Liddle’s Lent
Sir: As someone who is employed by and works within the Church of England I have been waiting 20 years to see an article like Rod Liddle’s (‘The C of E has forgotten its purpose’, 11 April) appearing in a major British publication. He is accurate in nearly everything he says. The current church is sadly lacking in leaders of any serious Christian commitment, passion or confidence in the gospel. It is as if they prefer any religion to the Christian one, which they have pledged to ‘defend and stand for’ in their ordination vows. Bring back Bishop Nazir-Ali and sack the liberal self-loathing secularised bishops!
Revd Richard Fothergill
Bath & Wells Diocese
Sir: The most telling omission in Rod Liddle’s Easter encyclical is its failure at any point to mention God or the Church’s proclamation in word, sacrament and deed. Without these the Church of England would indeed be the ‘superannuated branch of social services’ that he suggests. In fact, for all its shortcomings, it remains wholeheartedly dedicated to keeping alive the rumour of God in an often forgetful society. In parishes, hospitals, hospices, schools, universities and prisons, Anglicans, lay and ordained, try — and fail, and try again — to follow Jesus’s commandment to be servants of all. It is this that motivates us to make common cause with our neighbours of other faiths and none, not a pursuit of inter-faith dialogue for its own sake.
Revd Dr Edmund Newey
Handsworth, Birmingham
Sir: Rod Liddle incorrectly attributed the reported views of the Rt Revd Stephen Lowe, the Bishop of Hulme, as those of the Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch, the Bishop of Manchester.
Mr Liddle then referred to the Bishop of Manchester as ‘the idiot who has also called for the first verse of “I Vow To Thee My Country” to be struck from the hymnals.’ The Bishop of Manchester, as one of the Church of England’s most experienced bishops and as Chaplain to the Royal British Legion, has never called for such a ban.
To misrepresent the views of the Bishop of Manchester and then publicly insult the Bishop for views he does not hold is poor journalism. The Bishop of Manchester has received numerous complaints since you published your article.
David Marshall
Director of Communications, Diocese of Manchester
Sir: Rod Liddle has written a devastating attack on the Church of England and its leadership, almost all of which I concur with, although, as so often in his case, it is couched in somewhat extreme language. He deplores its abandonment of its ‘historic commitment to tradition mediated by a rational appraisal of modernity’, its adoption of ‘every convenient shibboleth of modern liberalism, every transient political fashion’, its ‘total capitulation before any and every assault upon its ideology’, and its degeneration into ‘a sort of superannuated ad-hoc branch of social services’. If he sincerely believes in the teachings of Christ, and that belonging to a Christian Church involves anything more than giving up chives for Lent, I wonder whether he has ever considered becoming a Roman Catholic. Within the fold of the Catholic Church he would find that the fundamental tenets to which it has adhered throughout its history are still upheld not only by the hierarchy but by the vast majority of the faithful, not out of ‘nostalgia and wishful thinking’, but out of conviction.
John Villiers
Letheringsett, Norfolk
Sir: Rod Liddle, having given up chives for Lent, considers that 45 days are enough and he can indulge again on Holy Saturday.
Lent was 40 days until someone in the mediaeval Church decided that you cannot have a fast day on a Sunday. The start of Lent was moved to the Wednesday after quinquagesima so that there would be 40 non-Sundays before Easter. Together with the six Sundays, that makes 46 days. Mr Liddle was therefore allowed chives with his breakfast on Easter Sunday morning but not before.
Philip Roe
St Albans, Hertfordshire
Sauce for the goose
Sir: New Labour objects to people reading private emails from Number 10. This comes in the very week when they have legalised government spying on the emails of the general public. To adapt their own mantra, if New Labour has nothing to hide, New Labour has nothing to fear from the public reading their emails. If they spy on us, we’ll spy on them.
Barry Tighe
London E11
MPs’ expenses
Sir: Your editorial on MPs’ expenses is quite right (11 April). We cannot, as a nation, afford for democracy to go down the plughole with the poorly defined and executed remuneration and sloppy support package that MPs currently have. The easiest way to resolve the problem is simply to apply the rules that apply to everyone else. No capital gains should be able to be made by MPs out of items subsidised by the taxpayer. In all other aspects of life, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs look very closely at, for instance, if a director of a company employs a wife or husband.
HMRC often decides that the income of the spouse should be disallowed, reduced or added to that of the director, so that HMRC can take top whack tax from the duo. It is seen as a diversionary tactic for tax purposes. The same should apply to MPs. The normal rules of job ads having to be publicly advertised should also apply. Expenses should only be allowed to be claimed for activities relating to the job and not for general cost of living. A collection of Westminster flats or an apartment/bedsit building in which MPs can stay the night would also do the trick as far as enabling them to do their job properly is concerned and it would save much discussion of how far they travel to parliament from their constituencies.
MPs need to be given six months to sort out second-home issues together with employment matters, as the change will cause disruption. The summer recess is a good time for that. They should all return in October with clean slates.
Naomi Langford-Wood
Tilbrook, Cambridgeshire
Comments