For those interested in my Presidential Address to our annual synod, which took place at the end of last week, you may read it here.
PS In the wisdom of diary-setters, my immediate post-Synod life has led me to Auckland for three days of meetings; and the end of this week involves further travel. Not every week is like this. But this week, assessing its particular "tempus fugit," I am making this briefest of posts, and it is posted two days late according to my intention to post on Mondays. My hope for next week is better chronological things :).
16 comments:
Thanks Peter. Though I do wonder if you put local Anglicans in a tricky bind when you state that reopening the Cathedral depends, amongst other things, of a return of a Coalition government in which NZ First are able to secure $15m for the Cathedral. Both the return of the coalition government and voting for NZ First will be heinous to many Anglicans concerned with social equity and honouring the Treaty. It is also far from likely that National would agree to such spending. Can you envisage another funding pathway to this unpalatable, implicit request?
Hi Mark
There is not intended to be any implication that Anglicans should vote for NZ First.
If NZ First secures their promise re what they would seek from coalition negotiations, the funds would derive from taxpayers generally and the decision would be made by the new government as a whole.
Post election, perhaps whomever forms the government would look kindly on us, but currently, the only publicly declared pathway is via NZ First.
The problem for parties of both the left and the right, as well as many local Anglicans, is that the Church is asking for millions of dollars of public money for a private building, when we are struggling to afford basic healthcare, food, conservation, housing etc. The request just doesn't stack up in the current climate.
I'm conflicted, Mark. It's so difficult thinking about public money and where it should go! At the same time, the current Government cancelled the contract for the rail ferries and I was so cross about that - the least they can do is contribute $15m to the cathedral!
Why? Do other churches and religions ask for government contributions? Doesn't it compromise the independence of the Church, the Gospel, its freedom to speak truth to power as per its prophetic mission. Doesn't it make the Church (to a mistrusting public) looks like it's more concerned with bricks than bread, with pomo rather than the poor, even if this is not the case? The Catholic Diocese of Christchurch are rebuilding their cathedral without state monies. It can be done.
Hi Mark,
Governments spend money on many different things besides welfare, health, education, police and defence: the arts, tourism, heritage, for instance.
The contribution sought is to enable a heritage building to be reinstated. Once reinstated it will be open to the public.
If we Anglicans were building a new cathedral as the Catholics are doing, we wouldn’t be asking for government assistance either.
But we're a church, not a heritage society or tourist business. Our main purpose isn't to restore and maintain cultural buildings for the public interest, such as museums, art centres, provincial chambers etc., but for buildings to support our main needs of worship and gathering. The community that gathers, as church, has a significant prophetic function and mission which is weakened by dependency on and entanglement with the state, although this has been a big part of historical Anglicanism and Christianity.
1. You perhaps do not understand NZ heritage law?
2. For a long time tourist income has been critical to the operation of the cathedral.
1. You do not perhaps understand that the Anglican Church is not the centre of public life, of the city anymore. That age is over. Old Christchurch, Old Christendom, ain't coming back.
2. Yes, that's the problem! The Cathedral also took regular monies from the Council too * I have heard*, so when it came to rebuilding all these non-church actors felt like they had a stake in it. The present rebuild plan keeps on perpetuating that problem, that mix-up.
Hi Mark,
I think I understand 1 as much as anyone!
I don’t think 2 (the Council annual grant in the past was about recognition of the hospitality the cathedral showed tourists and visitors to the Square) was a factor re “stake”, the relevant factor has been the cathedral as part of the heritage fabric of the city.
In some ways the debate in this thread pertains to decision making in 2017. In 2026 we have a possibly final opportunity to see that decision through (with a further contribution from CCC and central government).
Kind of takes us back to the start of this brisk conversation, Peter: as council funding is dependent on government funding, as no party aside from NZ First have agreed to any grant, as there seems to be no plan B, it feels to me that the message to Anglicans is vote for NZ First if you want the Cathedral rebuilt, if you want to support the diocese etc.
I guess because Peters said outright that he'd support the $, the issue then gets entangled with NZ First, which is a pity. I think there's a strong case for NZ *Government* to support the cathedral irrespective of political party. The cathedral was the main icon for Christchurch when I worked in a photo library there. Advertisers and promoters would always want a photo of the cathedral! And to have a structurally-sound cathedral (with associated facilities) in the city centre provides a hub for both social gatherings and emergency purposes (when needed), and, I'd assume the plans include a better base for managing community social services and outreach (I don't know anything about that, just a guess). I'd love to see the Government further support this project (even though I'm not Anglican), and I've not forgotten that *other faiths* have contributed to the cathedral too.. to have the project go ahead would be such a plus for the *community* and I think that's why we see such a diversity of support, some of which has (delightfully) surprised me!
It did occur to me that no other party has even mentioned the cathedral, so there could be another $15m that is missing for the rebuild…
"Stuff" article from May this year about the cathedral, I've just read it and found it interesting:
Why Christchurch’s cathedral still divides a city — and exposes deeper fault lines in national identity
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360981293/why-christchurchs-cathedral-still-divides-city-and-exposes-deeper-fault-lines-national-identity
With respect to Te Maire Tau, the original vision was myopic. You don't build heavy stone structures on Q
quake prone swamp land, as Māori well knew. They built their pa on rocky outcrops and not out of Halswell stone. The original Cathedral was built by a people as yet unable to see the land before them, still dreaming of English cities and spires. And yet, the original original vision - a gothic cathedral built out of wood - would have worked! Like St Michael's and All Angels and St Mary's, building in lighter weight structures was appropriate for the land and survived earthquakes. And we even had the opportunity to do that: NZ's greatest architect of all time, Miles Warren, did an original timber resign that would have been historically authentic, contextually appropriate, and so much cheaper! But alas, alas, it wasn't to be....although we may have to return to such a vision, or some sort of hybrid,to get the building actually finished.
Thanks Mark, what you said increased my appreciation of a comment from the article by Dean John Witcombe of Coventry (UK), “You cannot rebuild as a sign of resilience against the volatility of the earth, because you’ll never win… You have to work with the earth. You can’t fight against it.”
Post a Comment