CHURCH PRESERVATION SIR,—Since Mr. John Betjeman's observations in your issue
of January 13 in effect impute to the Church, or at any rate to its officers, the employment of somewhat shady tactics in achieving the demolition of a church, I am reluctantly constrained to recall the facts.
In your issue of August 26 Mr. Betjeman gave St George's, Tiverton, as a recent ex- ample of the 'destruction of churches brought about by modern archdeacons'—a remark which, no doubt quite unintentionally, gave a wholly misleading impression of the part played by archdeacons in this admittedly un- happy business of demolishing redundant churches for which no secular use can be found. It was to correct this impression, in fair- ness to them and for no other reason, that I wrote the letter which you published on Sep- tember 16.
Mr. Betjeman now represents my letter as saying that his statement that St George's was to be destroyed was inaccurate; and he seeks to disprove this by quoting from a Tiverton parish magazine that on November 16 'the Bishop [of Crediton] outlined the proposed scheme whereby St George's would be closed and demolished.' But, Sir, my letter did not deny the threat to St George's Church. That, as I have said, was npt its intention : nor of course was there the slightest intention to hoodwink your readers. What I did say was that the facts on which Mr. Betjeman based his dig at archdeacons were inaccurate. I added that no decision had As yet been taken as to the future of this particular church; and that moreover—and this was the point I was con- cerned to make—the proposals for any pastoral
reorganisation are framed by a statutory body of clergy and laity, not by the archdeacon alone—nor does the decision itself lie with him.
I am sorry if Mr. Betjeman thought my letter 'rather offensive.' Certainly no discour- tesy was intended : whether it has been dis- played must remain a matter of opinion.— Yours faithfully, E. J. N. WALLIS Diocesan House, Exeter
Previous page
