Hoo boy, I could talk for days about this. Everything below is about American Christians; I don't know a damn thing about the state of religion in the UK.

I firmly believe that Jesus would not have shunned gay people. His point was that you should be kind to everybody. (It's a shame this never came up in the New Testament; there'd be a lot less trouble.) But Christians, especially fundamentalists, seem to have taken the figure of Christ and many of the smite-a-riffic ideas of the Old Testament and blended them into an intolerant sludge which passes for their beliefs. I think Jesus would have been very angry that he as a figure, and the overwhelming metaphor that his crucifixion has become, have become more important in the 2000 years since his birth than his ideas, which in my mind are far more crucial. As a culture we like to idealize people rather than their works, though, so it's often helpful to me to think of Jesus as the central celebrity of the Bible Belt. That is, he bears no real resemblance to the man.

As for women? Women have never been important except as bearers of children and washers of dishes. You should know that, Rob. High ideas like intolerance of homosexuality and blood crusades are too complex and important for our puny brains.

A couple that my boyfriend and I often spend time with are very Christian, and they're extremely annoyed that the loudest ambassadors of Christianity are intolerant, short-sighted jerks. "We're not all awful," he protests from time to time. "It's really unfair."

Rob, I find it hard to believe, because as I should hope you know I'm incredibly difficult to offend but I actually felt quite upset by that post and absolutely compelled to challenge you on it. Would you mind re-reading and considering whether perhaps you are over-simplifying just a little? How would you feel if I generalised that way about Americans, men, or computer geeks? I'm not denying that certain Christian churches have an awful lot to answer for but on the specific issue of homophobia,not all Christians, or even the majority, are homophobic - its a sad fact however that some very influential parts of the Anglican union combine their Christian faith with some distinctly unchristian attitudes. I can recommend a book by Jim Wallis, an American preacher, called "God's Politics: Why the American Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It" which considers exactly what Jesus would have to say about the current American obsession with gay bishops as compared with their comparitive silence on issues of poverty, on which Jesus spoke frequently while he never offered an opinion on homosexuality. But even most of those on the evangelical wing of the Christian church would not "shun" gay people (although you get a few on the extreme fringe of any group - its a bit like arguing all vegetarians are responsible for the animal rights movement) - they would say that we should hate the sin and love the sinner, should welcome that person into church and encourage them to repent but that someone who practises their homosexuality in contravention of a biblical precept is not an appropriate person to exercise authority over other Christians. I happen to disagree with them fundamentally over their interpretation of the Bible which I find selective, and, as Katherine says, rather Old Testament (although St Paul was not a great fan of gays either) but I don't think that means you should be glib about their deeply held views. As for women's role in the church, it is important surely to recognise that the Church is a cultural construct that reflects cultural and societal values which have been entrenched for millenia - it is having to change just as our legal and political system has had to change to acknowledge women's rights.

Judith, my view is that anyone who really tried to follow the spirit of Jesus' teachings would be egalitarian and tolerant. But I don't know how many of those sort of people are actually in charge of anything. They're out there, but they're not visible. The 700 club, on the other hand, is visible. Supporters of ID and opponents of stem cell research are visible. And that's why I'm saying, good Christians, don't let the morally-backward speak for you and be your visible face to the rest of the world. Show heathens like me a better way. Because if I go to hell, I'm blaming church leaders for not setting me a better example.

On the contrary, Judith, I believe that a good number of Christian churches (in the US, at least) will turn away homosexuals. First they will try to "pray out the gay"--a ridiculous concept at best, a dangerous one at worst--then they will shun, and then they will become violent. Look at this if you don't believe me.

I don't want to prolong this debate - as Katherine said we could probably go on for days - but surely, Rob, you can recognise that "crisis over gay bishops" is a story that will be covered by the media while something such as the role of the churches in the Jubilee 2000 Debt Relief Campaign just isn't "sexy" (excuse the pun). My church, like most churches in the UK and in many other parts of the world is egalitarian and tolerant (ministers are free to bless civil partnerships, for instance, if it is within their conscience to do so) and active - but the only time the media come to cover us is when the kids do the nativity play.

There are certainly aspects of Christian practice to criticise and you are free to do so - what I objected to was being lumped together with Ian Paisley, Jim Swaggart and the kinds of people Katherine pointed us to - be disappointed in some Christians by all means but please judge us all by our individual actions.

Judith, you're right, that does sound eminently reasonable. My original point wasn't that all Christians do these bad things, but to complain that the 'good' Christians don't do enough to rein in their reactionary-sounding leaders. But, as you say, maybe that's a problem of bias in media reporting and not all church leaders are grudging when it comes to sex and gender equality. You make an excellent point. So what I think you're saying is that *most* churches have no problem with a person being gay. T'aint a sin and they won't give you a hard time over it. And gender equality is only taking churches so long because they have more tradition and history than most organisations. I hope you're right. Because if you read a book like this one it certainly looks like things are heading in the opposite direction. And half the leaders mentioned in that book wouldn't even allow a woman to be having this conversation.