Church must be open to change
AS A former member of Perrc and chairman when we presented our carefully prepared policy letter to the previous States Assembly and had it passed, I wish to thank Peter Roffey for so ably voicing his concerns about the possible dilution of the proposals approved then but which may now not be fully reflected as the process of drafting the legislation under the guidance of the new committee nears completion.
I wholeheartedly share in the concern that any church veto on decisions by the joint 'Buildings Committee', made on behalf of the ratepayers of each parish, would render the whole package inoperable.
Many douzaines currently work very well alongside their rectors, churchwardens and cemetery committee members and the Perrc proposals were not to force change but to legally enable change as plurality and practicality took over from the old tradition of the rector in the rectory alongside each parish church.
References are still made, in the occasional letters to you on this matter, to the Ecclesiastical Court and the 'established' Church, however neither of these particular elements were ever part of our mandate to be considered or addressed by Perrc.
The States have had to undergo a difficult transformation programme, businesses have had to undergo a programme of rationalisation and individuals have had to tighten their belts a notch or two. Can the Church of England in Guernsey continue to expect the provision of a good living without change?
TOM LE PELLEY.
