THE EDITOR, Sir:

I was disappointed with your editorial titled 'Sexist vote by Church of England' in your Friday, November 23, 2012, edition. The Gleaner's editorials, over the past two years, have risen, generally speaking, to a standard befitting its halcyon past.

Unfortunately, the editorial referred to departs from this new standard. In fact, it is a signature example of fools stepping in where angels fear to tread.

I hold no brief for the Church of England. It is, in many respects, a church hardly worthy of the name of a Christian denomination because it has, over the years, departed from the plain teaching of scripture in many areas. The votes of the bishops and the priests are testimony to this, and the fact that the laity narrowly defeated the measure by just six votes short of the two-thirds majority indicates how weak the Church is in terms of adhering to the scriptural doctrines of God.

As unpopular as it may be among certain elements of the society, the fact is that the scriptures clearly distinguish the roles of men and women in God's economy, unlike the prevailing tendency in our unisex cultures. This is not to say that they are not equally valuable in the eyes of God.

The Bible is not written to the world but belongs to the Christian community, and contains instructions on how people of God are to relate to God, to each other, and to the world. It is, therefore, inappropriate and unacceptable for The Gleaner to attempt to judge the Church by secular standards.

The editorial reference to a reinforcement of the proverbial 'glass ceiling' is absurd. The editor is treading on holy ground. The editor also refers to a doctrinal issue arising because the Church agreed to ordain women as priests 10 years ago. If this was a bad decision, contrary to the scriptures, and it is, a bad decision cannot be a basis for founding another decision which would compound the previous bad decision.

The editor refers to a breach of Britain's equality laws. This criticism flounders on the same rocks as the 'glass ceiling' criticism for the reasons stated before. The editor's statement that the Church of England is owned by the State is offensive and contrary to the scriptures. The Church of England is recognised by the English state and the monarchy is its ceremonial head in their system of government. This position is unsupported by the scriptures.

The editor should pick his battles and keep his nose out of the Church's business.

MALCOLM D.L. MCDONALD

brenzia@cwjamaica.com

Hope Road, Kingston 6