Like both of your correspondents (Letters, May 31), I was also surprised that there was no reaction from readers to Jean Calder's article on Bishop Gene Robinson (The Argus, May 17). I had simply assumed this indicated that what Ms Calder wrote had generally met with the readership's approval and that there was no further need to comment.

Now that there have been two contrasting letters, I would like to add my pennyworth.

Michael Blades' letter introduces some interesting points, the main one being the possibility that the gay clergy of the area might have been asked to keep quiet on this subject prior to the Lambeth conference.

Or is it that they are anxious about bringing the issue into the open, especially in a local context?

May I say how much I appreciate Mr Blades' statement of his sexual orientation in his letter, despite his position within his denomination.

The contribution of Alan Nunn, on the other hand, I find a deplorable and unjust representation of Ms Calder's article.

Bishop Robinson, as Ms Calder constantly points out, discussed his sexual ambiguity both before his marriage and during it, then it cannot be said that he put his sexuality before his wife, children, church and faith, as Mr Nunn claims.

In fact, it strikes me as an excellent marriage with the honest sharing of issues and problems all done with integrity. It is also clear that he and his ex-wife are still excellent friends. I have encountered so many married men who live lives of constant deception on this point.

Mr Nunn's use of the word "restraint" clearly indicates the preposterous fallacy of assuming that gay men would be much better off restraining themselves from any sexual expression. As if being gay simply meant sex rather than going in search of a relationship with another person in which, as in a marriage, there is a sharing of one's whole life, in bed and out of it.

On one point Mr Nunn may be correct - Bishop Robinson's actions may have brought the Anglican Church to the point of a permanent split between traditionalists and liberals. Somewhat closer to the truth is probably the fact that Bishop Robinson and the Episcopalian Church in America have, at long last, compelled the church to face up to the consequences of this issue which has been smouldering since at least the 1960s when I was an ordinand of the church in Wales.

I was never ordained because I was gay.

If this issue does bring the church to a schism, then I, for one, shall applaud it, for it will prove that Anglicanism has at last been as honest and faithful with itself and its clergy as Bishop Robinson has been. It is high time traditionalists and liberals within Anglicanism went their separate ways.

If the church as a great pillar of the state did come crashing down, as Mr Nunn believes, I see that as a great advantage for the country. The whole concept of an established church, particularly in our multicultural and multi-faith Britain, is nothing but an anachronism.

  • Michael Johnson, Kevin Gardens, Brighton