ALMOST to a man, especially in the US, slave owners were conscientious churchgoers. Pillars of society, they saw nothing wrong in the source of their wealth and social position.

And the Christian church not merely condoned but upheld their belief that slavery was sanctioned by the Bible.

Their authority was St Paul to the Colossians, Chapter Three, Verses 22-24: "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive your inheritance as your reward.''

Today, of course, all churches recognise slavery as a gross violation of human rights. Certainly no Church of England member would defend it. And the already sparsely-filled pews would just about finally empty if the church promoted another message of St Paul: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.''

The idea that Biblical texts are a rigid template for all time is untenable. What about that command straight from God: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy''? Begetting the dreary Sunday that few would now want back, this was somehow reconciled with the Sunday opening of the Church of England-owned MetroCentre and York Minster's cathedral shop. By not waiving its new admission charges on a Sunday, the Minster takes its secular Sabbath role to the very heart of the church.

Slowly, the Church of England is even inching towards remarrying divorcees. One reason is the rising number of its own priests distressed by the present ban. Another, perhaps more important, is a general sense that people in a failed marriage who wish to try again should not be denied the full blessing of God if they seek it. I say this, incidentally, from within what I regard as the happiest-possible marriage, well into its 44th year.

Changing perceptions also explain why part of the Church of England - the better part I would say - can see nothing wrong in a homosexual bishop - even a divorced homosexual bishop like New Hampshire's newly-consecreated Gene Robinson. While not saying Yea or Nay to the appointment, the Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Rev Tom Butler, has sagely observed that "loving, stable, permanent same-sex relationships'' might be "closer to what the Bible honours as marriage than the serial marriages that have also become a feature of modern life.''

I make no apology for reiterating what I said here two weeks ago: If the church's main mission is to improve human existence, making us worthy of God, it should focus firmly on the key Christian doctrines of love and goodwill. To be sidetracked by issues of sexuality seems... well, I was going to say "dumb". But, anxious not to give offence, I say it is fiddling while the pulpit burns.

Our Prime Minister, unlike me a churchgoer - and of two denominations to boot - put it admirably the other day. He told a BBC interviewer he believed homosexuals should be allowed to do the same as heterosexuals "in any walk of life''. Right. Now let's all get on with whatever we were doing.