The Archbishop & His Church
Sir: Having traipsed the length and breadth of England for Michael Ramsey's biography (Hundredth Archbishop of Canterbury), I am well aware of fascinating yet frequently elusive qualities of the Primate and his peculiar vineyard. These are matters of spirit and fact that TIME has seized, denned, and eloquently interpreted in its wonderfully readable report [Aug. 16] on His Grace's inspired leadership.
JAMES B. SIMPSON
New York City
Sir: I can never read your reports on the Anglican part of Christ's one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church without wincing —and especially because you persist in categorizing us as Protestants, though we are nothing of the kind, notwithstanding what some churchmen may think in their superficial approach to religion. No informed Anglican will deny that his religion is reformed, but he must maintain that it is Catholic.
DON R. GERLACH
Assistant Professor of History
University of Akron
Akron
Sir: Having sweated out (literally—shirtsleeve sessions in the university's steaming Aula—and figuratively—ponderous theological peregrinations Uber Rechtfertigungslehre) 14 days of world Lutheranism in Helsinki, I snatched a copy of TIME at London's Central Airport to see if the Anglicans fared any better. The description of the Anglican theological stance (more like the twist) fairly leaped out at me. "Not the brain-numbing abstractions of Germany's sages, but an urbane lucidity spiced—a la C. S. Lewis —with literate Oxbridge wit." Well could we have used such a catalyst.
A friend observes that the difference between Anglicans and Lutherans is that of form v. content. Anglicans, via the B.C.P. and the episcopate, keep the form inviolate, even if theology runs helter-skelter. Lutherans, in spite of Helsinki, stand firmly on their Confessions, yet often go through the motions in the most outlandish manner, simply to demonstrate that form means nothing. Pray God that ere too long, the two of us will sit at the same table together—first to talk, ultimately to share the Supper of the Lord.
(THE REV.) EDGAR S. BROWN JR.
London
South Viet Nam's Woman
Sir: As a Vietnamese student now studying in the U.S., I congratulate you on your extensive research into the private life of the first lady of our country, Mme. Ngo Dinh Nhu [Aug. 9]. You have left no doubt as to the oppressive, dictatorial nature of the ruling family in Viet Nam.
But Mme. Nhu cannot be considered a typical Vietnamese woman-.—or any woman. She is sui generis. Generally feminine and able, the majority of Vietnamese women have neither the dictatorial temperament nor the vicious habits of speech that are characteristic of Mme. Nhu.
It is distressing to see Mme. Nhu's name side by side with past Vietnamese heroines. The three heroines whom you mentioned in your article arose as timely leaders for the Vietnamese nation against the oppression of foreign invaders. Mme. Nhu, on the other hand, is herself one of the enemies within.
HUYNH KIM KHANH
Berkeley, Calif.