MANY people, according to a leading article in the Daily Telegraph, may be disappointed by the "irenic tone of the Archbishop of Canterbury's long-awaited letter" on the clerical kerfuffle surrounding Canon Jeffrey John.

It is easy to see how this could be so. You can imagine the pin-dropping silence in bars up and down the land as this issue was discussed.

"The Archbishop is being far too bloody irenic over that canon fellow, you know, the gay bloke who has been nominated as suffragan Bishop of Reading."

"Yeah, I saw his picture in the paper and started wondering why they had appointed Elton John as a bishop."

This column likes an obscure word as much as the next suppressed show-off. But 'irenic' was a puzzle. The dictionary offered a possible explanation. Perhaps the leader writer had intended to write 'ironic'. But no, there it was. 'Irenic: adjective referring to people who look like an Irene.' Or perhaps not. Made-up definitions aside, the true meaning was given as 'aiming or aimed at peace'.

So Dr Rowan Williams, in making his first public statement on the appointment of the Church of England's first openly gay bishop, was trying to be the peacemaker. And the disappointment expressed by the leader writer on the Telegraph will not have spoilt the archbishop's view from that nice fence-post at all.

For the second time in three weeks, I find myself discussing religious matters. This is a puzzle which can only partly be explained by yesterday's guest columnist pinching the irresistible subject matter of the chutzpah-loaded comedian who gate-crashed Prince William's party.

To the sidelined agnostic, it is astonishing how much attention is paid to church matters in this country. More surprising still is the nastiness that seems to attach itself to certain religious issues. And a spat about sexuality certainly brings out the claws.

Mark me out as an innocent among bible-bashers if you will, but there is a remarkable amount of intolerance in religious circles. All the cantankerous exchanges and occasional spitting hatred stirred up by the thought of an openly gay bishop is a case in point.

From some of the reactions, you may have thought that Canon Jeffrey John had been convicted of some heinous crime. But no, he happens to be gay - that's all.

Such remarks send fundamentalist Christians scurrying to their bibles in search of righteous justification. But it is well known that a spiritual scoundrel can use chapter and verse to justify anything.

As to all this business about Dr John's 27-year-old relationship having "not been sexually expressed for years", isn't that all just a little too prurient? I don't want to know how long it's been. Also, it's rather odd to be hearing a churchman publicly renouncing the sexual side of his nature.

But the biggest oddity about all this is contained in the fleeting nature of sex. Now I'm not being personal here, but it doesn't exactly go on for long, does it? While undoubtedly pleasurable, sex is only a small part of life, although there can be long-term consequences, as I know, having three of them at home.

But what seems to be lacking in the fuss over the appointment of a gay bishop is a sense of perspective.

Instead of seeing sex as one facet of life, the ranting brigade on the frostier fringes of the church seem intent on fogging up their glasses with fury to the extent where they can't see a blind thing in front of them.

Updated: 11:34 Thursday, June 26, 2003