We believe we grasp the argument, ponderous as it was, for Archbishop Lawrence Burke's ban on Deacon Ronnie Thwaites from the pulpits of the island's Roman Catholic churches.

But what Roman Catholics, and others who proclaim the Christian faith, are likely to, and should, find disconcerting is the attempt by Mr. Thwaites' brother deacon, Peter Espeut, at bolstering Archbishop Burke's position. For it is hardly a good advertisement of the efficacy, power or uplifting capacity of the Christian God.

Mr. Thwaites is a long-standing lawyer and radio talk-show host, who once had a grand reputation as a social activist in the Jesuit tradition. Active in a Roman Catholic laity, Mr. Thwaites was ordained a deacon, a rank just below that of priest.

But Mr. Thwaites is also a politician, who contested the 1997 general election on behalf of the governing People's National Party, becoming a member of the House of Representative until he was forced to resign his seat for Central Kingston over a scandal that partly involved his church. Archbishop Burke's predecessor, Archbishop Edgerton Clarke, apparently had no objection to Mr. Thwaites' involvement in politics. He did not enforce an official ban on Mr. Thwaites' preaching.

Mr. Thwaites is attempting a political comeback and will contest the August 27 election. This is a concern to his bishop, at least in so far as reconciling the roles as witness for God and player in the gritty business of partisan politics. Archbishop Burke, for instance, talked about the perception of politicians being involved with gunmen he is sure that Deacon Thwaites "would avoid any of that".

Whatever the tone of the archbishop's comments, and the interpretation Mr. Thwaites may place on them, the archbishop's strongest point is the declaration that his decision "is for the unity of the church". He doesn't want congregations to feel that "someone who is partisan preaching to them. Everyone should feel comfortable in church". This we understand. God, the assumption is, should be seen to be apolitical - a point that may be debated by theologians and others, but credible nonetheless.

However, the Christian God and many of His followers on earth may be offended by Deacon Espeut's argument. While it is laudable to want to change a corrupt political system, he said in a column in this newspaper, "It is more likely that we (people of the church) will be changed and corrupted by the system we have." There is a danger of the church becoming tribalised and "of the world".

There may be something of a point in the fear of tribalism in church, but it ought not to be one driven by the deacon's concern of God's servant being corrupted, assuming that at the beginning the servant was truly of the Holy Vessel. The tribal impulses, if they exist, should be flowing more from the perceptions, and ensuing doubts, of a worldly congregation.

Deacon Espeut is right that that compromise should not be on the essentials - among which we expect those of faith to include faith in the capacity of God to guide those he calls to ordination.

Archbishop Burke, on the other hand, if we read him correctly, is more concerned with the pragmatic matter of the perception of man. Now, here is a point for students and observers of politics to ponder.