The EDITOR, Sir:

At regular intervals, when some contentious issue arises in the arena of public discussion, your publication presents the response of 'the Church'. Invariably, it is the same group of persons who are chosen to speak. I've noticed that they tend to be, in the main, representatives of the new denominations or religious organisations. This observation is not meant in any way to cast aspersions on such groups or their leaders, but only to ask of the media, why it is that we hear only infrequently from the denominations usually referred to as 'the established churches?'

Established Churches

I'm aware that the established churches operate with a structure wherein leadership responsibility resides, not in the authority of one voice, but in different levels of their administration.

I'm fully aware also that media demand instant responses on matters of moment and the established churches are not as quick to respond off the cuff as others do. The consequence is that the church views presented by the media on topical issues end up coming almost exclusively from one side of the religious landscape.

Some will say it is the fault of established churches for being too formalistic and not responding quickly, but is that excuse good enough? We believe that the media can find a way to get the other side of the story so as to present a more-balanced perspective from the institution which we call the Church. The debate could benefit from a wider spectrum of views, and not the opinions of the same individuals over and over.

I am, etc.,

CONCERNED

Kingston 5