You can count on the fingers of one finger the number of times in my memory I can recall our Archbishop or Archbishops publicly apologising in respect of remarks made by a fellow bishop but today NZers will be reading this story. Frankly, it is embarrassing that 'stirring' has been mixed up with inaccurate distortions of complex realities. The prophetic role of ministers to be 'stirrers' requires careful rather than careless talk and this article is a reminder to all of us who 'stir', including bloggers, to speak truthfully.
The formal apology is contained within Anglican Taonga's article here.
UPDATE: Monday 16 February 2015
Over the weekend it has emerged that Bishop John Gray has been stood down as Vicar-General and Bishop Kito Pikaahu has been appointed Vicar-General in his place.
UPDATED AGAIN: Wednesday 25 February 2015
Bishop John Gray has now been suspended from his role.
11 comments:
Sadly; a set back for ACANZP. that may take a long time to consign to oblivion.
May this teach us all about the sheer infelicity of judging other traditions of faith - without admitting the problems of our own tradition. Mea culpa!
Peter, I am interested that we have not had the howling ululation of liberal latte sippers concerning the Bishop's comments. The comments (as reported) were offensive and injudicious. Certainly your Archbishops thought so. No-one else seems to be bothered. Funny old world.
Nick
Hi Nick
It can be difficult to explain silence but this is a little bit tricky to comment on. I myself have held back because the offensive comment, reported in the media, is difficult to place in context, given that the original video placed on YouTube has been withdrawn. What exactly was offensive? I am not sure because I do not know that full sentence, let alone paragraph of what was said.
However I trust the archbishops have good reason to offer the apology they have so I am sure what was said was offensive.
From another perspective I imagine some commenters are loathe to comment as Pakeha on things said or done by Maori. However the matter has been drawn to our attention by a united apology from our three archbishops and thus is a matter of concern for all Tikanga of our church.
Can you please explain the practice of having a bishop in one diocese being the Vicar General in another.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/66210341/Anglican-Church-demotes-stirrer-bishop
Where else does this happen?
Jane
Could the tea-sipping, pinky-pointing, plum-on-the-silver-spoon-in-the-mouth-speaking conservatives please clarify what we liberal latte sippers should be howling ululation about? Someone speaking up for the mistreatment of Palestinians, or the mistreatment of an indigenous bishop? Or perhaps something else we might have missed?
Jane
Hi Jane
I hope I won't confuse you :)
1. The Diocese of Aotearoa (Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa) is one diocese (and also the Maori Tikanga or Maori house within our General Synod). It consists of five hui amorangi or regions. Each of the hui amorangi has a bishop leading it (with the bishop of one of those hui amorangi being also the Archbishop of Aotearoa). Thus the Archbishop has replaced one of the hui amorangi bishops with another to be his Vicar-General.
2. The confusing bit is that at last General Synod Bishop John Gray successfully moved that his hui amorangi be given permission to call itself by a new name (I cannot recall exact wording) which includes the word 'Diocese'. Some non-attenders at GS, such as myself, are quite confused about why such an august body gave permission for not-a-diocese to be allowed to call itself a diocese!
Peter, in response to Jane, I had expected the secular chattering classes ( in the Auberon Waugh sense ) to vent their extreme disappointment at the Bishop. They didn't. I would have expected the reaction to be different. My alliterative lampoon aside, I wondered whether those who take offence for the rest of us were turning a blind eye. Nick.
Hi Nick
It is surprising it hasn't generated more media or secular attention given the statements quoted. It is difficult to ascertain what actually occured as Peter alludes to the context, especially within a meeting labelled 'Hard Talk' and a speaker who introduces himself as a 'stirrer'.
Using my imagination is could be the Bishop, used the phrase 'have not learnt their lesson from the holocaust' not referring to as one might first assume to the Jews not suffering enough in the holocaust to see what happens when they are full of themselves, but in the sense of having been yourselves so persecuted have you not learnt from this in regards to persecution of others. A little like when God admonishes his children in the bible to care for foreigners by remembering they to used to be one. But this is only supposition and so ...
It is good those who know the facts and are in positions of authority have taken steps to address what happened.
Best,
Jean
P.S. My imagination is this ony and I am not accusing the Jewish people of persecuting, only acknowledging in the current climate this is one viewpoint. The book Son of Hammas gives a very good insiders perspective on the Jewish/Palestinian conflict.
Since Nick seems unable to understand my point (he's certainly not responding to it), perhaps he might try and explain his own: where does he think his derogatory comment (Peter seems generous to some in moderation) is alliterative?
Jane
Hi Peter, I will not comment further on this thread since I only had one point to make. I agree with your comments and Jean's. The alliteration appears in my ululation sentence. Nick.
I assumed as Jean did, Nick, that Bishop Gray was drawing on the horror of Jewish experience to seek greater compassion and justice for Palestinians. So, I reinforce my point - the wonder is not the lack of the chattering classes criticizing Bishop Gray. It is for the regathering-Jews-to-Israel, Christian-Zionist, Jesus-is-coming-back-soon, normally-so-vocal tea sippers to explain their turning a blind eye.
Jane
Post a Comment