Correspondents’ addresses must be supplied. From next week onwards, these will be published in full in print only unless requested otherwise. This web page will display only the place name (and/or “address supplied”). The Editor reserves the right to edit letters.

Same-sex relationships and future of establishment

From Libby Howie

Madam, — To justify its status as a national Church, Sir Tony Baldry suggests that the Church of England needs to reflect “contemporary societal, moral, and ethical norms” (Letter, 14 November).

How is the Church to determine when a moral view or societal preference becomes a “norm”? Moral and ethical views may be widely held without being universal or uncontested. For example, pornography seems to be accepted as morally neutral, even “empowering”, by many people, but is rejected as morally repugnant by many others. Whose view is a national Church to “reflect”? Should it hold a referendum on such issues before deciding its moral position on the basis of the majority? or rely on Parliament to give the lead?

Surely the Church exists to guide rather than be guided by contemporary moral and ethical norms. If the values of the Church of England diverge too greatly from those of society, society will, no doubt, decide whether it wants a national Church, and in such circumstances the Church of England should be happy to relinquish this role.

LIBBY HOWIE
Rectory Farmhouse
Rectory Farm Lane, Orwell
Hertfordshire SG8 5RB

From the Revd Ravi Holy

Madam, — I think Sir Tony Baldry is absolutely correct in saying that it doesn’t really work for the Established Church to be as out of step with the nation as we currently are with regard to equal marriage. When conservatives tried to block women bishops, even though that was where we were obviously heading, David Cameron threatened to intervene and, lo and behold, we managed to sort it out very soon after.

Clearly, there would be issues on which the Church couldn’t follow the State (the legalisation of incest or cannibalism?), and for some Christians this is one of them. But are equal marriage and married gay priests really so much worse than marriage after divorce — on which issue we have managed to accommodate all views?

My personal belief is that, since the conservative lobby has ungraciously blocked even the meagre provision of Prayers of Love and Faith in stand-alone services, those of us who believe in equality should now fight for what we actually want: full marriage services in church for all, regardless of their gender. This would require a change in the law, not just an Act of Synod; but I believe that this is a change that both the Prime Minister and the King would support. The question is how best to progress this.

RAVI HOLY
The Vicarage
Cherry Garden Crescent
Wye, Kent TN25 5AS

From the Revd John McCracken

Madam, — On 3 June 2013, the then Archbishop of Canterbury said in the House of Lords: “It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same-sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage” (Lords Hansard, column 953).

The documents produced by the Faith and Order Commission and published on 5 November do not meet that test of demonstrating recognition and support for the dignity of those relationships. Why, then, did the House of Bishops accept these reports to inform discussion, let alone form a basis for decision, about Living in Love and Faith?

JOHN MCCRACKEN
Catelyn’s House, Wingfield
Suffolk IP21 5QZ

Statistics for Mission and the Quiet Revival report

From the Revd Mark Woods

Madam, — We were surprised to read your headline that Church of England Statistics for Mission “appear to contradict claims of ‘quiet revival’” (News, 31 October).

The claim in question — made in the Statistics for Mission report and repeated uncritically in your story — is that our Quiet Revival research suggested that Church of England attendance had risen by one quarter from 2018 to 2024. Had we been approached for comment, we would have been able to deny categorically that we ever made this claim.

In our report The Quiet Revival, we intentionally spend little space on denominational specifics, owing in part to small sample sizes, but note that Anglican churchgoing has declined as a proportion of total churchgoing in England and Wales.

In the FAQ section on our website, we say that “For Anglicans (which includes the Church in Wales), our data broadly suggests stability,” and that “While more optimistic than the Church’s own figures, our data does not point to explosive growth, particularly among the young, and the overall demographic profile remains notably older, suggesting the Church may be at risk of generational decline in the coming years.”

Both in the report and in the FAQs, we also recognise that, as with all methods used for measuring religious adherence, there are limitations to ours, but, as a widely used approach across sectors, it is, nevertheless, highly robust.

The rationale for reaching this figure of 25 per cent is never explained (or challenged) in your piece, but appears to be the result of a calculation based on the total rise in churchgoing which our own report identifies (from eight per cent in 2018 to 12 per cent in 2024), compared with the proportion of churchgoers identified as Anglican. This methodology is dubious, as the actual numbers of Anglicans surveyed were small enough that a relatively minor variation could have disproportionate statistical effects.

Claims that our report is in any way compromised or discredited by the Church’s Statistics for Mission are false. Indeed, a fourth successive year of growth, alongside a record increase in adult baptisms, suggests that even the Church of England is experiencing some of the wider phenomena described in our report.

We do, however, encourage the Church to learn from our research. It is clear that, in general, younger people are more open to faith, and that there has been a change in the spiritual climate of England and Wales. Nevertheless, it is equally clear that they are increasingly less likely to go to the Church of England to explore further.

Congregations and church leaders need to be equipped and encouraged to seize this opportunity, as well as the challenge. We would urge churches to put the Bible at the heart of Christian discipleship, to make space for intentional intergenerational conversation and learning, and to prioritise interpersonal relationships as a way of leading non-churchgoers along their journey to faith.

MARK WOODS
Head of Communications
Bible Society
Stonehill Green, Westlea
Swindon SN5 7DG

Development of GFS not an exact parallel with the Children’s Society

From Canon Rodney Nicholson

Madam, — I greatly appreciated Pat Ashworth’s excellent and warm-hearted appraisal (Feature, 31 October) of the GFS (Girls Friendly Society), but disagree with just one point: the judgement that “The Children’s Society is now a secular organisation, although some groups do have faith-based activities.”

As a speaker in two dioceses for the Children’s Society for about 30 years, I have tried to present its varied and unique social work as fulfilling Jesus’s words in John 10.10: “I have come that you may have life and have it more abundantly.” Unlike an organisation such as the Scripture Union, the society has never seen its main role as leading young people to personal faith and discipleship, but, rather, as helping those who have been wounded by poverty, neglect, and injustice to become the people whom God wants them to be.

This, however, does not mean the severing of links with the Church. Across the country, Christingle services will soon be held, using prayers and worship material supplied by the Children’s Society. The society aims to have an ambassador in every diocese, promoting its work in that area. For example, in Chichester diocese, earlier in the year, the ambassador was given a stall at the diocesan conference. Indeed, the society has always seen its chief support as coming from church members, many of whom give regularly in their boxes or other ways.

In today’s world, the Children’s Society is more effective by partnering with other organisations and bidding for government or local-authority funding, but this might be prejudiced if it were seen as having primarily a religious focus. Hence the society is active in its support for young carers, young refugee adults, children being trafficked along county lines, young people suffering sexual exploitation, and much more. Secular groups have similar aims, but the Children’s Society is one vital arm of the Church in serving those whose young lives have met with massive obstacles.

More than 40 years ago, the name of the Church of England Children’s Society was replaced by the present name. Besides being cumbersome, the old name had two disadvantages. First, it could give the impression that the society was concerned only with church children. Second, at that time, the society did some work in Wales. where fund-raising was not helped by the having “England” in the name of the charity. But the society remains “a voluntary society within the Church of England”, and a greatly valued one at that.

RODNEY NICHOLSON
Fosbrooke House
8 Clifton Drive
Lytham St Annes
Lancashire FY8 5RQ

Welcome for changing RE to ‘Beliefs and Values’

From the Revd Desmond Banister SSC

Madam, — I agree that religious education (RE) should be moved into the national curriculum for the reasons that the government review has explained (News, 7 November). If the name of the subject is to be changed, I suggest “Beliefs and Values” as a suitable successor. This is not, I regret, my invention. It was the new name given to the subject at a school where I taught many years ago. That change was appropriate then and would, I believe, certainly be so now.

DESMOND BANISTER
14 Tazewell Court
Bath Road
Reading RG1 6HQ

Friends of David Scott

From Canon David Lippiett

Madam, — The Revd David Lamey’s otherwise helpful review (Books, 7 November) of the Very Revd John Mann’s excellent introduction to David Scott’s work has one basic mistake: it describes the book as “written by a friend”

Part of the achievement of the book is that the author never met David Scott: “I felt I wanted to write of a man I had never met” (Introduction, page xiii). Those of us who did have the privilege of knowing David wonder that the author could so accurately and sympathetically evoke him from his writings alone, without any personal meeting.

Here is one friend who knew David well and appreciated his craft over the years, and yet could not begin to evaluate it with John Mann’s perception. But I suspect that we would all agree with the reviewer that we need to read the poems.

PETER LIPPIETT
The Old Manse
26 Andover Road North
Winchester SO22 6NW

Change and declaration

From the Revd Eileen McGregor

Madam, — In response to the letter from Dr John Wallace (7 November) in which he states that the C of E culture seems to shame you into putting something “‘in the bag’ even if you have already made a substantial online donation”: many churches have a simple way of managing this.

As we give out service sheets before the service, we offer a printed card or token that states simply that “I give to this church online via Planned Giving.”

When the collection bag or plate is circulated during the service, we can then just drop the card or token into the bag as an indication of our online donation, to avoid any potential embarrassment. This system seems to work very well.

EILEEN McGREGOR
Address supplied (London W4)

Future of arrangements for resolution parishes

From the Revd Martine Oborne

Madam, — The Revd Dr Katie Stock (Comment, 31 October) writes of the call for more flying bishops to be appointed to provide episcopal oversight for those who claim to be unable to receive the oversight of their diocesan bishops because they are either female or they ordain women.

Apparently, the current flying bishops are overstretched, having to travel all over the country to carry out their ministry. This is, of course, the consequence of setting up a Church within a Church that is in impaired communion with those of its colleagues who are either women or who support the ordination of women.

Until the unprecedented arrangements of the Declaration and its Five Guiding Principles came into existence in 2014, churches and clergy just had to put up with having theological differences with their bishops. Interestingly, if you are a church in a diocese that has a bishop who does not ordain women, such as Blackburn and Chichester, and you do fully accept women’s ministries, then you have no reciprocal right to be overseen by a bishop who shares your theological conscience on this matter.

The whole situation is untenable in the long term and also very costly. Each flying bishop costs us about £125,000 p.a. plus housing costs. But, most importantly, this ongoing arrangement creates a fertile environment for sexism and abuse. It is time to start working on bringing the 2014 arrangements to a generous end.

MARTINE OBORNE
WATCH Chair
Address supplied

One cartoon, two contrasting responses

From the Rt Revd John D. Davies

Madam, — Congratulations on your publication of the cartoon by Naked Pastor about Christ and the biblical experts (Last Word, 7 November). This very neatly, and in my view, very correctly summarises much contemporary discussion about human relationships. It should be displayed in all churches and theological institutions. Well done.

JOHN D. DAVIES
Sometime Bishop of Shrewsbury and mission priest in South Africa
Address supplied

From Mr Andrew Connell

Madam, — I found last week’s cartoon from the Naked Pastor trite and unhelpful. Of course our Lord, being divine as well as human, was able to use love to understand what scripture meant. And of course we Christians, being human, must look to scripture to help us understand what love means. That is both right and unavoidable if we are serious about our faith.

ANDREW CONNELL
203 Pullman Court
Streatham Hill
London SW2 4TA