Sir: It seems that your leader writer misses the main
points about the Archbishop of Canterbury. For example the Rt. Rev. Cyril Bulley recommended that bishops should not cling to power and their privileges so that men with greater creative powers and ability were precluded from advancement. The Archbishop has powers which have been on the dim for quite a while and he showed signs of the sinister condition of indispensablia long before and he has chosen to avert his eyes from something happening to his own countrymen in the back streets while joining with the legion of pseudoreligious humbug. Why should not the Archbishop go before the New Synod? This would confound the purpose of the announcement of retirement and reinvigorate the Synod.
The other point is that when Fisher
went he could come in public and say he left the Church of England 'a happy ship' even though most members did not attend worship. Should not someone have asked then and now of the person to be translated to Lambeth "Quo vadis"? If the Treasury use public money to produce Shakespeare, is it a help to ban the main features of the English Bible and the Book of Common Prayer? Shakespeare seems very popular.
An appointment of such importance should continue under the oath of Cranmer and Henry VIII and be subject to the Act of Supremacy's main feature; it cannot be left to our clerics, the old ladies in the pews or the nonconformists. We might soon have not just hymn singing outside Centre Point but behind the Speaker's Chair as well.
Russell Marris 12 East Terrace, Budleigh Salterton, Devon
Previous page
