"The following is a statement from this church’s two New Zealand-based Anglican Archbishops:
In the light of recent media comment, it is important to clarify and restate the Anglican Church’s commitment to Bible in Schools in this country.
The ecumenical Churches Education Commission offers the Bible in Schools programme, where a school’s board of trustees agrees to provide it.
The Anglican Church in this country has long supported the Churches Education Commission, both financially and in principle, and will continue to do so.
If a school’s boards of trustees, which is the parents’ elected representative body, wants to offer this spirituality and values approach to the Bible outside of the school day, it has always seemed to us to be desirable to do so – and a perfectly reasonable provision in a democracy and in terms of Tomorrows’ Schools.
There are, in fact, many boards who choose not to offer Bible in Schools – and many boards who do believe it is appropriate.
Furthermore, even where a school does host this programme, pupils do not have to attend this part of the day.
This is long-standing agreement which honours the freedom of choice we enjoy in this country, as well as the right of parents to influence their children's spiritual and moral development.
We honour the work of the hundreds of volunteers who continue, in a loving, sensitive and non-manipulative way, to offer access, when asked, to this heritage in our schools.
++ David Moxon, Archbishop of the New Zealand dioceses.
It wasn't me who wrote to them!
Why not name the actual person responsible for the "media comment"? How is the average Anglican who missed the papers or the news show going to make sense of this without a name to Google up?
Nevertheless I am grateful that our Archbishops are onto the case.
UPDATE: As is Bishop Ross Bay, Bishop of Auckland in this not-mentioning-any-errant-clerics-by-actual-name media release
As commenters are asking, will any actual discipline be applied by either the Bishop of Auckland or the Archbishops to Clay Nelson? This discipline need not be in terms of a "Title D action." It could be in a reprimand and an instruction not to engage with the media in terms which bring the good name of the Anglican church as a church with doctrine, gospel and mission in the name of Jesus Christ into disrepute.
Rightly some commenters are asking, how can we be a church which seemingly offers no discipline to clergy who mock and send up our faith, disparage the work of Christians, and generally give evidence in public to not agreeing with the classic creeds of Christian orthodoxy.
Does Anglicanism in NZ have any lines in the sand or is it just an endless beach of shifting sands?