EVERY WEEK WE PUBLISH a selection of letters we receive in response to something you've read at Anglicans Online. Stop by and have a look at what other AO readers are thinking.

Alas, we cannot publish every letter we receive. And we won't publish letters that are anonymous, hateful, illiterate, or otherwise in our judgment do not benefit the readers of Anglicans Online. We usually do not publish letters written in response to other letters.

We edit letters to conform with standard AO house style for punctuation, but we do not change, for example, American spelling to conform to English orthography. On occasion we'll gently edit letters that are too verbose in their original form. Email addresses are included when the authors give permission to do so.

If you'd like to respond to a letter whose author does not list an email, you can send your response to Anglicans Online and we'll forward it to the writer.

Letters from 14 to 20 February 2005

Like all letters to the editor everywhere, these letters are the opinions of the letter writers and not Anglicans Online. We publish letters that we think will be of interest to our readers, whether we agree with them or not. If you'd like to write a letter of your own, click here.

Conrad, change -- and memories

Thank you for your thoughtful and, as always, insightful editorial.

Seeing Conrad Noel's name brought back a flood of memories of old friends and happy times. My friends, a husband and wife, he is now a retired priest and she went to glory too soon some years ago, discovered Blessed Conrad on their first trip to England. They came back to their parish and wrought some wonderful change -- wonderful, but not easy, in a dying and fragmented parish -- all because of the Holy Spirit working through Conrad Noel. Thanks for the memories.

Fr Carlton Kelley
Nonparochial
Richmond, Indiana, USA.
Frcarlton2@aol.com
15 February 2005

Conrad, Catholics -- and a correction

I am glad you have discovered Conrad Noel. The extensive Noel archives in Hull University make it clear that neither he nor most of the Catholic Crusade saw themselves as Anglo-Catholic. They disliked the term because of its association with Rome during its most pro-fascist period and because of its preciousness. Their terms were 'Catholic' and 'Catholic socialist'. Anglo-Catholics claimed Noel as one of them after his death, but were embarrassed by him while he was alive.

I have discussed this in a symposium which I edited called Conrad Noel and the Catholic Crusade: A Critical Re-evaluation, Jubilee Group 1993. There are lots of copies: contact Fr Paul Butler <PaulRedButler@compuserve.com> who probably has most of them. There may even still be some in Thaxted church. (Though they never paid for them!)

Best wishes

Kenneth Leech
Mossley, Ashton-under-Lyne, UNITED KINGDOM
kenleech@aol.com
16 February 2005

'All change'

May I crave your indulgence to reply to a point raised by Br Robert in his letter to the editor? He writes:

'I am even more bothered by today's news release that they will be married but in a civil ceremony. I realize that civil ceremonies are commonplace in Europe. But does anyone have any consternation over the fact that the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England has sidestepped the Church?'

One of the peculiarities of establishment is that as the Royal Train passes a point near Gretna Junction, the monarch and her family change denominations! In Scotland, they are members of the Church of Scotland, a body with a presbyterian polity and no objection to divorce. Prince Charles could have done as his sister did, and have a religious ceremony in the Church of Scotland.

Alan Harrison
S. Mary the Virgin, Hayes
Uxbridge, UNITED KINGDOM
cbstath@brunel.ac.uk
14 February 2005

'We do not need international government'

Theo Hobson writes in The Tablet (19 February) that 'the question of the ordination of homosexuals' is the 'bull in the china shop of Anglican ecclesiology; and it is still on the loose'. 'Perhaps, most obviously,' he continues, 'it has exposed the communion as ungovernable'. To which I reply, 'Good!'

We do not need international government in the church. International government serves to frustrate and deny the diversity and freedom of God's Spirit, and the maturity that we acquire through responding to the Spirit's guidance.

'Anglicanism must decide whether it is a Church made up of various provinces, or a communion made up of various Churches. If it is the former, then there must be centralised authority. But the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot bring American and Nigerian Anglicans into a common line (he cannot even bring English Anglicans into a common line)'.

Hobson's views are more complex that this short extract allows. But it seems to me that in an episcopal church, government rests with each local bishop and any local convention, synod, etc. that offers 'advice and consent'. At any 'wider' level, what we need is not 'government', but fellowship, sharing, mutual acceptance in love, and yes, debate. And above all, we need simply to behave as civilised mature people with a child-like faith in the goodness of God.

Brian McKinlay
Canberra, Australia
20 February 2005

Earlier letters

We launched our 'Letters to AO' section on 11 May 2003. All of our letters are in our archives.