LETTERS Noise in church
Sir: If Mr Selwyn Gummer would only pause for a moment and listen he might learn that it is not only trendy liberals who support the ordination of women. So do a considerable number of instructed Catholics, both Anglican and (it is credibly reported) Roman.
His lurid article (`The worst of church times', 18 July) is stronger on assertion than on argument. Just three or four specif- ic points: The General Synod has no plans to legis- late for 'a complete split'. It has very prop- erly proposed generous financial provision (not 'miserable little pensions') for those who in spite of all safeguards cannot in con- science remain in their posts. Informed estimate is that these will be very few in number.
I. I agree that the C of E should base its doctrine on the three Creeds. In none of them can I find anything which precludes the ordination of women.
2. Is there any evidence for his suggestion that the movement for the ordination of women was 'provided with money and resources' from America (for that is what the text must mean)?
3. I too cherish both the 1662 Book and the Authorised Version — but I can also appreciate the ASB (there is still a lot of Cranmer in it, you know) and some, not all, of the new versions of the Scriptures. I wonder if Mr Gummer has got round to looking at the new Revised English Bible which was composed with public reading in mind?
The real difference between us is in our conception of the Church. To Mr Gummer it is like a beleaguered garrison in a fortress. To me it is a pilgrim army on the march, sure of its objective, treasuring the ark of the covenant in its midst, welcoming the varied array of camp-followers who attach themselves to it.
I believe in tradition; but history shows that a tradition which cannot evolve is ster- ile and doomed.
James Cobban
10 Coverdale Court, Preston Road, Yeovil
Previous page
