Fulcrum has just published my article 'Women Bishops: Church in all its Fullness' which explains some of the thinking behind the Fulcrum/Yes2WomenBishops conference taking place at Christ Church, New Malden on Saturday 16th March. Please use this forum for discussion.

I'm interested in Fulcrum gaining further responses on this article and the issues raised within it. Do people think that evasion and cover up is a major problem within the Church of England and that it has an institutional tendency towards this which will be its default setting unless firmly resisted? I'm more and more convinced that the biggest problem in the Church of England, bar none, and one running like a fault line right across its various traditions is its culture of dissembling. I'm also convinced that this is directly related to much of the culture of incompetence that often seems to prevail as well. Do we really believe that the truth will set us free and, if so, what are the practical implications of this for resolving issues such as the continuing debacle at Wycliffe Hall?

We have had to clarify our policy regarding the approval/non approval of posts a number of times over the years but just to state it once again, Fulcrum tries very hard not to censor posts unless they are, in our opinion (1) Needlessly offensive or (2) Needlessly repetitive. The recent exchange between Peter and Origen Adam could appear to come into the first of these categories but both are making points that they feel are crucial to state if this issue is discussed in a truthful manner. Combining principles (1) and (2) above we consider that these points have now been made and don't need to be restated or necessarily expanded!

We have just published Scriptural Faithfulness, Inclusion and Truth in Pastoral Care: A Response to Steve Chalke by Martin Kuhrt. Please use this thread for discussion.

We have just published the Fulcrum Statement on General Synod's Decision regarding Women Bishops

Please use this thread for discussion.

Thanks for the contributions here. Roger has got closest to what I intended for this thread. Not that my intention is necessarily the most important thing! But as Roger has reflected in his comments, my hope was to encourage the development/expression of empathy towards where those we disagree with are coming from (hence my use of the word 'legitimate')

As I have stated before, I take a conservative stance on homosexual practice. But below is my understanding of some of the concerns of those who question/oppose this.

* It is a basic denial of human rights, denying a section of the population who have no choice over a fundamental part of their identity, the opportunity to have equal access to the deepest form of loving and life-giving relationships

* It is inherently oppressive because it is based upon heterosexual people demanding something from gay people that will never be demanded from them (in anything like an equivalent form).

* It is fundamentally unloving and, whatever the contents of certain passages in the Bible (which are perhaps less clear on the issue than is sometimes suggested) is inconsistent with the God of love supremely revealed in Jesus Christ, who significantly never explicitly commented on the issue.

* The clear trajectory of the Bible is in the direction of greater inclusion and the Spirit is now leading the Church to give the same liberation to those who are gay as it in the past (belatedly) recognised was needed in regard to slaves.

* Anything other than a full acceptance of people who are gay inflicts appalling damage upon both them and also society through the division and hatred that it causes.

Hi Simon,

Thanks for the links which I have looked at.

Despite the terrible record of many Christians upholding racial apartheid or segregation throughout history, the whole message of Galatians (as I understand it) and other parts of the New Testament as well is that to have any element of this within the church is to deny the very gospel message itself. I know that many would then say that by legitimate extrapolation, we should now extend 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave not free, male nor female' (Galatians 3.28) to 'gay nor straight'. But the problem for at least some of us whom the New Testament has directly inspired to oppose racial and gender segregation with all our might, is that it also includes 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1. And more crucially for me, the whole emphasis of the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 upon which the latter rests.

So I guess rephrasing my question in the light of the links: If a fellow Christian believes on the basis of their reading of the Bible that any discrimation based upon race, gender or economic status is totally wrong but believes, because of their reading of same Bible, that God doesn't counternance practicising homosexuality, are they simply being a mindless bigot? My hope is that even if you think I and others are totally and utterly wrong, you will have some respect for the integrity that we are trying to show in relation to this. When I am in dialogue with more liberal clergy colleagues on this issue (I am particularly thinking of the captain of the Southwark cricket team as we drove to matches this summer) I was really grateful that he didn't write me off in this way but respected the reasons that I gave for believing what I did, even though he thought I was profoundly wrong. The result of this respect for one another and relationship meant that we got much further in our understanding of each others legitimate concerns which is partly what inspired me to start the other thread. I would hope you can see some value in this.

Aware that I have responded more to the UTube clip than the article but enough for now. Interested also in what others think, particularly those from a liberal perspective. Is there room for any respect towards those who take a conservative line on homosexuality or are we all irredeemably homophobic and sub-Christian on this?

This is a bit of a test really. This thread is intended to give the opportunity for posters to have a go at expressing what they believe are the legitimate concerns of those who take a different view to theirs on homosexuality. It is obviously a hundred times harder than simply expressing our own viewpoints (and in some cases will be really painful) but I'm sure it will be a worthwhile exercise if people are courageous enough to respond.

I hope they will! Fulcrum is, I think, unique in the range of viewpoints that are expressed on this site but this will take it to a different level.

Simon - are you therefore saying that anyone who questions the morality of same-sex relationships is basically evil or at least representing it? I don't want to put words into your mouth but that is what you appear to be saying or something near to it.

Jeremy - thanks for your response and the detail of your explanation which was very helpful. I must confess that I have been exposed far more to the LR than the LL but when I look at some of the posts on, for instance, Thinking Anglicans, they have appeared to me to often be as rabid as the worst extremes of the far right on Stand Firm and other right wing sites. I'm probably also influenced by being in Southwark Diocese where we have all the extremes all vocally expressed! Although we did (to mention it again!) brilliantly unite to win the Church Times Cup recently! I do think both sides in the sexuality debate have an equal capacity to demonise each other which we must and can resist to make progress and recognise the valid points that exist on each side. 

I have set this sort of challenge before on these forums and it has been met with a deafening silence! But could those who are liberal on sexuality who use this forum perhaps suggest legitimate concerns they believe conservatives have and those who are conservative do the same in regard to legitimate liberal concerns. I really believe that if we tried to do this it might be the best use these forums have ever been put to. Who is brave enough to start? Have started another thread for this.  

The very point of the article was to stress that relationship and engagement is completely needed with those who take different viewpoints on homosexuality. That was the whole point of the stuff about being 'damned by lack of association'. Through the terms 'loony right' and 'loony left' I was referring to those who regard anyone who disagrees with their position on homosexuality as basically evil which makes dialogue, discussion and any progress towards resolution impossible. Your viewpoint is reasoned and careful, Jeremy, and I would hope that you don't regard those who disagree with you as evil. So (particularly if the latter is true) definitely not accusing you of being on the 'loony left'. But setting aside these perhaps questionable terms, would you acknowledge that unhelpful extremes exist on both sides of this debate or just on the extreme right?

Fulcrum's position on sexual ethics is clearly stated on our website where it says "In the much-contested area of sexual ethics this means that the proper context for sexual expression is the union of a man and a woman in marriage. We will participate in debates on issues in sexual ethics arising today in the life of the Church and we identify as key references the CofE document Issues in Human Sexuality and Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference and True Union (a document shared with the Anglican Primates' Meeting, Brazil 2003).

However, as part of our commitment to participate in this (and other) debates in the life of the Church we publish articles from a variety of perspectives. On sexuality we have in the past published the dialogue between Andrew Goddard and Giles Goddard. When Matthew Grayshon offered Fulcrum his reflections as an evangelical clergyman with pastoral experience we agreed to publish it as a contribution to the ongoing debate and asked Sean Doherty to respond. Sean's response will appear on the site shortly. When some groups and websites on all sides appear only to give time to those who share their own views and to attacking their opponents we believe it important to enable serious theological and pastoral reflection and dialogue across the divides.

We have just published Jon Kuhrt's review of 'The Lion's World:A Journey into Narnia' by Rowan Williams. Please use this thread for discussion.