From the Revd Dr Rob
Kelsey
Sir, - Jonathan Chaplin
argues (Comment, 26
July) that there is "now no reason to preserve the Church-State
relationship", since the Church is no longer able to "influence
state policy", and the Bishops who spoke on the Marriage (Same Sex
Couples) Bill were "utterly overwhelmed" by those on the other
side.
This is a flawed argument.
Surely the main benefit of the establishment of the Church of
England is that it enables the Church better to serve rather than
influence. As a parish priest in the Church of England, it is my
duty (and my joy) to minister, as best I can, to the whole parish,
not just the congregation.
Mr Chaplin bemoans the fact
that "many millions . . . still regard the Church as theirs, even
though they [never] darken its doors." But this is an opportunity,
not a problem. It was refreshing to read Canon John Binns's article
on the facing page, in which he acknowledged that "83 per cent of
Anglicans don't come to church" and encouraged us to "recognise
churchgoers and non- churchgoers alike as full and equal parts of
Christ's body".
It might not be his choice
of words, but Mr Chaplin's article was headed, "Marriage Bill
signals need for divorce". I would be promoting a poor view of
marriage if I saw it, primarily, as a way to "influence" my
partner, or if I sought a separation because I had been "utterly
overwhelmed" in a particular argument.
The establishment of the C
of E is not problem-free (and no marriage is perfect), but it
remains a source of blessing to the Church, the State, and the
country as a whole.
ROB KELSEY
The Vicarage, Church Lane, Norham
Northumberland TD15 2LF
From Mr Roger
McFarland
Sir, - Jonathan Chaplin
wants to sever the link between Church and State, on the grounds
that Parliament has ignored the Church's views on same-sex
marriage, and has threatened to impose its will on the Church in
relation to women bishops.
But let us not forget that
42 out of 44 dioceses, and a substantial majority of Synod members,
were in favour of the women-bishops legislation that, nevertheless,
failed to gain approval last November. In reality, Parliament has
not so much threatened to impose its will on the Church as to
impose the will of the Church on the General Synod.
It is similarly far too
simplistic to treat what the Bishops said about the Marriage (Same
Sex Couples) Bill in the House of Lords as the undisputed view of
"the Church" on this question. It is a fact that many faithful
church members wish the Church would honour and bless permanent,
faithful, and stable gay relationships in the way that the state
now intends to do, and it is a pity (to say the very least) that
the Bishops' public pronouncements were so one-sided.
ROGER McFARLAND
79 Humber Road
Chelmsford CM1 7PF
From the Revd Paul S.
Williamson
Sir, - The Queen has now
signed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act (News, 19
July).
The Sovereign cannot err,
but she has been (wrongly) advised by her ministers to sign the
Act. Halsbury's Laws of England states that legal action can be
taken against the ministers for wrong advice. They did not tell the
Queen to refrain from signing this Act because her Coronation Oath
prevented it.
Who will take up this
challenge? Who will join together to assert the true nature of
Christian marriage?
PAUL S. WILLIAMSON
The Rectory
7 Blakewood Close
Hanworth, Feltham
Middlesex TW13 7NL