Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Outbreak of Communion discordant decision-making Down Under (2)?

(Continuing from the post below)

The resolution agreed to by Te Hui Amorangi o Te Manawa o Te Wheke (within Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa, i.e. one of the three tikanga of ACANZP) is cleverly composed. As an 'in principle' resolution it can claim that no practical consequences are envisaged for the time being, while offering the local pihopa (bishop) grounds for acting consequentially at any time! Further, by speaking about gay and lesbian candidates for ordination but saying nothing about partnerships, civil or blessed or otherwise, the resolution can be claimed to offer no specific guidance regarding non-celibate gays and lesbians. In short, a resolution with sufficient slipperiness to evade certain critiques, yet with sufficient substance to be the warrant for actions discordant to the life of our church at this time. Whether such a resolution is discordant to our Communion involvement is a genuine question: the Communion seems more concerned with the making of bishops than with ordination to the diaconate or the priesthood.

In the light of our church being involved in a process of hermeneutical enquiry into the Bible and same sex relationships (see my other blog, Hermeneutics and Human Dignity), it is intriguing that this resolution should have been made since one interpretation of the existence of the resolution is that it has prejudged the outcome of the process. (Even more intriguing when one of the movers is one of the presenters at the forthcoming hui for 2010!!)

Here is my most urgent concern about this resolution: will it build congregational life within Tikanga Maori?

The life of any church is often a fragile bloom. This is so of the congregational life of Tikanga Maori. Most Maori priests and deacons are either unpaid or paid by virtue of chaplaincy roles (military, hospitals, prisons) with many tangi (funerals to which communities gather in large numbers) duties added on top of that. In many parts of Tikanga Maori the emphasis in their ministry and mission is not on Sunday congregational life but on other aspects of community life. The kind of congregation building efforts we have seen within Tikanga Pakeha (European-origin Kiwis) in recent decades (church growth, Alpha Courses, beginning new style services, etc) are less emphasised within Tikanga Maori. The largest Maori or predominantly Maori congregations in Aotearoa NZ are in churches other than Maori Anglican churches.

I know I am an outsider, a Pakeha, just an observer, but nevertheless I raise the question whether congregational life within Tikanga Maori could be strengthened by a new ministry and mission strategy which unambiguously aims to build up congregations within Tikanga Maori. In my understanding, current strategy is differently focused. There are good reasons for that, and good things that result. But, again, in my understanding, congregations on average continue to remain small, few Maori clergy are paid unless employed (ultimately) by our government, or holding a ministry education position within Tikanga Maori, and the maintenance of governance and management of Tikanga Maori structures is a constant struggle with a number of Maori leaders holding multiple roles on committees and councils. If I am wrong, please tell me! It would be a matter of great rejoicing to find that I have overlooked many vibrant, dynamic large (200+) congregations up and down our land.

Congregational life is important to Anglican ecclesiology! Let's remind ourselves of ...

Article 19 - The Church

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments are duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome has erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

Here I do not wish to debate the danger of this Article, that in the hands of some it becomes a recipe for 'Anglican congregationalism', but simply to underline that in Anglican thinking about what the church is, congregations are at the core of its existence: people gathering faithfully, regularly, to hear the word of God preached and to receive the sacraments duly ministered.

Hence back to my question about the resolution at issue: will it build congregational life within Tikanga Maori?

Perhaps it will. It would be interesting to learn of reflection on such a question from within Tikanga Maori. Later: one commenter has already argued strongly that this resolution will lead to strengthening of congregational life.

It is certainly true that there are other statements the church (any church) can make, or be perceived to make, in the area of human sexuality which will deter people from coming to church. Our challenge (across all three tikanga of our church) these days is to find ways of being inclusive of people while not excluding people. A concern I have is that, bit by bit, resolution by resolution, ACANZP could become 'the gay church' of these islands, an inclusive church that excludes people by virtue of that reputation, with the consequence that we drastically shrink in membership/adherence in the next twenty-five years. Such a future is already being played out in other churches here and overseas.

My second most urgent question about the resolution is whether it builds inter-congregational life within our church within Tikanga Maori and between the three tikanga?

I have my doubts about that.

We face great challenges through these times. It happened this morning that I read the following passage. It touches on at least one of those challenges, how we encourage rather than discourage faith in the little ones of God.

Tena ko tenei, ka he i tetahi tangata tetahi o enei mea nonohi e whakapono nei ki ahau, nui ke te pai ki a ia me i whakawerewerea ki tona kaki te kohatu mira kaihe, me i pungaia ia ki te rire o te moana. Aue te mate mo te ao i nga take he! Kua tino takoto rawa hoki he putanga mo nga take he; otiia, aue te mate mo tera tangata e puta ai te take he! (Matiu 18:6-7)

May God grant us wisdom.

(Addendum for clarity re citing the passage above: all public discussion of human sexuality, whether discussing same sex partnerships in the church, the remarriage of divorcees, or the like, has the capacity to upset and/or to mislead people ("little ones") one way or the other. Hence my prayer for wisdom for God's church.)


Anonymous said...

So, how big (or small) is Tagnata Maori? How many clergy and how many regular attenders?

Howard Pilgrim said...

Peter, bringing citing Matt. 18:6-7 as a closing warning in your critique of the tikanga Maori discussion on sexuality looks like a really cheap shot. You should defend it by explaining who you see as the "little ones" in this context.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anonymous/Outis

No one knows, but I don't think anyone thinks Tikanga Maori is "big". My estimation is 5-10% proportionate to Tikanga Pakeha. Howard (living in a different island to me) may be able to offer a different estimation.

Hi Howard,

No cheap shots intended - this is a quality blog :)

But I have added a clarifying sentence to the post which (I hope) makes clear that any of us on any side of the debate could be responsible for leading people astray.

Rosemary Behan said...

Who are the little ones? It's there in the text. They're the followers. The followers of their Lord Jesus, and the followers of the leaders He has set over them. Hence the warning to those leaders. "Don't lead those 'little ones' astray."

Fearsome words.

Anonymous said...

Tikanga Maori is an equal partner in this Three Tikanga Church.
In this country over 60% of the indigenous people affiliate to the Anglican Church.
Will it build congregational life within Tikanga Maori?
As a member of Tikanga Maori I know it will! You cannot offer substantiated comment on this Peter - You don’t worship with Maori people! You don’t worship to Maori people! (I note that you don’t claim to either, which is good)
It does appear to me that you are a part of the Church that still wishes to suppress Maori...

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anonymous @ 12.19

Your comment is what I am looking for: thank you. Voices from within Tikanga Maori are much appreciated, and I hear what you are saying re building Maori congregational life. I look forward to further supportive voices commenting.

Tikanga Maori are equal partners. It is precisely for that reason that people within the other partners will be viewing this Te Manawa o Te Wheke decision with a great deal of interest, and reflection on what impact it may have on our partnership.

Suppress Maori? No. I long to see Anglican Maori congregations flourishing in each and every part of Aotearoa.

Unknown said...

Dear Peter

I continue to follow your analysis of matters Anglican with interest. Thank you for the commitment you invest in the enterprise.

May I make one comment relating to your statement below?

‘A concern I have is that, bit by bit, resolution by resolution, ACANZP could become 'the gay church' of these islands, an inclusive church that excludes people by virtue of that reputation, with the consequence that we drastically shrink in membership/adherence in the next twenty-five years.’

I think you are probably right in saying, ‘If we become known as the Gay Church, many people will become upset and leave’. If however you are saying ‘By resisting a theological commitment to the inclusion of same-sex-attracted men and women in all aspects of our church life, we will halt the decline in church membership’ I think you are engaging in wistful thinking. Declining church membership is not a one issue phenomenon. Yes, conservative parishes are often larger than their more liberal neighbours, but drawing simple conclusions from this data is fraught with danger. Minimally, it must be acknowledged that church growth/decline is dependent on a set of complex factors, of which ‘The Gay Problem’ is but one contributor.

Personally, I do not want the Anglican Church in NZ to become know as ‘The Gay Church’. I do not want people of a conservative theological persuasion to feel dispossessed of the church they love. Sadly, hardening attitudes at both extremes of the issue are making it increasingly difficult not to get locked into a binary – yes/no situation. Unguarded speculation about the future probably isn’t particularly helpful either.



Anonymous said...

Why would the decision have an impact on the other partners?
Im of the understanding that other Pakeha Dioceses have made their decision on this matter.
Tikanga Maori dont see this as an issue. I dont think this would effect our partnership at all!

We understand what we want... We as Maori also know what it is like to be marginalised, colonised and ripped of one's dentity - So it is/was difficult for us to opppress and marginalise the "other". And the Jesus I know would sit and eat with the marginalised - who ever they are.

It is also worth noting that Te Manawa o Te Wheke does not stand alone. Other Hui Amorangi have moved in the same direction...

Howard Pilgrim said...

Thank you for clarifying your intentions, Peter. It leads me to a further thought, by way of responding to your suggestion that I might comment on tikanga Maori attendance figures in the North Island, where Maori are a much larger proportion of the general population.

I am not too happy about making the implied comparison that Outis seems to be asking for, as the pattern of community life is so different for Maori and pakeha sections of the church. Maori people tend to see the most significant gatherings of the faithful as those that take place around special tribal occasions, which are their most significant opportunities for worship and witness. On such days, no make that weeks, they are definitely the biggest show in town. Sunday by Sunday however, the gathered few are generally much fewer than in nearby parishes, and 10-15% might be nearer the mark.

So what? Do such comparisons tell us much about comparative viability, and if so, who is in a position to make an assessment? I would prefer to hear what my Maori friends and colleagues have to say about their own viability, and how publicly they want to have that conversation is up to them. Rest assured, it is definitely taking place in private!

The real question underlying Outis' enquiry, as I understand it in the context of your post, is whether tikanga Maori are entitled to go their own way on the issue of sexuality, or even to speak with their own voice, as they are apparently doing. To answer that appropriately would require an extensive essay on the rights of indigenous people in a post-colonial situation, and I would certainly not attempt that in response to those like Outis who hide their own ecclesial situation and commitments on such matters.

What I would suggest is that the clearly vulnerable situation of the Maori church entitles them to some consideration as "little ones" in this conversation. Further, they are entitled to be taken seriously as dissidents when "Global South" prelates presume to speak for all third-world and oppressed peoples in depicting liberality towards homosexuality as a first-world disease. In my view, they deserve to be heard, here and abroad.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Juan
Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Yes, church growth or decline is never a one issue phenomenon (except, say, for demographic change ... there are some former mining towns in NZ that now have no church, and no people!)

I think I am largely in agreement with you and where I am not, that may or may not be significant.

From my perspective I would say that a growing church in NZ today now or in the future must engage with changing attitudes: either resisting them deliberatively (and some will want to identify with such a church) or creatively, imaginatively working with them. It is hard to see how a whole denomination will grow in our society if it uniformly engaged in a strategy of resistance.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anonymous @ 12.33 pm

I accept that Pakeha may not be in the best position to understand the (if I may so call it) post-colonial analysis Tikanga Maori bring to this matter.

Why might a decision such as this affect Tikanga Pakeha? Within our tikanga we are in the midst of a period of watching, waiting, and seeing in respect of Communion-wide developments, particularly with respect to the acceptance/rejection of the Covenant. Thus this seems to be a time of moratorium on ordinations of people who are neither married nor celibate. (And, contrary to what you say, all pakeha dioceses appear to be on the same page at this time). Within Tikanga Pakeha it is important in some contexts to be able to say that our church is united on this matter, and has made no formal change to its doctrine in respect of marriage/celibacy/ordination. For one partner to move in a different direction may or may not affect the importance of being able to say that we are a unified church and that no formal change has been made to our doctrine.

It could preempt the decision-making process some of us think we are on in respect of (a) the Covenant, (b) the hermeneutical hui. But I would be interested in comments of yourself, other readers. There may be something I am missing!

Rosemary Behan said...

Anonymous 12:19 said, “You cannot offer substantiated comment on this Peter - You don’t worship with Maori people! You don’t worship to Maori people! (I note that you don’t claim to either, which is good) It does appear to me that you are a part of the Church that still wishes to suppress Maori...

If you are a follower of Jesus Christ, if He is your Lord and Saviour, then I am your sister in Christ, and that is an eternal whakapapa, not a temporal one. Our race doesn’t matter.

Rosemary Behan said...

Juan Kinnear said, “Personally, I do not want the Anglican Church in NZ to become know as ‘The Gay Church’. I do not want people of a conservative theological persuasion to feel dispossessed of the church they love. Sadly, hardening attitudes at both extremes of the issue are making it increasingly difficult not to get locked into a binary – yes/no situation.”

That is a nice sentiment, but I want to point out some realities if I may.

What Juan and I believe is diametrically opposed one to the other.
What Peter the respected author of this blog and I believe is diametrically opposed one to the other. [In terms of whether or not women may teach men. Peter believes they should, but I think he finds it hard to listen to me!!!!]
What Baptists and Anglicans believe vis-à-vis infant baptism is diametrically opposed. So the question is, can we live with each other .. is it not? That IS what it comes down to. Live with each other in total respect and love .. or not.

I don’t know whether she realises it or not, don’t even know if she did indeed say it, because I haven’t found the media particularly trustworthy. But Bishop Victoria’s words [if quoted correctly] imply that the church will in fact come to agreement given time. That either we will learn to respect each others positions and accept them as Scriptural, or [this seems to be the implication], those of us that are slow to learn to accept the practice of homosexuality as godly, or to accept that women CAN teach men, or that infants do not need to be baptized .. will understand or learn this, given time. When we mature!!

Juan seems to think that our failure [on either side I presume] is because we are ‘hardening our hearts.’ I would like to suggest a different reality.

Baptists who make baptism a ‘first order’ issue, can NOT be Anglicans. At the moment there are a few ordained clergy in the Anglican church who do not accept that women may teach men, that that is in fact their role .. BUT .. the Anglican church is not accepting people for ordination now who do not accept women in all three orders of ministry. In other words, those who will not accept them [and Peter says he hasn’t made up his mind yet] are making this a ‘first order’ issue, the consequence will be, sooner or later, they will lose all those who stand where I do. Lay and ordained.

Juan, the same thing will happen with regard to this presenting issue. Diametrically opposed theologies, cannot share the same house unless it is agreed that this is NOT a ‘first order’ issue. So is it?

Teri said...

I am interested to see Rosemary that you don't believe women may teach men. Is this not what you are doing here in a public forum - seeking to instruct (teach) Peter and Juan?

Anonymous said...

Yes - looking forward to Rosemary's response to Teri.
Also: I have have no idea what first or other order is - not mentioned in the Bible.

Rosemary Behan said...

Chuckle .. hoist by my own petard again!!! Hi Teri, I suppose I should have gone into the longer explanation, that I don’t believe it is the role of women to have the care and concern of a mixed congregation. We do have women on the staff here, and believe totally in the ministry of women, and all of us [women that is] are far from quiet!!!

Anonymous 8:45, I’ve just come back from sharing tea with a couple of Baptist friends. Very enjoyable, and no doubt in anyone’s mind that we are all Christians who love and serve the same God. I think that is the case with the ministry of women, we could easily come to a place where we agree to differ. I know, I’ve been there for over 20 years. But I’m not so sure that is the case when it comes to the issue of saying that to practice one’s sexual orientation is godly. I can’t find that in Scripture, and I don’t say that as someone is not VERY aware of my own sinfulness.

MargaretG said...

I would be interested in having this comment made by anonymous ar 1`2.17 clarified:
In this country over 60% of the indigenous people affiliate to the Anglican Church.

According to the 2006 census, of those who gave Maori as their ethnicity (regardless of what other others they may have also given)only 7% (or 145,620) gave their religious affiliation as Anglican. The number was just slightly less for Catholics (138,000).

On this basis the quote above is out by a factor of over 10.

If you take out the 26% who either stated No religion, objected to state or left a blank, then the percentage is 9% -- so now it is 7-fold out.

As almost no Maori gave affiliations outside of the Christian denominations, this is also the percentage of Christians -- so again out by a factor of 7-fold.

So where has this 60% number come from?

Of course there is a very big difference between affiliation and actual participation. I think the comments by Howard that Maori attend services when they are at cultural events begs a very big question of whether they are really attending church or attending the cultural event and happen to be at church as a by-product.

One of the cultural (and spiritual) events of the Christian church world-wide is the meeting on Sunday to worship God. I can see no reason to not expect this cultural marker would be as prevalent among Maori who are committed Christians as among any other racial group.

Anonymous said...

Good points, Margaret. Patterns of Maori church attendance doesn't seem markedly different from other features of post-Christendom (church for Christmas, hatch, match & dispatch).
It would be interesting to know how many Maori are regularly at Destiny and similar churches. Or the Mormons.
What is Ratana like these days?

Simon M said...

Thank you Peter for raising this... a most interesting aspect of this topic is the implications it will have on the partnership / fellowship among the 3 Tikanga of ACANZP. What’s your understanding of the dynamics of the partnership? Does the resolution of Te Hui Amorangi o Te Manawa o Te Wheke to adopt the statement on ordination force the other 2 partners of the ACANZP to respond? Are there any instruments within the constitution of the ACANZP by which discordant decision making can be addressed?
I still find the 3 Tikanga of the ACANZP an intriguing concept. I can’t quite decide if it’s a wonderfully graceful way of being united or a disappointing conclusion to the lower ideals of politics. (I did enjoy Rosemary’s comment (5:53pm) about eternal whakapapa.)

I was raised in South Africa and I note that if the Anglican Church there was to adopt a similar Tikanga approach they would have at least 12 independent cultural expressions in the Anglican Church.

I feel that at the heart of this issue there is a challenge to the New Zealand definition of unity in the church.

Anonymous said...

So many fascinating points in this thread, thank you.

Firstly, Peter, your congregationalist interpretation of Article XIX you will well know is not the only interpretation, particularly as you will know the Latin is, "Ecclesia Christi visibilis est coetus fidelium, in quo verbum Dei..." From which you cannot so easily support "congregations are at the core of its existence and Anglican thinking about what the church is"

Thanks for your clarification, Rosemary. I would be interested to know how you function in a diocese where the oversight is in the hands of a woman?

You may very well enjoy cups of tea with your Baptist friends - but communion is something deeper than sharing cups of tea. Their children (and adults!), if not baptised, cannot share communion in your church. So cups of tea and non-threatening chats are not the paradigm for what is needed. Sorry.

Outis appears to misunderstand Christendom. Maori, from the description here and elsewhere, appear precisely to _not_ be post-Christendom, assuming that they will worship when they gather.

Simon underscores a huge problem with your Tikanga structure, Peter. You describe Pakeha as of European origin, etc. But mission within the growing Asian population appears to have no place within your structure.

As to the "dangers" of becoming the "gay church" - where do we start! That's like saying full acceptance of African Americans makes it the "Black country" or a company not discriminating against women, makes it the "women's company", or accepting left-handed people makes it the "sinister church".

אף אחד לא

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Simon M,
There are many challenges to our church's understanding of unity.

On the specific decision I have posted on, it is worth noting that (a) it is in principle, so (b) it means little per se if the bishop concerned does nothing in practice about it, and, then (c) the question arises whether this decision becomes a decision of the whole of Tikanga Maori (a possibility hinted at by a commenter here). If (c) then I think there are questions about accord or discord, but its worth remembering that Tikanga Maori moving in the direction of this decision is congenial to many in Tikanga Pakeha. What then?!

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anonymous at 7.10 pm

So, if not "congregations are at the core of its existence and Anglican thinking about what the church is" what is? Committees? Oh, perhaps "dioceses and bishops"? Not much to do if there are no congregations at the core of dioceses' existence! Where do the ordinands and confirmees come from? Oh, that's right "Colleges". But what will they do if there are no congregations to minister to and serve among? There are only so many visits from chaplains that soldiers, prisoners, patients and pupils will tolerate!!

Further misunderstanding - do you read too fast :) - lies here: "As to the "dangers" of becoming the "gay church" - where do we start! That's like saying full acceptance of African Americans makes it the "Black country" or a company not discriminating against women, makes it the "women's company", or accepting left-handed people makes it the "sinister church"." The point is, there is a way to make progress on our response to different groups of people which keeps the church unified and general, and there is a way which is divisive and/or leads to a labelling. I hope, whatever our future, that we avoid being 'the gay church' because I think there is no future in that (just as there is no future in us being the 'fundamentalist' or the 'weird' or the 'old fashioned' church).

Anonymous said...

Please, אף אחד לא!
'not no one' is:
לא אף אחד
All things should be done decently - and in order (i.e., from right to left).
As for the things I do misunderstand - well, Christendom is one of them, for sure. But I don't have misty eyed Rousseauist views about Maori or any ethnic group - and I think talking about any group in collectivist generalities is incipiently "racist" - or "ethnicist", as I don't really know what "race" means either. (Is it biological, cultural, or an assumed group identity?) Regular weekly worship is the NT model for all "races".

Howard Pilgrim said...

"Regular weekly worship is the NT model for all "races"." Where did you get that one, Outis?
1. Within recent NT scholarship, since James Dunn's "Unity and Diversity" anyway, the onus is on you to demonstrate that there is a single NT model for anything ecclesiastical.
2. Specifically when it comes to accommodation to racial differences, we have Paul's strong assertion of his own adaptation to cultural differences as a counter to what appears to be your homogenising ideal.

The special status of Maori people within our ACANZP constitution derives from their historic status as indigenous people and more specifically from their ongoing role as partners in the Treaty of Waitangi. This treaty is not only our nation's founding document but a spiritual covenant couched in biblical language and brokered as such in 1840 by Anglican missionaries and their influential allies among Maori Christians.
Outis, As an outsider to the distinctive life of this nation and province, you might be forgiven for mistaking our principled commitment to this covenant as just another "misty eyed Rousseauist view", once you reveal your own ecclesiastical provenance and loyalties.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Howard:
I don't follow Jimmy Dunn much. I much prefer Richard Bauckham as a NT scholar (and theologian).
Weekly worship was certainly the presumption of the Corinthian church, as it must have been for Jewish Christians. There is nothing "racial" about this. It transcends ethnicity - and so should we. My reference to 'Rousseauist eyes' is to that older European (and now western PC) tendency to romanticize indigenous peoples as living in 'a state of nature', and to overlook the uncomfortable realities (e.g. warfare, slavery, cannibalism among pre-European Maori).
I'm not unfamiliar with the Treaty of Waitangi (which wasn't made with South Island iwi, BTW) but it isn't holy writ, and I suspect it has been a mistake to try to make it bear more weight than it can.

Howard Pilgrim said...

Outis wrote, "I'm not unfamiliar with the Treaty of Waitangi (which wasn't made with South Island iwi, BTW)"
Not unfamiliar, but then again not overly familiar either. You don't appear to know much about the process of tribal ratification of the treaty in the year following its signing by northern tribes at Waitangi. I have been to at least one South Island site where this occurred. Where have you been?
More to the point, Outis, and as I keep on asking you, where are you now? Some of us put our affiliations on the line, but you hide behind your mystifying veil. Are you in fact sharing your wisdom from sacred Delphi itself?

Anonymous said...

Thanks Outis for help with my Hebrew
I acknowledge that I have used both אף אחד לא and אף לא אחד on your advice to use a – what was that word again? These are not two different people, but one. I still am not sure why that matters.
Now I am being told both are wrong and it should be לא אף אחד
Please can someone other than Outis help us out in this, clearly significant, clarification!
When I look at the options for Outis, reading, as he recommends, “from right to left” the option that presents itself is “Is Out”. But I wonder whether that is the appropriate “camp” for you?
Thanks for acknowledging that you don’t understand Christendom – which makes me wonder why you used it in relation to Maori. Christendom did not necessarily mean being at church every Sunday – it meant much more worshipping when we meet, than your requirement to meet in particular for worship. That former pattern is more the Maori pattern as I understand it.

Peter – I understand your point about congregations better now – thanks for the clarification. I might read too fast – but do you write too fast? ☺

Is Out – better known as לא אף אחד previously אף אחד לא and אף לא אחד

Anonymous said...

The word was transliteration - and I think I said the same about word order in both posts. Hebrew is written and read from right to left and I understood you (perhaps wrongly) as getting the order of the Hebrw words for 'not no one' wrong. It is perilous trying to use different fonts and writing conventions in a blog.
It also makes it difficult for people to interact easily with you if they have to cut'n'paste all the time. Tranliteration is easier.

Anonymous said...

You appear to be writing as if this is a perplexing aberration. It is not. The majority of Hui Amorangi have passed this or a similar motion.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anonymous,
It would be less of a "perplexing aberration" if the resolutions passed in our synods and hui amorangi were more widely circulated.

It appears to be an "aberration" in this case that we have widely circulated news of a resolution.