Most readers here know that our Diocese has been sorely troubled by questions and issues about our cathedral - Christ Church Cathedral, located in Cathedral Square, the beating heart of our city. Badly damaged in the 22 February 2011 earthquake and subsequent quakes, we (particularly our Bishop, successive Deans, Church Property Trustees, CPT staff, and, lately, Synod members) have contemplated deconstruction, been tied up in court sorting out insurance funds usage, staying deconstruction, been on a trip around the northern hemisphere looking at cathedral designs, participated in two working parties, spent countless hours in meetings, sending and responding to emails, and so forth.
These last two days, as also many readers are aware, we have been doing our final talking and debating the merits of three Options A, B, C in an attempt to make a final decision about the way forward. A = reinstatement, B = new build, C = give the cathedral to the people of NZ.
Today we voted in a 55% vote for Option A.
Media articles are here and here (the latter, on Taonga, will be followed up soon by an "after the decision" article).
We had an amazing debate. Solid speeches, careful questions, impassioned entreaties, all with no sense of rush. It is a long time, if ever, that I have been part of such a long diocesan synodical debate. What really surprised me is that after this morning - when speeches favouring A were running about 16 to 3 for B and 1 for C - we had a vote as close as it was. I thought A might have achieved over 2/3rds majority. It did not.
To be clear to readers, I spoke for A and voted for it. My key reasons are in the Taonga article.
A few hours later I do not regret my choice.
One of the oddities of our situation as a Diocese - not commented on in any speech that I recall - is that we have supported the restoration of heritage churches. Tomorrow I travel to Mt Peel for the reopening of Holy Innocents church. Recently I was in a service in the reinstated St Bartholomew's church in Kaiapoi.
A question I wouldn't mind discussing at some future point, in some kind of diocesan forum, is what our theology of restoration of churches is. In part our tension over the cathedral seems one of dimensions. In appearance the difference looks like: if a church is smallish, and its restoration bill is smallish, we're fine with restoration. But if it is a large building and the bill involves many noughts, then we are not so fine.
Or, is it more subtle than that: if a parish chooses to restore, that is their business, but a cathedral is a building with many owners and several visions for its future, and thus we have differed.
Further, it appears that when (say) a restoration is a $1m or $2, we think not of helping the poor of our city. But the cathedral at c. $100m has provoked many concerns about best and highest use of money relative to real, widespread needs in our city and country.
Either way, to what extent do we have a theology of restoration? And of what nature is that theology relative to our theology of money and of social assistance to those in need?
Excellent outcome. Finally the debate is over. The bishop can breathe again. And I would have voted for A, also.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who considers Christchurch 'home', I'm very pleased to hear that something that I remember well from before the Earthquakes will still be there when the city is rebuilt.
Excellent outcome. Finally the debate is over. The bishop can breathe again. And I would have voted for A, also.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who considers Christchurch 'home', I'm very pleased to hear that something that I remember well from before the Earthquakes will still be there when the city is rebuilt.
I think perhaps MS Norris' Editorial in Saturday's Press - together with your impassioned plea for Restoration of the Old Cathedral, Peter, may have just turned the wheel towards this outcome.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I must admit that at SMAA on the 2 successive mornings of the Synod, My prayer at the Daily Mass was that God's will be done on the matter of our Cathedral. I must now believe that this has happened.
Let's all hope that the Church will now, indeed, be freed from all financial responsibility for the re-build - beyond its contribution from Insurance. That, at least, must help us all breathe a sigh of relief. If we are not free to build a new building (which had been the preference of an earlier meeting of our Diocesan Synod) - without the constant threat of further punishing litigation from GCBT, and within the limits of our own financial means - then this is surely the best option for the CPT and for us all.
To God be all glory given as is most justly due - now and for ever. Amen
Yes fantastic news - now we can get on with it. I was one who thought the idea of a new cathedral was quite exciting at first, but the more things wore on the more it became clear that that was just never going to happen. Thanks to you Peter and all the others who voted for option A. Goodness knows where we would have ended up had B been chosen.
ReplyDeleteGreat for the city as we can finally move ahead properly. I will look forward to watching progress out my office window and on my twice daily trek past the cathedral. It has been pretty depresing over the last 18 months or so seeing it each day and wondering when it will get sorted.
Thanks Craig!
ReplyDeleteHi Ron
While flattering to think I (or Joanna Norris' editorial) made a difference) no one has said to me that either of us made a difference to those who said they were changing their minds!
Bear in mind that the single most difficult piece of court work which Option B would need to have achieved is convincing the environment court that demolition ought to take place of a Heritage Category 1 building. Nothing to do with CGBT. To convince the court we would need to show we could not reasonably reinstate. But it is now reasonable to do so because of the government's offer.
Hi Sam
ReplyDeleteLiving where you do, you are sort of living in one of Chch's outer suburbs!
Hi Peter; I suppose the decision was pragmatic but that's about all. I hope you all have your arguments ready when multifaith tax payers want recognition in the sanctuary.
ReplyDeleteNick
Hi Nick
ReplyDeleteThoughts.
1. Universities and schools receive government money. That doesn't seem to stop them speaking truth to power. Especially the Teacher Unions when National is in power.
2. I see the govt less contributing to the "church" part of the building and more to the "icon". If they did not make that contribution we would demolish and build a new building. Since they are making that contribution we have little choice but to reinstate. We will faithfully pray and worship in the icon.
3. Bill English yesterday promised a new fund to help other churches. If it comes to pass, I wonder if the Blessed Sacrament in Chch will refuse an offer of support from such a fund?
Well, yes, Peter. Although it will feel more so when the costal road is finally restored-by Christmas time, God willing.
ReplyDeleteHi Peter; pragmatism in this situation was not terrible, but there may well be some future consequences that are not ideal. The Church is more vulnerable than schools, universities and unions to allegations that it promotes that old chestnut hate speech, for example. As for the Catholics, we seem to have done quite a bit of taking Caesar's cash. Anyway the decision made, you will all now need to be vigilant.
ReplyDeleteNick
Hi Nick
ReplyDeleteI agree that churches are more vulnerable than universities and schools.
Though, of course, the funding of Catholic schools in NZ provides some encouragement to govt. funded churches: the state does not [yet!] dictate the content of RE in those schools.
It is a relief to have had the decision made! Foward ho...
ReplyDeleteNick's warning is not without some wisdom. To an extent the government does curtail universities - e.g. What funding has been allocated to to what degree/subject areas has been to quite a large extent influenced by government funding over the previous few years .. The difference I am 'guessing' university education is publically owned; the Cathedral will still be owned by the Anglican Church. This does not mean the demands will not come down the track... so to be watchful is a good point.
I quite admire the Catholic Church for holding out in years past to remain independent of government run schools so as to retain their special character; which required a lot of sacrifice and total self-funding for a while, until state integrated schools became a possibility. My nephew will start at one this week in Nelson!
ReplyDeletewhat Nick, as a Roman Catholic. might not quite understand about the Anglican Cathedral in Christchurch, is that its original building - for the seat of an Anglican Bishop - was the motivating factor for the Queen of England (Victoria) to grant a City Charter. The historicasl factor of Christchurch being founded by Church of England influence has given our city a connection with the Crown that has not yet been extinguished - a fact that may only happen with New Zealand becoming a republic.
Also, imortant to note that the N.Z. government does pay the teachers of Catholic Schools. St. Michael's Anglican School in Christchurch only receives the same contribution towards the education of its pupils.