I seem to have been upsetting people.

So no change there then.

Stupidly I managed to paint myself into a corner with arguements about sexual propriety and relationships with women, over on Jordon Cooper's blog. Unfortunately I reacted to increasingly 'liberal' posting, and presented an unbalanced view.

The essence of it started with the idea of networking with women and finished with the idea that we need to get over our fear of inappropriate relationships. I waded in with size 13s suggesting that I'd want to be cautious. Re-reading I can see that I left a lot of context information out, and that made me sound like some kind of authoritarian, religious hose-beast.

The point is, for us to make a difference in the world we need to be different. People need to feel safe in the church to draw close together. Over the years the church I'm part of has had a number of divorced women through it's doors. They have felt welcome and part of the family because they were able to talk (even hug) with men as well as women without concern about sexual overtones. I can actually remember one standing up in a meeting and saying exactly that. How was it achieved? By ensuring that males did not spend time on a 1:1 basis with females outside a partnership context. In addition, we all remain vigilant to ensure that hugs etc. are 'brotherly'. This places no restriction on the role or function of women in the church, but it does allow everyone to relax and trust each other. This is significantly different to the world, where sexual politics seem endless, however it is certainly not prudery either.

There's a further point too, that was missed in the discussions. Church is an emotionally charged place, often with tears, repentance, reconciliation, love and all kinds of things. In that context people are often open and emotionally vulnerable. In those circumstances chemistry does happen, and it is essential that relationships respect the appropriate boundaries.