Monday, December 15, 2025

Tuesday 16 December 1850-2025 - Canterbury Anniversary

Tomorrow, 16 December 2025, is the 175th anniversary of the arrival of the First Four Ships in Lyttelton Harbour on 16 December 1850 - the first ships carrying an intentional wave of new settlers to what would be the city of Christchurch and the province of Canterbury in the post Treaty of Waitangi (1840) emerging Aotearoa New Zealand, a land of Maori and Pakeha. Last night our Transitional Cathedral Evensong celebrated this anniversary. The following is the text of the sermon I preached.

175th Anniversary Canterbury Settlement 1850-2025, 14 Dec 2025

Readings: Jeremiah 29:7, 11-14, Philippians 4:4-14

Introduction: On16 December 1850, four ships sailed into what today we call Lyttelton Harbour and thus became the First Four Ships carrying new settlers for a well planned Church of England settlement: a settlement to be established over the hill from Lyttelton, with the name Christchurch, after the Oxford college at which a number of the English planning committee had been students.

These ships were filled with members of the Church of England who settled into life in Christchurch or spread out across the Canterbury plains and into the foothills of the Alps, developing churches, schools, a university, businesses and farms, according to the plan.

And everything went well as a replication of the best life England and the Church of England could offer English people. What took place was a transplanting of English idealism into a place perfectly suited for establishing an Anglican utopia.

Except that wasn’t exactly what happened.

There was a need to limit French settlement to Akaroa and nearby bays.

We were eyed up by the Scottish Presbyterians. But for Lake Ellesmere being in flood when a surveyor sought to find an easy flat route from the sea to where our city now lies, we might have been Dunedin.

As it was, Scottish Presbyterians, including most famously the Deans’ families were critical to the development of Christchurch and Canterbury.

As were Australians who jumped the Ditch for a cooler climate, for work preparing Lyttelton and Christchurch for the new settlers, and, for some Australians, for securing better farming prospects than available in those days in New South Wales and Victoria.

The first four ships were not filled with Anglicans – a Europe in uproar in 1848 which might have pressed people to purchase their places on the ships and their acreage in the new province gave way to a more settled context in 1850.

So contented Anglicans remained in England and there were spare spaces for non-Anglicans to travel out here.

10 of the 20 clergy who arrived on 16 December 1850 found the going too tough or the prospects for a better life easier to secure elsewhere in the new world.

Bishop Selwyn was keener on a separate diocese in the first instance for the older settlement in Nelson. Jackson the first bishop designate for the not yet agreed to Diocese of Christchurch came and went.

Initial planning in smoke filled committee rooms in England made costs of going into sheep farming – farming for lucrative wool – prohibitive. That was a misstep by our administrative forbears.

Only when a change was made to the pricing of land suitable for sheep in the early 1850s (due to facts quickly learned, that other forms of farming could not earn a living), did the financial future for Canterbury brighten.

Many decades before we learned the word “globalization”, astute commercial leaders and farmers in Canterbury knew that global trading in wool counted ahead of local market sales of crops for local consumption.

Perhaps the best ever attempt at establishing an Anglican utopia by English people outside of England failed - failed to become what it was hoped and planned to be.

But what was established has been a success in this way: those who sought a better life in Christchurch in 1850, through dint of hard work and willingness to adjust plans to fit with reality, found that better life.

But 175 years later, we also look back on the role of Kemp, Wakefield and Godley, instrumental figures in the planned settlement becoming an actual settlement, and wonder regretfully how things might have been different for Ngai Tahu.

Has the English settlement here made life better for Ngai Tahu? That is a question we should continue to ask ourselves.

Let’s never forget that land was purchased from Ngai Tahu at such low prices that there is no case, from any perspective, that justice was done – justice such as the Christian faith requires of its adherents.

Nevertheless,175 years after the First Four Ships arrived, it remains the case that people move to Christchurch seeking a better life and for the most part, a better life is found here.

Providing you can stand the frosts, bear the hot nor’ westers,  wrap up against the easterlies and southerlies, and work your way round a very subtle class system with faint and not so faint reminiscences of England’s class system.

Exposition: Jeremiah the prophet speaks to us through our first reading this evening about finding a better life.

Israel is in exile in Babylon, in what today we call Iraq. It is not there because an Israelite Association for Settlement in Iraq was formed. It was there because Israel had been brutally conquered by Babylon and now many of its citizens were in forced exile.

Our reading hints that Israel was not only exiled because that is the way their history turned out but because that was God’s will – “I have sent you into exile.” In that difficult situation, God speaks to Israel through Jeremiah:

“But seek the welfare of the city, where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (29:7).

In more prosaic terms, God is asking Israel to make the most of its situation. To pray for all in the new city in which they now lived, because the well-being of the whole city will mean the welfare of the exiled Israelites domiciled there.

Jeremiah also offers God’s promise that:

“For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope” (29:11).

Tonight, we look back on what has been and acknowledge that what Christchurch and Canterbury is today, is what it is, because when the First Four Ships sailed into Lyttelton Harbour, there was a turning point, an historical moment, which changed Ngai Tahu and changed British settlers for ever, with benefits for all settlers since.

A new society has been forged – less than an Anglican utopia, less than any utopia, yet a society in which striving for the welfare of all continues and a society to which people are drawn.

New settlers come here from other parts of Aotearoa New Zealand and other parts of the world because belief is strong that here, welfare – a good life, well-being, a better life – is possible.

“A future with hope” is a plausible description of what Christchurch is becoming.

Paul, writes to a church at Philippi in Greece, which, incidentally, was a Roman colony – and he urges his readers to engage the life they lived with at least three attitudes: thankfulness, peace and contentment.

Tonight, in Christchurch, this reading invites us to look on our life here today in respect of these three themes.

Thankfulness: there is much to be thankful for here in this city and in this province. Three things stand out for me – you might share them as your thanksgiving standouts too.

1.      We have made important steps in righting wrongs of the past in respect of Pakeha and Ngai Tahu. Not all is yet sorted but we have begun to address that part of the past that we cannot be content with.

2.      We have made our way through the immense, intense challenges of earthquake damage. Where we are today was not conceivable in, say, March 2011, possibly not even on 22 February in, say, 2015. We have had to forge a new settlement and been pioneers again in doing so.

3.      We are becoming a city and a province welcoming new pilgrims to share our life in this place: welcoming people from many nations, not just the British Isles; from several faiths, not only the Church of England. We are forging a cosmopolitan settlement, inconceivable to the original Canterbury Association.

Peace: this city has largely lived a peaceful life, if we overlook the disturbing gusts of the strongest nor’ westers, and the brutal shakes of earthquakes past and recent.

But on 15 March 2019, our peace was shattered by the appalling mosques’ massacres. Any illusion that we might have had that a new cosmopolitan settlement of this region was emerging smoothly and seamlessly ended that day.

Peace cannot be taken for granted here. We must pray for peace, we must work for peace, and we must be vigilant about the “isms” that disrupt peace and harmony in our society: racism, fascism, misogynism and the like.

The first pilgrims from Britain, arriving here in 1850, found that the only way they could proximate to the vision of the Canterbury Association was through hard work.

As pilgrims on the journey through the 21st century for Christchurch and Canterbury, we also must work hard: not only in building houses, roads, stadia, businesses and educational institutions, but also on relationships between people, on respect for human dignity and on a just society we are proud to belong to.

Thirdly, Contentment:  “I have learned to be content with whatever I have”, says the apostle Paul.

Christchurch is Christchurch (and not Auckland, Melbourne, New York, Shanghai, or Rio de Janiero) and Canterbury is Canterbury (and not Otago, California, Provence, the Gold Coast or Bali).

Other places have better beaches, finer fields for growing crops, quainter places for picture postcard perfect holidays, Disneylands and warmer nights for partying.

So what! We have much to be thankful for. Let us be content with this good and blessed land in which God has placed us.

Conclusion: In 1850 a distinctive path for a new settlement in this city and province began. At the end of it was presumed to be a utopia. Not long after we began walking the path we found the initial Anglican utopia vanished, and if we stop and pause, we can see the pain our ancestors’ settlement caused to those who had already settled here hundreds of years before 16 December 1950.

Our journey continues along the path. It has had severe recent disruptions. Yet we continue forward. May we seek the welfare of our city and province, making our requests known to God for our future flourishing, in prayers filled with thanksgiving for the blessings we have been privileged to enjoy these past 175 years.


Monday, December 8, 2025

Whither (Roman) women deacons?

In recent days the Vatican has published a report on the possibility/not of women being ordained deacons. Reuters has a report here. The gist is that women deacons are not possible *for reasons* but further study is encouraged. A bob each way, but not such that women and men aspiring for the Catholic church to permit women to be deacons can expect change anytime in the next decade or century or longer. At least one commentator is furious with the decision.

My interest in the decision is not about the reasons (I simply disagree with any reasons advanced againt the ordination of women. If imaging Christ is critical to sacramental ministry, then Christ is human before he is male; if history is critical, then while evidence is not overwhelming, it is possible to find precedence; if scripture is important, then *Phoebe*; if apostleship is male, then what about Junia, Mary Magdalene.) My interest is about the fact that the report leaves the door slightly ajar to the future, "further study" covering a multitude of possible/eventual reconsiderations. Newman was recently made a doctor of the church and he was keen on *development* of doctrine. I predict change will come but it could be centuries.

The Anglican point here is that if change comes, then the Anglican church (and other churches) have been both the pioneer of change and sometimes the brunt of Catholic critique for being that pioneer. Such critique, incidentally, not being abstract and confined to academic papers, but something an Anglican deacon recently noted as her lived experience: Catholic friends making critical comment about her being ordained. (I hasten to add that, for the most part, I find nearly all Catholic clerical colleagues very, very respectful and honouring of Anglican women clergy in our ecumenical interactions.)

The future is an unknown country. Its boundaries may be porous compared to existing barbed wire borders.

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Surprise not surprise

There is an ongoing local church story which reappeared in The Press on Saturday - here - and tangentially refers to me, but the reference to me is not the point of this post.

What kind of Christ (or, should that be "Christ") is worshipped and, in the eucharist, received, who leads and nourishes a congregation in such a direction of doctrinal purity that it becomes at odds with its local and global leadership when those leaders are faithful and godly men?

(I am raising the question somewhat rhetorically - answers not expected in the comments.)

There is not one verse in Scripture which encourages us to think of eternal fellowship with the Trinity as reserved for the doctrinally pure. There are many verses in Scripture which highlight the extraordinary grace of God, the untraceable extent of God's love, and the inordinate variety of people who constitute the diverse church of God.

The Johannine Christians, the Petrine Christians, the Pauline Christians, the Jacobite [James] Christians, the Jewish Christians [think Matthew's Gospel] - all will be with God for eternity and if we believe we will be among them, we could reasonably, and helpfully, begin to prepare ourselves ecumenically for our extraordinary future as the heavenly saints constituted in one body.

Otherwise, heaven is going to be a shock.

There are not going to be separate enclosures for the purer than pure Catholics and for the purer than pure Protestants. Nor for each of the branches of Orthodoxy that have fallen out with each other!

Sunday, November 23, 2025

Sorry not sorry

This is a bit of non-post. Having come back to work, a lot of work is coming at me, and time is not available this week to post anything other than these few words, so sorry not sorry.  Perhaps better luck next week re time. Maybe England will learn to play proper test cricket by then, Trump and Rubio will tell Russia their talking points are not Ukraine’s best peace plan, and Kiwiland will find a way through its economic torpor. 

Today’s gospel, for Christ the King, Luke 23:33-43, portraying the king of kings dying in order that we may live, stands in stark contrast to the agenda of the world today.

POSTSCRIPT

Since writing the above I have come across a "well, worth reading" article for this week ...

They’re doing to America what they did to Christianity | Christianity | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/nov/23/america-christian-evangelical-discrimination-immigration

Monday, November 17, 2025

Sabbatical ending ... back to work!

I have been privileged these past two months to be on sabbatical leave (with July making up the third month of the allotted three months). These two months have actually seemed like a long time (rather than "flown by") and a long time is a good time when seeking some "r and r" from everyday working life. 

A long time is also a good time when seeking some uncluttered-mind-space for some writing, which has been the focus of the "study" part of the sabbatical. I cannot tell you how many words I have written (because some writing has been re-writing some writing accomplished during two previous sabbaticals, and some writing has been re-writing what I have written - judged myself to be rather poor and in desparate need of improvement - along with a bunch of new words). Suffice to say, there are now about 100k words washing around in a folder on my laptop. I also should say, for any wonderful but far too eager supporters looking for imminent publication, that while I have perhaps 90% of sheer quantity of words written, the quality estimate is around 60%, so I envisage a lot more work before I have a draft to share with a few trusted friends for comment, and then - hopefully - with a publisher. The book is on interpreting the Bible. Yes, I know this has been done before, and by others. Needless to say, my book will be the last book on the subject you will ever feel the need to read ... :). 

Here I share a few thoughts from my work over these past months, though with a certain constraint because I don't want to give away key ideas to another scholar working in a similar way. I have already come across a 2025 book a bit too like mine for my comfort!!

1. The Bible is a very complex book. More complex, to my mind, after forays into some of its nooks and crannies, than I have ever previously realised.

2. In the long run, despite many, many hermeneutical (interpretational) disputes, the church does get things right, eventually. The stand out example is slavery. We have interpreted the Bible correctly on this issue (that is, understood that though the Bible itself tolerates slavery, its overall message re human dignity means slavery has had to end). It only took about 1800 years.

3. Related question: could we have arrived at the abolition of slavery a lot sooner? (I am charting a possible pathway to an affirmative answer to that question.)

4. It is challenging to read the Bible consistently. In my research and reflections, I am struck by how the church has shifted its thinking on some issues the Bible addresses but not done so on others, when it is reasonable to assess that justice in life requires us to read (and apply) the Bible consistently. (Yes, this is a general statement without examples ... I don't want to give much away about the final content of the book!)

Monday, November 10, 2025

The first casualty of war is truth

In my first year of secondary school, 52 years ago, with the madness of war in south-east Asia playing itself out, and the Cold War continuing to be very cold, I learned in English that "the first casualty of war is truth". I think the larger topic within the English curriculum was "Propaganda."

In 2025 this acute and accurate phrase seems as pertinent to discernment when reading the news as ever.

No one doubts that Gaza has been mostly destroyed, that a lot of people have lost their lives, many more injured, and there have been shortfalls of basic facilities to meet needs - damaged hospitals, interruptions to supplies of food and the like. But what is true and what are lies (or fudges) about precise numbers, about whether there has been famine, about whether Hamas or other gangs have stolen emergency supply lorries and subsequently sold goods at inflated prices, about whether the undestroyed parts of Gaza have flourishing food markets and restaurants (I have seen photos ... but photos can be doctored, produced from the past as though present reality, etc), about whether (say) journalists have been working for Hamas (so Israel claims in justification of killing them), hospitals have been used as military commands, schools have hidden entrances to tunnels (again, so Israel has claimed) ... there is a long list. My point here is not to take any one side re truth-telling/false-narrative-spreading in this (horrible) war and this consequential war on truth, but to observe that there are reasons to think that the adage I first came across as a thirteen year old continues to hold true.

This also seems to be the case in a very recent bit of news. The older news is that terrible, deadly conflict has been going on in Nigeria between (putting it evenly, even if that itself is not a true reflection of the conflict) Christians and Muslims, especially in rural areas. The recent news is that President Trump has offered assistance to the Nigerian government to bring an end to what he describes as "persecution of Christians." Clearly a number of concerned Christians in the West, presumably particularly in the USA itself, have found the ear of the President and he has listened. My interest has then been in seeing some news articles which have taken up the challenge of explanation: what is really going on, are Christians being persecuted by marauding Muslim forces (beyond control of the Nigerian government), or is there another explanation, a socio-economic one between different groups seen from an economy perspective (which happen to be Christian and Muslim respectively)? Now I don't know enough to give any kind of precise rebuttal to such articles, but reports of terrible atrocities against Nigerian Christians have been made for years now, if not in mainstream media, then in Christian media. Where does the truth lie? Is it possible that the truth (Christians are being killed and their buildings destroyed by Muslim forces such as Boko Haram) is becoming a casualty of this particular war, aided and abetted by some elements in Western media?

It is also the case that the truth of any situation can be challenging for any of us, whether we are in a a non-military conflict or a family argument or ... church life. What actually happened? Who provoked whom? Who said what? All too many inter-personal conflicts, in the church and outside the church, in my experience (and no doubt in yours) involve "she said/he said" versions of whatever it was that actually happened. Few of us have the time to engage in detailed enquiries to determine what was actually said and who, if anyone, was at fault. But there are other situations where it is important that we determine the truth of what happened - well-being of hearts and minds, appointments, employment are at stake, depending on what actually happened between two people or two factions. In the Anglican world, recent years have highlighted around the globe, and here in these islands, both that we are in a new world of transparency (things cannot and should not be "swept under the carpet") and that we are in a new world of public accountability: locally, this has been pressed on us by the recent Royal Commission on Abuse.

Within Christian contexts we may usefully recall texts such as 1 John 1:7, "If we walk in the light as [God] himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin."; and Ephesians 4:1-3, " ... lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love ... maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

But, if many conflicts most of us will experience in our lifetimes are helped by attitudes such as "patience", we should not lose sight of the crisis in Nigeria: the longer it takes to secure peace, the more people will be hurt, maimed and killed. We should be impatient for a resolution there and, of course, to what is continuing conflict in Gaza, despite the ceasefire, and what is terrifying for Palestians in the West Bank.

Sunday, November 2, 2025

Some Anglican Oddities

There is quite a lot of Anglican news these past days and weeks. Hard to keep up!

My continuing interest in "global" Anglican affairs leads me to focus this week mostly on "Anglican Communion" news, which, naturally, at the moment is "the" Anglican Communion news and the "Global Anglican Communion" news.

Three articles are of great interest in giving insight into how GAFCON's leadership came to announce the formation of the Global Anglican Communion, and what significant response to that announcement is:

Living Church | Mark Michael and John Sandeman

Living Church | Mark Michael 

The Other Cheek | John Sandeman

Gerry Lynch, English cleric, makes this comment - summary - on X/Twitter:

""Global Anglican Communion" founded after 55 minute meeting in Sydney; only 2 serving Anglican Communion Primates were in attendance (Rwanda & Nigeria); 7 of 12 attendees were US or Australian. 5 of the Primates they claim support them didn't attend the subsequent Zoom call & 4 still haven't replied to emails."

The Living Church itself, in a tweet promoting its article says this:

"Latest #News: "Global Anglican Communion" drafters all hail from dioceses and churches that have never been part of the #AnglicanCommunion or have been largely disengaged from it for the last two decades. #Anglican #GAFCON #ACNA "

These observations neatly capture an oddity (if not absurdity) in the situation: a group of men [no sign of women involved!], not actively involved in any meetings, gatherings of the actual Anglican Communion, determine that the actual Anglican Communion henceforth will be the Global Anglican Communion under their leadership (control?).

A further oddity is this: a claim to be "global" in the Anglican world can reasonably be presumed to involve "all Africa" but this does not seem to be achievable:

- I am intrigued that Uganda was not at the meeting (but am not reading much into that - schedules etc), since Uganda is one of the key African provinces for GAFCON.

"The Anglican Church of Kenya is likely a crucial bellwether for the project’s success. The Global South’s third-largest church and the host of important institutions like the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa, Kenya has long been an active participant both in GAFCON and the Instruments of Communion. 

 The church’s primate, Archbishop Jackson Ole Sapit, did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the Global Anglican Communion announcement (one of his staffers told our reporter that getting a response would be “a Hail Mary pass”).

But the Bishop of the Anglican Church of Kenya’s Diocese of Garissa, Francis Omondi, said to TLC that breaking ties with Canterbury would be a major cultural shift for his church, which retains deep respect for its historical ties to the church that brought it the gospel and has a robust culture of internal consultation.

“Kenya will need a fundamental reworking to break with Canterbury. No archbishop can take Kenya away without changing the church’s law. This will be hard to achieve. Breaking with Canterbury may result in breaking the church locally, creating two provinces,” Omondi said.

“The position I take and which I advance is that we cannot and should not server links with Canterbury. We are so culturally intertwined that these breakaway talks cannot work. I think the challenge is desire for power and control. In Kenya, we represent reasoning from both sides but have chosen to reconcile them in a united church.”"

I do not see Tanzania as likely to join GAC, and certainly the Church of Southern Africa won't.

To me the biggest oddity here is the notion that a meeting held in and dominated by Sydney could imagine - some very intelligent men were there, I have met some of them - that it could be persuasive of provinces not currently in GAFCON to leave the Anglican Communion behind and become fully fledged members of GAC. 

Back to Sydney in a moment, but also in recent news, King Charles [Governor, Church of England] prayed witn Pope Leo. Ian Paul has a post titled King Charles and Pope Leo: a step towards 'full visible unity'? Not unexpectedly the usual formalities which stand in the way of "full visible unity" are brought out for our remembrance - and they do remain formal difficulties in the way of ultimate unity - but there is much to rejoice in when Catholics and Anglicans find all the ways we possibly can to work in unity together aside from those formalities.

I suggest that Jesus and the angels in heaven rejoice when they see and hear of our creative ecumenical endeavours.

But not all would agree with my suggestion (which, I further suggest, many, many Anglicans and Catholics around the globe would readily agree with). Within Ian Paul's post is this reaction from ... Sydney (I said we would be back to Sydney!):

But others saw it rather differently! Dominic Steele, on his channel The Pastor’s Heart, was unequivocal:

I feel betrayed by my king. On the most important issue, I feel like King Charles has betrayed me and Protestant Christians around the world. But even more significantly, he has grieved the Lord Jesus.

He explains his own upbringing as a Catholic (as I was!), and his coming to personal faith in an evangelical Anglican church (as I did!) and so how he personally feels about this event.

So for me it has been a punch in the heart this week to see the Pope and the King and the Archbishop of York praying together—something that the office holders of Pope and King have not done since at least the 12th century. And I feel so sad.

Okay. I didn't see that coming. Jesus grieved by two Christians praying together. Jesus grieved by a modest step along the journey to re-unity in the church of God.

In the context of surveying the "Anglican-scape" of our globe, I suggest this reaction by Dominic Steele is representative of the leadership of the Sydney Diocese (who readily and frequently appear on his Pastor's Heart channel). Such reaction is completely normal for the Sydney Diocese, no matter what the rest of us think about it around the global Anglican world. (Note, incidentally, within Ian Paul's post the way former Archbishop Peter Jensen responded to an invitation to pray with the Pope ...).

Now, we can understand - whatever we think of it - the logic behind such a "Protestant" approach to the Church of Rome, given starting points, with obvious Anglican roots into the 39A, that essentially say, Rome was wrong then, is still wrong now; and what counts in Christian action is doctrinal agreement, so, lacking that, we cannot act together, not even to pray. (And, any of us, from a Protestant or Catholic perspective can note that it is precisely lack of doctrinal agreement with Rome re the eucharist which is the sticking point in Anglicans and other Protestants being unable to share in the Roman Mass.)

There is another way (which King Charles and Pope Leo have exemplified) but that is not my concern at this point. 

My concern is that this particular Sydney-Protestant-Anglican view is not a widely shared view among Western hemisphere Anglicans. Why would "the" Anglican Communion want to follow a Sydney lead and evolve itself into the "Global Anglican Communion"?

There are a few presuppositions not shared between the two Communions! If the Global Anglican Communion wants to be "Anglican", it needs to look at its presuppositions.

So, here is a closing thought: when two people pray together and Jesus is grieved, there is the basis for one Anglican Communion; and when the same two people pray together and Jesus rejoices, there is the basis for another Anglican Communion.