Whilst I did think the commemorations overblown, it was the military procession rather than the cathedral service which felt to be overdoing it to me. Former Prime Ministers standardly receive a major service - Jim Callaghan, who never won even one election, had one in Westminster Abbey with 2000 guests and the band of the Royal Marines. Wilson's was also at Westminster Abbey, Heath got both the Abbey plus a funeral at Salisbury Cathedral. Politicians in a democracy are supposed to be divisive figures - some support them, some do not. For the CofE to deny any PM, and most especially the longest serving for well over a century, the first woman PM, one who won three consecutive elections, the appropriate obsequies would be quite, quite wrong.

Bowman,

Thank you for a very perceptive post. Before reading it, looking through the other threads and seeing how Stephen's proposed moratorium is being roundly ignored, I was minded to suggest the time may have come for the Forum to be closed. We don't seem to do too well at judging not that we be not judged, nor at turning the other cheek, nor at leaving He who has no sin to cast the first stone, nor at looking to the beam in our own eye before taking the speck from our neighbour's. We must surely be a stumbling block to Christ for any poor seeker after faith who might accidentally stumble across us. We give an impression of Christians being a group of angry, shrieking people obsessed with one subject regardless of what else is happening in the world around us.

Perhaps Fulcrum's leadership team, who have so generously provided this space for discussion, might now consider whether the time has come to move to a different format - a blog, for example, where they set the starting topic by defining the post, or comments on the articles, or a more tightly controlled forum - or perhaps just close the forum down. Those who feel the need can always go and shout at the ducks in the park...

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 :)

Erm - aren't we supposed to have suspended this discussion?

Stephen,

An excellent initiative: thank you for initiating it. Certainly, a break from the other threads seems very sensible - we keep on repeating the same arguments not just day after day but year after year, and I haven't noticed any of us changing our views as a result, if anything positions just become fiercer and more entrenched. I take it that the principle of this thread is that we should express only what we see as positive or helpful in others positions?

So, as one who in this context would be labelled "liberal", what do I see as good in the "conservative" position? The commitment to mission that, for example, I sense often underlying Nersen's comments is one I cherish and which sometimes (though far from always) feels to burn less brightly on the "liberal" side. There's clearly a passionate commitment to the faith, a belief that getting these things right is important - in fact, that's clearly something that applies to pretty much everyone here, or people wouldn't spend so much time tapping away or get so energised on the subject.

Going beyond comments on these boards specifically, I can empathise more with the "conservative" position when it is articulated from the starting point of the definition of marriage than when it starts by taking selected individual verses from Leviticus or Paul, and if the one articulating it genuinely treats any extra-marital relations, straight or gay, in the same way. And, finally, if their personal interactions show that they treat people, regardless of orientation, the same way - making it clear that their position on this question is theological, not a generic antipathy.

Nersen,

You elegantly make the point: Wilberforce was not going against Scripture, even though his "revisionist" position went against what others at the time would have considered the plain reading and settled understanding of the texts.

You mention the context at the time that Paul was writing and the relevance of analagous rather than literal application of the texts to our current circumstances. That makes sense - and it's also worth considering the relevance of context and analogy to other texts as well.

None of what I've written here is an argument by itself for one or other side in this never ending debate. But I would wish to suggest that we need to reflect on how we approach Scripture - and that we all of us tend to take a "revisionist" approach when the plain reading is one we understand to be plainly not the Gospel.

DavidW,

I'd suggest that on the famed "plain reading of Scripture" those texts would be taken as supportive of slavery. Certainly, that's what those who sought to oppose the revisionist innovation of abolitionism argued:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation" Jefferson Davies

"the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example" Richard Fulman, President of the South Carolina Baptist Convention

What I'm trying to bring out here is the question of how we approach Scripture, and hence how we use it to inform us on questions of sexuality. I'd suggest that the "plain reading" approach has at times been use to take individual verses and use them to justify racism, anti-semitism, slavery and many other practices which we would now consider inimical to the Gospel. This has especially been the case when those have been historically present in society and traditionally supported by the church.

An alternative approach is to look to Scripture as a whole, to look to its overall message - as I believe we all do to refute, for example slavery and as the post of mine you cite below attempts to do with regard to sexuality. I would suggest that this approach may be both more fruitful and more respectful of Scripture than seeking out individual verses to justify a particular position.

Perhaps an historical analogy might provide illumination.

Were this estimable forum in operation in the late 18th century, one could imagine the arguments that could be put against those proposing the abolition of slavery.

1) The Bible clearly supports slavery: Ex21:3-4, 9-11; Lev:25:40-54; Eph 6:5-8; Col 3:22-25; 1 Tim 6:1; 1Pet 2:18; Titus 2:9-10 - to take just the last, "Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect."

2) The revisionists who are arguing for this innovation are going against the mind of the church - throughout Christian history slavery has been accepted as compatible with scripture.

3) Leading evangelical thinkers support this interpretation: George Whitefield campaigned relentlessly and successfully for slavery to be legalised in Georgia, where it had previously been banned.

Returning to the present day: of course, we all on this forum understand that slavery is wrong, that taking individual verses in support of it does not justify a practice which is clearly incompatible with the overall message of the Gospel, that Paul and Peter wrote within the context of 1st century life. Given this, surely we must be cautious about using the same reliance on individual verses rather than the Gospel overall, the same refusal to consider context, the same insistence that the church's historic moral positions may not change, to decline to explore what the totality of Scripture might tell us our correct response to same gender relationships might be today.

To the point that the case has been made from scripture, I've just gone back and dug out this post I made three years ago, others I'm sure have expressed this better than I did, but it at least demonstrates that there has been engagement with scripture from both sides....

Perhaps a symptom of the problem could be the 5 posts here on this topic vs the 428 on [one of the threads on] homosexuality. The time and energy we devote to debating internal matters - who can be a bishop or a priest, how do we cater for those who diasgree - could achieve a lot if we diverted it into mission instead.

Instead, we look to many people like we're obsessed with our own arcane issues.

Waterangel,

Caution is needed here: most press reports on this subject have been wildly inaccurate. In fact, no ruling has been made and the couple concerned have not been barred from fostering.

The full judgement is at:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html

Helpful summaries are at:

http://blog.drake-comms.co.uk/2011/02/28/misplaced-outrage-over-high-court-ban-on-christian-foster-parents/

http://www.peter-ould.net/2011/03/01/breaking-christians-with-traditional-moral-views-can-still-be-foster-parents/

Nersen,

Just to check my understanding, you have no bank accounts that pay interest?