary of reviewing theology simply because a group or indeed a majority have found it to be offensive. As I said I think we should all be prepared to closely analyse our own views and beliefs constantly, something which I know is easy for me personally to neglect. Nevertheless just because a group of people feel offended and cut off that should not necessarily lead us to review our theology. Are not most people offended by the Bible to a greater or lesser degree? It seems to me to be a highly controversial document in innumerable ways. Perhaps most obviously in verses such as John 14:6, Acts 4:12, Matthew 10:34? You could show me many many more I'm sure. Though verses such as these offend many people of other religions it is unavoidable. Jesus certainly went down like a cup of cold sick with many of the Jewish people of his day. But you know all of this already and indeed much better than a young Christian such as myself. I suppose I am simply trying to express my confusion. I mean we don't do theology by numbers do we? Just because large numbers of people reject the Biblical definition of sin or the uniqueness of Christ doesn't mean that it is wrong. Of course we should be scrupulous in our understanding of scripture and willing to redefine ourselves according to God's will outlined therein but I am just uncomfortable with the idea that because a group of people find something offensive then that is a reason for reviewing it.

You say: "For me, the moral question is not as pressing as the missionary question: is it really possible for gay people (immersed in gay culture or not) to hear the Christian gospel as 'good news' so long as the conservative view is articulated. The SOR-debacle of the last week once more confirms to me that we increasingly look small-minded and silly."

Again, I'm afraid my limited understanding finds your expression confusing. Are not the moral and missionary questions interlinked rather than separate? Whilst I wholly agree that we should be wary of cutting ourselves off from society and avoid being seen as archaic where possible, I think it would be wrong for me to somehow sanitise scripture, as is my instinct where I think it will cause offence. If the conservative view is in fact the faithful view also then regardless of how offensive I find it, I surely ought to submit to it. If it is not then it would be ridiculous to allow such statements to be proclaimed as you say. Should we not be fearful of popularising the word of God? As I have already said even without the conservative view on "same-sex sexual activity" people will still surely find the very concept of sin uncomfortable and alienating. As I understand it Christians have practically always been viewed as being "small-minded and silly", it seems a shame to break tradition now... just kidding, but I think you know what I mean. I know many of my family and friends think of me that way simply for believing in Jesus at all.

Ultimately my understanding is that I should be striving to promote the Gospel in every aspect my life and proclaiming it when opportunities present themselves. People will not want to hear it and often I probably won't want to say it. Yet that weakness is on my part and theirs, not that of scripture. In any case, the Bible seems to make it clear time and time again that results are God's department. But what am I saying. You know this and so much more. What is there that I could say to someone such as yourself? I hope you can at least comprehend to some degree my confusion.

User 974, personally I would regard anyone talking of heterosexual "practice" to be referring to heterosexual "sex" thus somebody talking of homosexual "practice" I would equally assume to be talking about homosexual "sex". Though I agree that heterosexual "practice" is not a commonly used term, surely that is because it is not an area of theology which is currently in contention. I appreciate that it is easy to be highly insensitive in this area because frankly I am in little doubt that the church has historically been homophobic in the past and indeed I am wary of making any comments at all for that reason. However for there to be any discourse in this area people must surely be able to express themselves. Naturally we ought to strive to do so in the most loving, gentle, respectful and honest manner possible. I would just like to point out that 1092 did indeed talk of homosexual "relationships" and only specified homosexual "practice" later on in his comment but I'm not sure that you have picked up on this, instead focussing only on that which you took offence. Yet as I read his comment he seems to have made the distinction you wanted anyway.

On a different note you say to 1092, "But who are you ? Who do you think you are ?" and I think that is an excellent question. For all of us. I believe it is reminiscent of Romans 9:20 though in a different context. I think you are quite right in being wary of "sweeping pronouncements --given their devastating effect upon the lives and well-being of real people". But equally I think that applies to all of us not just 1092. You say "I KNOW that 'what you really do think' to be wrong." and whilst I'm sure you have reasons for saying so, surely that is no less a sweeping statement? If hypothetically 1092s view that "homosexual practice, if not repented, disqualifies someone from the kingdom of God" were a valid one then "the devastating effect upon the lives and well-being of real people" would be far far worse than suffering in this life if 1092 failed to express his view however abhorrent it may seem. That is of course dependent upon whether one also accepts the concept of Hell as being a real form of eternal death and separation from God. Anyone with such a conviction surely ought to face some hard moral questioning if they held such a view and failed to express it to anyone thus consigning them to Hell. But of course the reverse is also true, if homosexual "sex" is not sinful then it would be ludicrous to permit anyone to portray it as such. We all of us must take great care in every aspect of our theology before making pronouncements. Though I think that if anything 1092 might be praised for being cautious in his expression rather than conclusive. Indeed on other threads in this forum there has been a call for people to express themselves with "I think" rather than "I know". (Personally I believe that there ought to be both)

It seems to me somewhat ironic that some conservative evangelical groups face accusations of Congregationalism and yet you talk of "LGBT people demand more -- and increasingly so do the British public -- all of whom are parishoners in the eyes of the Church of England." I am thus inclined to ponder whether our theology is defined by Utilitarianism or God? On that note, where does God fit in? Having been a Christian for less than a year I don't feel that I am in a position to make any bold theological pronouncements... but as I understand it, the definition of good is defined by God rather than affirmed by him. Thus human experience and feelings are secondary to God. Of course this is perhaps unique to my limited subjective understanding of part of what it means to be a Christian. Nevertheless as I see it, neither the feelings of the parishioners nor those of the pastors are above God, and in comparison they are of little importance but for that which he grants us. Thus for me, as a Christian, pastoral care is secondary to salvation. That is not to say that it should be neglected, quite the opposite. I just think that the long term view ought to be considered, and any definition of humanity, ethical reasoning and pastoral training ought to be seen in that light.