Letters
New English
Sir: Geoffrey Wheatcroft, in yet another of those snide attacks on the use of modern English in Christian worship which keep ap- pearing in your journal, sums up this lofty and dismissive attitude when he speaks of the 'impious aesthete's substitute for chur- chgoing' (16 April). Not very many people who have regularly experienced the direct relevance of contemporary language to the actual act of worship (as opposed to the in- tellectual theory) are anything like so critical of modern speech versions as are the literary enthusiasts for the 16th century.
Of course the danguage of Shakespeare and of the Authorised Version is aesthetically beautiful and gloriously rich in meaning; but its day is done as a living language. Are the 'impious aesthetes' against any modern language version of bi- ble or prayer book? Or are they hostile only to the versions which have so far appeared? If the former, then their criticisms can be dismissed as mere negative prejudice; if the latter, then no doubt an intelligent debate can take place. But do let us be clear what we are arguing about. Gordon Wilson
St John's Vicarage, 14 Dane Bank Avenue, Crewe, Cheshire
Previous page
