Sir, Mary Ann Sieghart (Comment, June 6) accuses the Church of England of coercing homosexual priests and their clerical supporters into publicly supporting what, in private, they do not believe. Such a position is indeed invidious.

However, the dilemma can hardly be blamed on evangelicals or other traditionalists who maintain the biblical view that intercourse outside male-female marriage is wrong. Homosexual practices are plainly contrary to Holy Scripture. It is those in the Church who maintain the contrary who have shifted position. If some priests find themselves in a dilemma about the issue, where does the problem lie?

Homosexual priests have not been “coerced into dishonesty”. The Church of England is a voluntary association of those who choose to believe in God, in Christ the Son of God, and in the doctrines of their denomination. Every member has a choice, to join or not; to stay in or not. Those who choose to become priests do so knowing the teaching of Scripture and of the Church. If they do so while holding contrary beliefs, it is not the Church that is lacking in integrity.

Perhaps some enter the Church in all honesty and later change their views. However, none is forced to remain within the institution. Of course, it may be extremely painful and costly to leave. Integrity always has a cost.

This is nothing unusual, even in other spheres of life where faith is of the essence. For example, politicians, too, choose their political beliefs and join a party on the strength of it. If later they change their beliefs, integrity will cause them to resign and perhaps join another party. However, if such a politician chooses to remain, one cannot blame the party for his or her dishonesty.

Ultimately, where is authority to be found — in Scripture, or in rationalism? I think in the end the Church of England (to which I do not belong) will have to decide which it fears the most — heresy or schism. It is clear that for the Anglican Church of Nigeria, it is the former.

Yours faithfully,
LAURENCE POTTER,
37 Keighley Road,
Colne, Lancashire BB8 0LR.
June 10.

From the Reverend Ulric Gerry

Sir, Ms Sieghart suggests the Church is discriminatory to gay people.

In fact, it does worse; it discriminates against all sex outside marriage. The Church has the extraordinary belief that sex is more than a self- fulfilling recreational activity, but rather about uniting a man and a woman in lifelong marriage.

A true liberal, pluralist society allows diversity of belief, including on sexuality. The modern “Spanish Inquisition” are those who wish to impose their views on the Church. There is no point in the Church building bridges with modern culture if it has nothing different to say.

Yours faithfully,
ULRIC GERRY,
Roskill House,
Munlochy, Ross-shire IV8 8PA.
June 10.

From the Reverend Dr Alan C. Clifford

Sir, If the celibate status of Canon Jeffrey John (report, June 7) is influenced by a conviction that homosexuality is contrary to God’s will, then his appointment surely poses no problem. However, if his private views remain at variance with the traditional biblical sexuality of the 1998 Lambeth Conference statement, his appointment is rightly resisted.

Alternatively, if Canon Saunders’s tribute to Canon John’s “deep commitment to the Bible” means that the latter’s views accord with Lambeth logic, resistance to his appointment is unwarranted.

The root problem has to do with the illogic of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s views (report, May 30). In view of the Apostolic prohibition of homosexuality and other misdemeanours like adultery and drunkenness (I Corinthians vi, 9-11), why admit “faithful gays” yet exclude “faithful adulterers”, ie, those faithful to one mistress? As a conservative Reformed pastor, I have no doubt that the ethical novelties of Dr Rowan Williams and his supporters are gravely at variance with Holy Spirit-inspired Apostolic tradition.

Yours faithfully,
ALAN C. CLIFFORD,
7 Woodside Park,
Attleborough, Norfolk NR17 2JL.
June 10.

From Mrs Carol Griffin

Sir, As an evangelical Christian, I am shocked and saddened by the pharisaic attitudes of the church institutions. Within such a large organisation, total agreement on gay issues is an impossibility. However Jesus’s example and teaching are informed by love.

As an employer, the Church can expect its employees to abide by agreed rules and discipline those who do not do so, but discrimination against any people for who they are is unacceptable. Gay orientation is not chosen and the Church must accept that gay people have the same human rights as the rest of the human race.

I would hope that Dr Rowan Williams would recognise that expressions of sadness and regret are not enough. He should take direct action on the EU Equal Treatment Directive, not because he is liberal, but because he is a follower of Christ.

Yours faithfully,
CAROL GRIFFIN,
2 Browning Crescent,
Bletchley,
Milton Keynes MK3 5AU.
June 7.

Explore Letters

• Feedback