Origen Adam,

Do I understand correctly that  you  think that David W is completely  evil?

Do you believe  he thinks the same as people like you?

Angela,

Well no Angela, the truth can not be what the scripture says as well as opposite to it. Happy to help encourage fellow believers (ie Galatians 6) but cant encourage those in things they don’t believe.

All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching and encouraging believers to equip them for all good works. It is the scripture that seems to be offending people, even those who have been ministers for decades.

Origen,

I can see scriptures that seem to exclude women in leadership, such as where a woman isn’t permitted to speak in church or teach and those where some in leadership are women. So I can see scriptures in support of both and would be happy to share them with you if it were relevant. But as there are no scriptures to countenance men with men instead of women, which is the issue of the thread, I am consistent and you aren’t.

@DavidR (there are a lot of Davids around on this forum!)

I would agree that stepping back and having a broader look sex and sexuality would be a good thing. There is a thread on that, but it developed into the usual exchanges between the usual suspects!

Your interesting example of the reaction of many to an archaic ritual stems, I would think, from the sexualization of relationships. This has affected in particular our use of language and our attitude to physical contact. 'Beloved' and holding hands have different associations from the past (and present associations in different cultures). The word 'love' has become to mean 'sexual love' in many contexts, or at least 'romantic love'. Physical contact is to be avoided lest it indicate a sexual motive. I think this is significantly detrimental to our relationships in many areas.

But perhaps this is not a subject for this thread.

Some great contributions here already. It's not really my place to say it, but though it's hard, keeping to the discipline of identifying only the positive one can see in others' positions sounds to be a good, if challenging, idea.

For a while at least... we can always go back to shouting past each other to no effect in a week or two :)

Ahh!

David W

You have perhaps without realizing it given the answer for ALL who wish to worship and serve the Lord and it can be backed up by the Gospel the word you used was "seeking" all are seeking the truth for themselves, the truth for them will be different to your truth because it is about preparation to accept God into your life where you are at. First people need to ask then they need to seek, and eventually because we have a loving accepting God who said "forgive them for they know not what they do" then all who seek him will find an answer and they will be saved. Being saved though does not mean that you no longer sin or try to "seek" further truth, the gospel is not static and our search does not end..

Angela

Peace be with you David W, for i share only what i know can build others up in christ and lesson the distress which blocks the avenues to others hearing Christ, sometimes you know David the message can be so loud we do not hear it, i think learning to accept difficult concepts is a bit like that.

@DavidW

Your post proves my point about conservatives being completely evil! However I agree with you that the scriptures condemn homosexuality. But I also think the scriptures condemn women in leadership. Can you tell us if you're equally consistent?

Thank you for this initiative. But I wonder if we don't need to take one step back and reflect on how we understand masculine humanity in the first place  (masculine because the majority of posts of this topic come to it from the male perspective).

A few days ago I attended the licensing and installing of a Christian leader in a community. It was exciting and moving. But two points in the service left me thinking.  Those familiar with the CofE on these occasions will know that there is a long legal statement read out from the bishop in Elizabethan language -  '+ by divine permission Bishop of x, to our well beloved in Christ x. Greetings'. It is that language of warm affection that struck me again. The impact is muted by the ancient legal wording. But a (male) Bishop publically greets the new (male) minister as 'beloved'. I don't know any other time when such intimate affection is so openly offered in the church by men too men (least of all by the bishop).

Then comes the moment when an official (usually the archdeacon) leads the new minister/leader to a special seat. It is an action symbolising the 'installing' of a person in their new role/job. To offer someone a seat that is specially kept for them is an act of formal recognition and also of respect and hospitality in any community - 'welcome, there is a special place for you here'. But the rubric requires them to lead them by the hand to that stall.

So at this point two men had to walk hand in hand across the front of the church. A giggle went round the congregation. It was very self conscious. One of the men cracked a witty aside that led to loud laughter. As the formal words were read by the stall the laughter was still dying away.  This happens quite often at that point in these services in my experience - though not usually so loudly.  But why it was funny at all? To be led by the hand is an offer of care, guidance, support and direction. It is personal and respectful. It is neccessary.  It never feels 'edgy' when  one or both is a woman.

This is something to do with being a man in our church and culture. It is something to do with a deep unease about touch and affection between men on even on the most formal of occasions.  We start from such uncertainty, unease and self consciousness about any touch between men that we have to laugh off an important piece of vocational drama and hide the language of warm, explicit, filial affection - beloved -  within ancient legal preamble.

Is it surprising that this discussion is so hard to sustain, quickly becomes aggressively reactive and leaves such pain swirling round it? 

... and please, if this is deemed off topic just  ignore it.

Apologies to all! My laptop was so enthused about Stephen's thread that it sent a fragment without my knowing it. I think it can stand for now. But the rest will have to follow.

Sorry but scripture says what it says, it is not dependant on what people feel about it or think it should say. That there is an impasse on any particular issue is not unreasonable, the scripture refers to disputable matters. But this is not a disputable matter, there is only scripture that excludes and condemns same-sex relations. This is about the truth that same-sex relations are error or not putting up with sound doctrine and hearing what itching ears want to hear.

Yes all are claiming to follow the same Jesus, but one side is showing that the scripture says those who depart from the scripture that condemns same sex relations are not following the same Jesus. There is no possible middle ground. The impasse is that one side acknowledges the scripture that those who practice such things and encourage others to do them, are in error which is to be rejected, and the other side want it to be accepted because of their feelings about it.

Sorry no. According to Christ’s NT teaching faith in Him is seeking to obey what He taught, not what different people think about what He taught which is opposite to what He said. No one cannot credit another’s motives as godly when the word of God says they are ungodly.

How about we follow Christ according to the Biblical Testimony, the Christian churches position, including the Anglican Communion’s Lambeth 1.10 and put a ban on the false teaching of same-sex relations?

Stephen

I agree with you, I think that fulcrum has somehow got entangled and tunnel visioned in its post. A lot of post are related to the issues of sexuality or gender, sometimes it is a bit depressing to have a situation where a christian forum does not get beyond that. I even wondered iif it was a deliberate ploy to prevent the christian issues being discussed such as

taxation on charities

the current issues facing people with the PIP

the cost of petrol

the cost of food

minding the gaps in education

socialisation in communities particuarly rural ones

keeping people safe - discussing ways of giving them the tools to keep themselves safe as a christian in a multicutural society.

keeping people safe does not or should not mean having to shut up and close the doors so that people do not have the social skills to co-exist.

The understanding of the gospel is imperitive in how we manage as a society, it cannot be divorced from tyhe way our councils and agencies work we are part of the UN serious ways of positively using the gospel to give strength needs to be explored , that means understanding how others who want to undermine at every turn see it. The walking in your neighbours shoes stuff..

The issues surrounding death and the afterlife, the visions for hope or the lack of it. Innovations for communication, for opening up the world but keeping us safe.

I understand that yes we are all on a journey and like jeremy p did part of his journey on this forum then moved on found a new experience and came back to see if there had been any movement, he is right when he says there has not been.

The ecclesiastical issues versus the spirituality issues the law is a fixed defined science, the spirit is an observation, the law has a beginning middle and end the spirit however is not so easy to pin down. BUT it is always important to remember that the                co-ordination of basic care, in how we communicate , live , and share our own unique place in this world, is what will lead to the solution to the practicalities.

There are different types of people in the world, all beautifully made and created, often chipped and damaged afterwards, it is the damaged that cannot be seen in their true state, words are like graffiti on the soul sometimes. You cannot clean the soul by putting more graffiti on top. 

Someone once accused me of being a bit wet i think, but anyone who knows me will know i am far from that, but i do believe that there is no point in trying to tell people who are different that they are not acceptable unless they change. "jesus take me as i am" people change their views often when they are accepted as they are.

The bible should be used to guide and encourage all, not just the few who believe that what they believe and the way they believe it is the only way to go.

Angela

Good ideas from both Stephen and JeremyP. I shall try both approaches and relate them.

I do not feel anything but affection for fellow villagers of all persuasions. However, as may have been noticed, I have not fully agreed with either side of the debates on homosexuality for essentially the same reason-- neither side makes a case grounded directly in the sort of claims that Christians (and only Christians) make about God in Christ to ground their life commitments. As nearly as I can tell-- and I may well be wrong-- one reason that villagers don't even try is that those on both sides have come by their Christianity as an extension of other, prior identities, argue in the forum from within those prior identities, and are not accustomed to going so far back to basics as to think things through from Christianity alone. I see that on this side of the pond as well.

From my point of view then, the discussion always improves whenever it gets off of That Topic. And that is where the strengths are to be found--

Nersen and Pluralist, taken together, describe the radicalized reality that I have seen for years-- churches have to be less hazy and more committed than they have often been (Nersen), but they have to be nurturing places for people who have the faith of a mustard seed (Pluralist). To my mind, these are two sides of the same coin. You can't get real commitment from conformism; you can't nurture growth from a position of personal indecision.

Several villagers-- DavidR, Dave, Roger, Angela, Mark, Phil and a few others-- do understand, across several issues, that