THE editorial comment, Church must be united (December 27) suggests the difference of views between the Bishop of Blackburn and some perhaps many of his clergy on the issue of the ordination of women as bishops may be a reason why church attendance has fallen. The implication is that disunity per se leads people not to come.

This is nonsense, since as the bishop reminds us in his comments on his membership of the commission to examine the issue of women bishops, eastern and western churches have been split for centuries, as have Anglicans from Roman Catholics, not to mention from non-conformists centuries, during some of which, church attendance was very high indeed!

Such disunity is not then the cause of a fall-off in church attendance, which requires a much more nuanced and subtle approach to sociological dynamics and to history than your cursory analysis allows.

Neither does such fundamental disunity' hamper the work Christians are able to do together. Indeed Churches Together in Lancashire, the umbrella organisation for different churches shows this. What we can do together we don't try to do alone, to the widest benefit of the Lancashire community.

Within denominations, differences of view are no new thing. I do not share, for instance, the bishop's view on women's ordination to the priesthood or the episcopate. I believe, as a traditionalist it is unfortunate that you let the views of one section of the Church hog the terminology that the God who comes to earth in Jesus Christ does so to remind us that each human being is made in the image of God, and to demonstrate, further, that each is an incarnation of God.

It follows, that both men and women are capable of representing' God to God's people, and vice versa, as priest or bishop. For distinctions or inequalities between male and female, as St Paul reminds us, cannot exist in a world sanctified by the presence of God as a human being. In this, I suspect that the bishop would agree with me to an extent. Where we would differ is on the question as to whether one part of our divided worldwide church has the authority to decide to change an approach to church leadership and governance which has pertained for centuries, without the agreement of all the other parts. I think we do. He thinks we don't. But I continue to respect him as my father-in-God, and to count him as a friend.

The collision-course about which you speak is non-existent. It suits the media's purpose, which is to whip up controversy and conflict, but it's not reality. After all, it is precisely to avoid such a dramatic eventuality that the bishop is working on the commission examining this issue.

You say: "Confusingly, both sides are able to refer to the Bible in defence of their respective stances.' Why is this confusing? The Bible is not a literalist tract.

What the church needs to show is that people within it can hold divergent views and still respect and value one another. If we can disagree with our fellow Christians gracefully and with dignity then we shall be showing that maturity which is the hallmark of all who are, to use St Paul's words again, in Christ.' It is only a means to an end. Those who happen to be on the inside of its walls need to ensure that it is as fitting a means to that end as possible, the end being the creation of God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. We won't get there without quite a few disagreements. But the manner of our disagreements will determine whether we get there at all.

CANON CHRIS CHIVERS, Canon Chancellor, Blackburn Cathedral.