Andrew, I’d like to look a little further into the statements you make in your post of 8^th April which I reproduce below:

“Are there women leaders in the bible? Yes, there was Deborah, and an evil queen called Athaliah (2 Kings 11). Miriam led the women on one occasion. Was there any commandment given to Israel to prohibit women leaders? Not specifically, I think, although there is much in Genesis 1-3 and elsewhere to suggest that this would not be the normal order of things. “

Micah 6:4 has God saying “I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam”.  Note the verb form “I SENT”.  Miriam has not drifted into a leadership position by default, she was commissioned by God.  All three names are mentioned together and on the same level as sharing in a common leadership.  No distinction is made between the authority of the two men and that of Miriam as if they were different in kind or degree.  All three spoke as God’s mouthpieces and their authority was both religious and institutional.

Deborah’s authority was given to her by God and she was both a religious and institutional leader.  She made legal decisions, arbitrated disputes and generally dispensed justice.  We’re told “the sons of Israel came up to her for judgement”.  These presumably included men who submitted to the judgement of this woman.

Women are named as tribal chiefs in the Bible.  The ‘wise woman’ who negotiated with Joab (and saved her city) clearly had authority and was an accepted leader.

There are about 25 to 30 women mentioned in the Bible who hold some sort of governing power.  Some were good rulers and some bad, just like the men.  There is no suggestion that any of them were wrongfully in power because of their sex or that the wielding of power by such women is contrary to their nature or the divine order.

In Creation, God gives women authority over nature.  He does not merely allow them to exercise it, He commands they do so.  David declared this truth in a prayer “What is man?......You make him to rule over the works of your hands.  You have put all things under his feet”.  The word for ‘man’ is translated as a mortal which obviously includes both sexes.  Women, like men, have had all things put under their feet.  There’s no suggestion that men have the bigger feet, as it were.

I think it would be helpful to stop thinking of 'gay' and 'straight' as absolutes.  It's more meaningful, particularly in the context of assessing the efficacy of so-called conversion therapies, to think of human sexuality as a line with 100% heterosexual at one end and 100% homosexual at the other.  Most people will cluster around one or other of the ends but a significant minority are spread along the line.  These people are generally bisexual in that they are able to have close emotional and physical relationships with both sexes.  I strongly suspect that it is this group of people who are successfully 'converted' which means, in their case, that they are more drawn to heterosexual behaviour than homosexual and that they are able and willing to suppress same-sex attractions because they derive greater benefits and satisfactions from being, to all intents and purposes, heterosexual.

I do recognise that this isn't snappy enough to fit on the average double-decker.

DavidW, a few posts further down the board, you chastise another poster thus “it seems to me you want to discuss slavery to avoid discussing ‘gay’, yet thread is entitled evangelical and gay.”  Well, the reason why there is a focus on slavery is that it has come to be seen as a great evil and yet is not condemned in the Bible and, indeed, it appears to be condoned in both the old and new testaments.  Wilberforce and all those who helped end the slave trade are celebrated as heroes and we are rightly proud of the role Christians played.  Which is strange given that there is no biblical proof text that can be quoted to evidence that abolition is God’s will.  It is no answer to say as you do that “Yes the Bible supports slavery in that we are all slaves to either righteousness or unrighteousness”.  Your attempt to seamlessly elide a spiritual state – we are all in thrall to something - with the capture, enslavement and buying and selling of actual human beings just won’t do.

At the risk of repeating myself, there is no biblical proof text the abolitionists could quote whereas there are the proof texts which either support the taking and holding of slaves or are, at least, indifferent to it.  So, the thinking of the pro-slavery lobby would appear to be in line with scripture and it was the thinking of the abolitionists’ that was contrary to scripture.

The abolitionists, however, really understood the radical message of a handful of words in Genesis.  Imago Dei.  If man is the image bearer of God, how can it be right to trade human beings as though they were cattle?

You seem to assume that scripture is crystal-clear on all issues but that just isn’t true.  Slavery is one area where the ‘right’ course of action came without the requisite proof text.  Another area, touched on in the mention of Lot and his offer of his daughters to the sexual predators of S&G, is rape.

Most people (I would hope) agree that rape is a serious crime.  You wouldn’t, however, really be able to deduce that from the Bible.  There is no prohibition against rape in the Commandments.  Moses, in Numbers, instructs the Israelites to seize virgins and keep them for themselves.  A raped woman, in certain circumstances, could be put to death.  Even when she was deemed blameless and her assailant executed, it is clear that there is no concern for the well-being of the victim.  The offence that has been committed is not one against the person but rather a crime against property.  A woman belonged either to her father or her husband; raping her damaged the property of another man and that had to be punished.  Do I think this is the voice of God?  No, I think it’s the inevitable consequences of a patriarchal society where women had very little intrinsic value and where the nature of rape – about power and not lust – was not well understood.  It took centuries for the law (and the church) to accept that Imago Dei applied to women too.

The application of all of this to what I’ll call the ‘gay debate’ for shorthand purposes is whether the proof texts, which I won’t quote since that’s already been done ad nauseum apply to all same-sex relationships in all circumstances.  I don’t really think it’s an answer to say that, well, of course they apply since nowhere does scripture speak positively about same-sex relationships because scripture doesn’t speak particularly negatively about slavery but we have come to believe that enslaving our brothers and sisters is an evil act and scripture doesn’t find rape to be a particularly big deal and yet most people now think it is.

Dr Jeffrey John, interviewed 14 March 2012:-

"It is not the physical gender of the people involved that matters, but the quality of their commitment and their response to the call of God. "

Another Trendy Cleric of the Hour interviewed 14 March 2014:-

"It is not the physical number of the people involved that matters, but the quality of their commitment and their response to the call of God."

It's a flexible argument n'est-ce pas?  If we scrap the requirement that marriage needs to be between one woman and one man, why should we be picky and retain the 'one' bit?  Why shouldn't people be able to marry multiple partners if the yardstick is soley that they love and are committed to one another and feel it's what they're called to by God? 

Once this particular door is opened, it will never be possible to close it again.  Get gay marriage on the statute books and it will prove increasingly hard to withold approval for or restrict polygamous marriages.  Women will be the real losers here.  A fact which is, of course, of no interest to Peter Tatchell and his fan club.

Phil, you write

"This brings us to 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Ephesians links asymmetry, headship and authority. 1 Corinthians 11 links headship with the creation of man and woman. 1 Timothy 2 appeals to the creation of man and woman reinforced by the Fall in which the woman was deceived by the serpent and Adam listened to the voice of his wife, although he was not deceived by the serpent. So Creation, Fall, headship, authority, asymmetry are all implied when Paul writes, ‘…but I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority of(over) a man…..’. This is the clear framework within which the appearance of Christ first to women and their conveying the news to the men, 1 Corinthians 7, the women Paul commends (e.g. Phoebe) etc. should be understood, not the other way round."

I'm afraid that I'm struggling a bit here - this doesn't make much sense to me.  You seem to be saying that women are not to be trusted with handling the Word because they are too easily deceived.  This doesn't seem to be a Biblical theme - isn't the OT full of examples of men having the wool pulled over their eyes by women?  And if women are extra gullible, then surely having women as the first witnesses of the resurrection makes absolutely no sense whatsover.  After all, what could provide greater evidence of how easily a woman can be deceived than her belief she's seen a dead man walking?  And yet the women were instructed to tell the news to the men who were expected to believe them.  Odd that if women were thought of as fundamntally unreliable.

And if women are especially susceptible to false teaching, it seems odd that Paul permitted them to teach other women and children.  A case of the weak leading the weak, perhaps.  And since the Jesuits never wrote a truer word than "give me the child 'till the age of 7 and I'll give you the man", it seems extraordinary that the easily deceived are allowed to shape and influence young minds when we know how important these formative years are.  Methinks that either Paul didn't know his psychology or he must have meant something quite different to what you have concluded.

I've asked you this question several times and you've never answered so I'll try again - can you give some examples of what you think is a husband's legitimate use of authority over his wife? 

I think that many of the problems the opponents of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) allege it will bring are with us already and we have found ways to live more or less comfortably with them.  Drugs, which cannot be prescribed because they are too expensive, could allow many people with terminal illnesses to live longer (sometimes significantly longer) and enjoy a higher quality of life.  The state, through its agents such as NICE and the NHS, does put a price on life and say that x number of months added to life expectancy is not enough, the cost is too high.  W have no problem accepting that patients can be denied an extra few months of life on economic grounds - they're not worth it - but are horrified at the idea patients may want to end their own lives prematurely because THEY feel a few extra months are not worth it.  Why so?

When someone with, say, advanced cancer refuses further treatment, the assumption is they are competent to make such a decision and that it's based on a rational assessment of the rigours of treatment versus quality of life leading to the conclusion that the game's not worth the candle.  The refusal to have further treatment is accepted; we don't section such patients under the Mental Health Acts and force further treatment on them nor do we require them to be psychologically examined to assess their ability to make such a decision.  And yet really, we don't and can't know all of the factors that may have influenced them.  They may be affected by depression, by family pressure, dysfunctional relationships, the desire not to be a burden and so on - all of the things that that opponents of PAS say people must be protected from.

A similar situation prevails with the currently accepted form of PAS - that where a patient starves and dehydrates him or herself to death.  We have no idea how common this is - I suspect it's more common than is realised.  Some palliative care specialists claim this is THE answer for patients who want to end their lives.  Such deaths usually involve great suffering but those taking this route are kept comfortable in hospitals, hospices and care homes.  Isn't this faciltating suicide and is it so very different from assisting?  A patient's right to refuse food and water is respected but again, there's no way to know what has influenced their decision.  A hospice doctor totally opposed to PAS because of the threat he believes it poses to the vulnerable probably lives quite comfortably with a patient refusing to eat and drink even though they may be depressed, afraid of being a burden or subject to family pressure to end their lives.

I've been thinking for some time that it's surprising there hasn't been much on this subject here so in response to Waterangel's 'challenge', I'm posing the question of whether a Christian can or should support physician assisted suicide.  I'm interested in how others approach this question, how they arrive at a theological view of the question.  How much weight should be put on personal experience?  The floor is yours, ladies and gentlemen.

Dave, your reply to me of 15th December misses the point, deliberately so, I think.  Innovative financial 'products' played a major role in the financial cataclysm that still threatens to engulf us - products that serve no purpose beyond making a proft for the innovators.  Parcelling up mortgage debt into ever smaller pieces and selling it on (and on and on) does not reduce risk - on the contrary, the temptation is to sell more and more mortgages to those less and less able to afford them precisely because a quick buck can be made selling on the debt.

I bought my first house a long time ago when checks on income were rigorous and lending limits as a multiplier of salary were strictly adhered to.  Lenders were careful because it was their money at risk and they wanted to be as sure as possible that borrowers could afford the repayments.  When lenders know they can sell on this debt, they become a lot less careful and when selling the debt becomes the sole purpose of the transaction (rather than providing the wherewithal to purchase a property), then we're likely to end up in the mess we are.  I once worked with a guy earning £19,000 - he got a 100% morgage to buy a £250,000 flat through one of the self-certification mortgages - I guess he wasn't entirely honest about his income and his lender took care not to check.  Is it surprising so much of this debt has gone bad?

So many of these complicated financial 'products' are just garbage  - they serve no human or business need whatsoever.  They add no value and have no purpose beyond making a great deal of money for a very few while the vast majority of us are losers.

On a different but related note, what about the relationship between the Wall Street world and organised crime?

Dave, I think most of us who are critical of the role played by banks in the present crisis understand the financial services industry pretty well.  Amongst the things we dislike are the privatisation of profits but the communalisation of losses and the development of so-called financial 'products' that serve no human or business need whatsoever beyond the desire of the issuing house to make a profit.  Business, real business that is, adds genuine value.  What value is added by firms like Goldman Sachs who, on the one hand, sold these Ponzi-type 'products' to clients (and made zillions) and then made further zillions by betting on their value falling?  Whay has that to do with anything worthwhile? 

Evening all, I'd like to add my thanks to Vikki - how we treat each other is vitally important.  My observation, for what it's worth, of conservative evangelical, Reform type churches is that they don't really 'do' pastoral care.  Vikki, (and, I'm sure others participating on or just reading this thread) experienced much unkindness and harshness but I suspect many heterosexuals would have similar stories to tell of their treatment when they found themselves labelled as sexual outlaws for whatever reason.

The attitude seems to be that those deemed to be transgressing need to have the error of their ways pointed out to them.  God then either extends grace to the person who amends their behaviour in which no pastoral care is necessary or, alternatively, God witholds grace and so no pastoral care is possible.  Either way, it's pretty chilly.  And, possibly more importantly, it leads to an unbalanced gospel as too much weight is placed on sexual continence.  Inevitably, those is happy marriages who have no problem upholding high standards of biblical morality tend to feel ever-so slightly superior to those who struggle.  And you can, after all, live a life of impeccable moral rectitude and be ungenerous, uncaring and flinty-hearted.  Perhaps we need to hear more in our churches about being morally proper and yet totally unChristlike.

nersen, one further thing.  You write "Rosa Parks could have prayed to God for justice ....that is a very powerful thing to do if oppressed......"  I think CS Lewis answers this.  When Peter and the others go into battle in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", they believe Aslan is dead and yet they still were prepared to fight.  They come to understand that the Lion is always with them but the fight is always theirs.  If not now when, if not me, who?  Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Dietrich Bonhoffeur, and a whole host of those who made a stand for the right when taking a stand was the hardest thing to do, knew that.

nersen, I take it that if the law made it compulsory for churches to marry same-sex couples, you'd be amongst the first to urge compliance with it?  Your comments on this thread illustrate the problems with the conservative evangelical approach of meeting every situation with a bible quote used both in and out of season.  Your use of the NT writers ignores context - the primary purpose of Paul and the others you quote was to ensure the survival of a new, fledgling, religious movement.  The early church's best hope of survival was to fly beneath the state's radar - do nothing that suggested these followers of Christ threatened earthly powers.  It was a sensible approach for those times but now we live in different times.

I don't really understand how you cope with the modern world since there a thousand and one things that have made our society better for which there's no express scriptural mention - trial by jury, habeas corpus, legislation that limits the power of employers, health and safety laws that mean workers don't get fatally injured or ill through just doing their jobs, the abolition of slavery, enforcing the law to protect women and children from domestic violence and I'm assuming you find parliamentary democracy a better system than than absolute monarchy.