Taylor made for critique 
of Church

MORE articles like GP Taylor’s latest offering and I will begin to welcome his byline (Yorkshire Post, November 23).

Instead of the dogma that characterises his all too frequent forays into politics, we get pessimism and uncertainty about the Church that ordained him. Nor does he play to the gallery this time: almost heretically he aligns the much-loved Archbishop of York with the much-maligned departing Archbishop of Canterbury as bad appointments.

He stops short of denying God but reveals serious doubts about the wisdom, if not the morality of the Bible: I, for one, was unaware that anyone with a tattoo was “an abomination to God”. I also raised my eyebrows on learning that he found the Church’s attitude to gays and divorced people “archaic”.

He is also equivocal about the decision to postpone the appointment of women bishops: I am still chuckling at the remark that bishops are meant to be shepherds of the flock and not “snarling rottweilers”. It seems that some would-be reformers should be careful what they wish for...

No proselytising; just plain thinking aloud. What a refreshing change.

From: Andro Joiner, Knox Road, Harrogate.

Rowan Williams finds the decision not to accept women bishops as “unintelligible” and “wilfully blind”. He decided exactly the same throughout his tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury, by knowingly and wilfully supporting misuses of power.

The Established Church is required by secular law to allow anyone, including Jews and Muslims, to be buried in Church of England burial grounds, where grave spaces still exist. However, he remained content to force those of other religions to exercise their legal rights, only on the strict and presumably unlawful condition that they accept that their names be recorded as Christian names.

If he had agreed to allow in such circumstances, the neutral recording of “full name”, he would have eliminated hypocrisy at the stroke of a pen and demonstrated true respect and dignity for all faiths.

Representatives of the Established Church, be they female or male, should prove that at the very least, they have the intelligence to practise what they preach, even if as quasi public servants, some conceal a preference for hypocrisy and a misuse of powers.

From: David Weston, Elland.

YOUR article “Synod rejects women bishops” (Yorkshire Post, November 21) presented a one-sided view of the issue.

While in a minority, there are literally thousands of members of the Church of England who are unable to accept the ordination of women bishops. The pro-women have only themselves to blame. They have repeatedly rejected providing even the current provisions (ignoring the advice of the Archbishops) which were passed into law by the Synod and Parliament in 1992.

Had they accepted those provisions, the legislation would have been approved by all Houses.

Their attitude to those who in conscience are unable to accept the priestly ministry of women is both deplorable and un-Christian.

From: John Gordon, Whitcliffe Lane, Ripon.

THE new Archbishop of Canterbury is an interesting figure. I read that he is an evangelical and was ordained after a business career. I understand that he will try to attract young people to the Church of England.

That means, I suspect, goodbye to All Things Bright and Beautiful and welcome to rock music with the rhythmic beat that the young like so much.

The older members of the congregation may find that tiresome but the future of the Church lies in the hands of the younger generation and the only advice I can offer is “grin and bear it”.

From: PJ Wallis, Royd Court, Mirfield, West Yorkshire.

THE Archbishop of Canterbury and other senior members of 
the Church of England are concerned that the Church is losing credibility with the 
 general public.

Not once have I noted any reference to God. Surely credibility with God should be of primary importance?

Out of the loop in station hunt

From: Dr AJ Duke, Canal Lane, Pocklington.

THE other day, I had to take a person with mobility problems from the University of Leeds to Leeds main rail station. I know where the station is, because until a few years ago, I had lived in Leeds for over 30 years.

In the absence of any road signs mentioning the station anywhere near the university, I aimed for the inner loop and discovered that there is a total absence of mention of the station on any of the road signs on the inner loop.

I had to aim for the station and go up and down bits of the loop till I was 100 yards away, when I saw the first sign for the station.

It was only my knowledge of where the station is that got me there at all. I hate to think what it would have been like for a stranger.

This just isn’t good enough – Leeds is being sold short.