I have not read a good word for the Church of England in its agony over schism this past week. I have read sympathy for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and many a pious wish that its troubles might somehow be sorted out. But on the central issue of whether homosexuals should enjoy the same promotion opportunities within the Church as heterosexuals, as now in North America, there is no sympathy. The conservative wing, predominantly evangelical and led by strong voices in Africa, has won the exclusion of North Americans from the central forums of the Church for three years. This is meant to allow them to "reflect and repent".

They show no inclination to do so. The age-old ability of the Church of England to fudge and shower every side of an argument with platitude has foundered in its own backyard. It can fudge the lives of others but not its own. It tore itself nearly apart over women clergy, before compromising. Now it will tear itself apart over the episcopacy. The conservatives will have homosexuals as priests, but not confessed practising ones as bishops. Equally it will have women clergy but not women bishops.

Does this matter one hoot to non-Christians, or even non-Anglicans? The Church of England represents a minority of worshippers in modern Britain. Others are clear. Roman Catholics will have no truck with women priests at all, or sexually active men for that matter. Nonconformist denominations are liberal-minded. So if the Church of England breaks into two over gay clergy, so what? It broke into two at the Reformation in the 16th century and it broke into two with the rise of Methodism in the 18th. Its numbers are steadily declining. So what if Anglicans cannot make up their mind on bishops?

I think it does matter. In the first place the Church must be at some risk from the law. Bishops are a tier of middle management, offering promotion to the clergy. To exclude a group on the basis of gender or "sexual orientation" must surely be legally dubious - however much I deplore such nanny-statism. When the Church allowed clergy to marry, and then to be women, they had to swallow a deal of biblical scholarship. They can surely do so again. This cannot be a problem.

I would do away with bishops in an age of mass communication and localism. The episcopacy is classic intermediate bureaucracy gone rampant. The number of bishops and the cost of staffing them has doubled in a century and rises every year, inexcusably sucking money from poor parishes to pay for it. Bishoprics cause no end of trouble to the centre. Be it Lincoln or Ripon or Hereford or Worcester or Reading or Southwark, it is bishops, suffragans, deans, canons that have lain at the root of ecclesiastical turbulence over the past decade. Someone needs to look after England's great cathedrals. But Methodists, Presbyterians, United Reformers and the burgeoning house-church and evangelical movements have no need of bishops. Without them, no one would today invent them.

But bishops we have. Now they are to be the cause of an outburst of religious intolerance in Britain. Any such outburst sets an appalling example, not least from a nationally "established" institution such as the Church of England. In the past week, groups of Christian fundamentalists - in truth fanatics - have forced cancer charities with threats of violence not to take money from sources deemed inappropriate, such as risque musicals. They have also threatened abortion clinics in the same way that anti-vivisectionists threaten medical research. The muslim faith-school movement is disturbing communities in which these schools are inevitably divisive. The history of education in Northern Ireland is of such schools tearing society apart, indoctrinating young people into often violent confrontation.

Tolerance was once a keynote of the Anglican church and, as such, a beacon to the nation. The spectacle of it lending moral support to anti-gay prejudice is appalling. The spectacle of it succumbing to intolerance from bishops from wholly different cultural contexts, notably in Africa, is inverted imperialism. The spectacle of social and charitable activities being terrorised in its name is worse. I should have thought schism was preferable to any of this.

This dispute is being conducted by both sides in the name of the Bible. I know holy books. In any religion, in any language, in any country can be used to justify anything. If the Church of England, in England, cannot rise above such primitivism it cannot hope to survive.

But religion IS primitive in all its forms, continually evolving in an attempt to preserve its brand and retain appeal. The same people who find it necessary to fudge their own moral positions set themselves up as moral teachers.  A plague on both their houses.  Let's just try to preserve the beauty of many churches and cathedrals. Anthony Robbins, Milan

Acceptance of homosexual people on a par with heterosexual people is a basic of the gospel - a core teaching of Christianity. What we are seeing is a capitulation to the majority rather than a stand on what is right, simply because they threaten to walk out. A wonderful opportunity to stand for the truth has been lost - so far. It could still happen - for example when ECUSA gives its reasoning on the acceptability of homosexuality.  Name and address withheld

One need have no theological training to realise that homosexuality is the denial of the true nature and function of the human body.  No body of thought should be expected to "include" principles which are entirely its antithesis.  It would be absurd for Christianity to "include" that which is destructive of its core belief, which is the human body as the means of salvation because it is the temple of the living God. Katherine Barlow, Vienna

I am saddened by the possible division of the Anglican Communion. Anglicans have often been an example to other Christians; their desire to appease can be seen as an unwillingness to cling stubbornly to their own judgments and a readiness to accommodate the views of others. The bible's teachings about homosexuality permit reasonable Christians to differ, but Christ's essential message and commandment was that we love one another. Some of the Anglican primates could do with showing more love for their fellow sinners. David Hughes, Estepona, Spain

I am a relative newcomer to the C of E, having been brought up RC.  Tolerance is what drew me to the Anglican Church.  I have not changed my mind since.  However, I would not want my parish priest or curate (never mind bishop) to be living with someone outside of marriage, irrespective of sexual orientation.  I feel that this is a choice to be made before ordination. Mary Berg, Paris

Finally! Some common sense regarding a matter that leads most people to say the stupidest things. Who needs bishops? No one. Who needs the Church of England? Only the bishops. Rod Ivan Nelson, Rome

It seems implausible that, if there is a God, and he sponsored Christianity, that he would create a section of humanity unacceptable to his religion. We can be sure if homosexual acceptance within the church was a source of revenue, they would find a way to welcome it with open arms. Jack Dingler, Dallas, Texas

The problem that many American members of the Episcopal Church have concerning the ordination of Mr Robinson is that the current articles of faith governing episcopal office preclude the appointment of officials who have an active sex life outside the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.  The simple answer is for the Church to propose a revision of such standards in open convention. Whether this would cause a division amongst the church membership
is problematic, but not certain. Joseph McNeill, Independence, Missouri

I absolutely agree with you. Bishops in their current form, as a sort of middle manager, serve no useful purpose whatsoever. In any organisation, he who holds the purse strings holds the power. Now that the income comes from the parishioners, the real power - as yet largely unexercised - is with the individual parishes. The Church of England should become congregationalist, leaving the individual congregations to decide if they want their priest to be gay or female. It would stop a lot of pointless and divisive bishops' conferences. Name and address withheld

You imply that "conservatives" accept practising homosexuals as priests (but not as bishops) - not this orthodox Episcopalian!  All church leaders (myself included) must have the appropriate response to their sin:  true repentance, not true flaunting. William Breckinridge, Plano, Texas

The Anglican Church, whatever certain of its members would say, has never understood its bishops as merely middle management. They serve  essentially a sacramental function, and without them there would be no Anglican Church, according to its own formularies. Access to the Episcopacy (and priesthood and diaconate) is neither a matter of equal access, nor a right.  It is a privilege for those within the Church whom the Church deems fit. George Brown, New Haven, Connecticut

Here, here. If the General Synod can't tolerate US Episcopalians living in the 21st century, then who needs them? Knock yourselves out, guys; we're getting on with our lives and our faith just fine without you. Andrew Michaelson, Los Angeles

I agree about the number of bishops and the pressure on small parishes to support them.  I've seen several bishops added over the past 20 years, but little leadership from them - just a lot of additional bureaucracy.  That is what middle level management does when there isn't enough real work to justify their existence. Frank McGuire, Charlotte, NC

Bravo!  I agree.  It is time we in the Canadian and American Churches stepped up to the plate and stood up to many (not all) of these African bishops who have never intended to discuss seriously gay and lesbian sexuality within a faithful witness to Christ and the Church.   I say, refuse to withdraw from the ACC, and let the African bishops who wish to to separate.  Let's go out with a bang instead of a bloody whimper. It's going to happen anyway. David McKenzie, Priest, Langley, BC

If God hates gays, as the more extreme "conservatives" claim, why does He call so many to become vicars and to minister to His people?  Could He be trying to tell us all something?  Do the "conservatives" really claim to know His mind better than He does? Elizabeth Burgess, Slough, Bucks

Why should a numerically insignificant number of liberals come into a group of believers who have always held this particular behaviour to be wrong and expect the entire worldwide communion to fall in line with their way of thinking? The problem for the C of E is that is expected to make rules for a society that is frankly no longer Christian. The Anglican Church should have the guts to stick to its guns - and not be led into an idiotic situation where vicars can be gay, but bishops not, or women, but again bishops not. One of the few areas where I agree with Rowan Williams is probably in the area of disestablishing - it would do them good to wander in the wilderness for - shall we say? - 40 years. Name and address withheld

To continue with arguments about excluding members of society based upon sexual orientation is remarkable in a declining congregation. It's surely time for people to stop judging each other and accept all equally. Oliver Wrathall, Exeter

Send your comments on this article using the form below, and they will be considered for publication. It may be necessary to edit your contribution. Wherever possible we would like you to include your name and town of residence. Priority will be given to e-mails providing these details.