I am just not going to get a post I am working on finished this week. So, why not point you in the direction of a finished post, a challenging post, an inspiring post, a very Anglican post?
Mark Clavier writes here on "Formed for Faithfulness: Recovering the Anglican Way of Life."
I naively harboured the hope that 2026 would be a better year than 2025 (in whatever way one might measure such things). And that harboured hope concerned the world as a global, political, conflictual entity, as well as the church at large, the church in our nation, ACANZP and life for me as bishop. We went into the new year with protests arising in Iran (potentially offering a better 2026 than 47 years previously for Iranians, but also full of dreadful possibility for a horrible crackdown on ordinary Iranians), and had scarcely gotten a couple of days into 2026 and ...
Trump's troops invaded/policed Venezuela, and kidnapped/abducted/arrested-and-removed its legitimate/illegitimate President and his (collaborating) wife, for reason(s) such as oil-for-America/denuding a marco-terrorist state of its despicable trade in drugs and terrorism/fostering democracy in order to install its recently democratically elected leadership (as a long-term plan)/dismissing its recently democratically elected leadership as incapable of actually leading the country forward (in the short-term, what was actually said)/boosting someone's ego/pour encourager le autres (i.e. put the fear of the USA's power into other countries such as Cuba and Colombia so they pull up their dishevelled socks.
OK. Things can get better. Maybe the worst has happened and the year ahead will be glorious. But there are big concerns: Ukraine is no better; Syria now seems worse after a crackdown on the Kurds; Iran, should it survive the protests, is breathing fire against Israel and the USA; Sudan continues to be bad; rumbles in Somalia/Somaliland; Trump's Venezuela gambit may embolden China re Taiwan; the global economy stutters and stammers; and the planet continues to heat up. Woe is us!
So, some initial thoughts about early posts in 2026 have gone out the window (for now). Momentous moments of mondiality move minds to memos!
Of course many commentators are commenting and I feel no need to add to them with much. Two quick thoughts.
First, "international law" has taken a hammering with Trump's disregard for it. Suppose there was a gang of drug traffickers operating in NZ and when the police went to stop them, their lawyers advised that, actually, the gang had cunningly found a workaround the current laws about drug trafficking so that they couldn't be arrested. Cue an urgent sitting of parliament to change/update the laws so that police had the necessary powers to stop the trafficking, arrest the criminals etc. When we go international on a similar scenario, there is no world police, no world parliament and no ultimate regard for international law because it has consequences such as arrest, trial and imprisonment. (Yes, I know there is the ICC etc). Trump's action (irrespective of whether it is morally right or wrong, or internationally legal or illegal) highlights that "international law" works by consensus and is non-sensus when the consensus is broken. Of course, we didn't need to have Trump highlight the weakness of international law, we already had Putin/Ukraine, Hamas/7 October, Netanyahu/genocidal actions and other recent actions between nations, or involving non-nations crossing national borders. Further, of course, we seem to have had Venezuela itself supporting drug trafficking on a significant scale without fearing the consequences of that support ... until a couple of weeks ago.
Secondly, not for the first time, Trump has thrown some of the moral calculations of world punditry into chaos, with some great questions being generated about whether our moral calculations have been well made previously. In this case, we have moralized that a nation is sovereign, its rulers legitimate (to some degree or another, even when normal democratic results are overridden), and thus we can do nothing about whatever may concern us about those rulers actions, even when those actions may lead to drugs proliferating on our streets. (According to one article I read, such proliferation in Europe may even involve this "sequence of evil": Venezuela sends raw drugs to Lebanon, Hezbollah refines them, sells them, buys arms for fight against Israel, and for power struggles in Lebanon.) Trump sends in the troops to arrest and take Mr and Mrs Maduro away, and, suddenly, it seems like respect for national sovereignty, at least in some cases, is not so morally privileged after all, because few wish to defend national sovereignty protecting this particular "narco-terrorist".
Yes, many questions remain, including, and relevantly for NZ and the Pacific, what precedent has Trump created for nations who think other nations, or at least the rulers of other nations, are bad people presiding over bad decisions? After all, Trump's point about Maduro being a bad dude, is basically Putin's point about Zelensky (albeit not involving narco-terrorism in the latter case). Here Down Under, in the Pacific arena, it is mind-boggling to consider what China might think it worthwhile to do if it played "the great game" according to Trump's rules ... and I am not just thinking about Taiwan. Even now, NZ is considerably under the thumb of China and on various matters "dare not step out of line." And where we do dare step out of line (particularly in respect of support for Taiwan), we get our knuckles wrapped. The prospects for Christian churches under China's yoke are bleak: may that yoke not further fall on our necks.
It is not as though considerations of international law are now much of a check to the growth of hegemony on a global scale.
Some pundits are even predicting a world of three hegemonic spheres. And NZ wouldn't be falling into the US or Russian hegemony if this comes to pass.
Let the reader understand.
It is that time of the year again ...
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all readers!
I will take a little blog holiday, per custom, and resume on Monday 12 January or Monday 19 January 2026.
Potentially at that point I will pick up on some discussions in recent weeks here ... and let's hope by then 2026 is off to a start which augurs well for a happier year than 2025 has turned out to be.
Till then.
Peter
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.
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.
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!
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/
