Wednesday, May 25, 2011

The multi-faith future of Christ Church Cathedral, not.

One Brian Turner of Avonside, writing a letter in this morning's Christchurch Press (page A18), makes a sharp but reasonable case that if the rebuilding of our Anglican cathedral involves ratepayers' contributions then the Diocese should have 'primary guardianship of the cathedral on behalf of the city' while 'being open to a board of managers that represents the increasing multi-faith and multipurpose nature of Christchurch.' The conclusion of his argument is logical: 'If the Anglican Church is to retain exclusive control and use of the Christ Church Cathedral, as Dean Peter Beck appears to suggest (May 23), then perhaps the church should forgo ratepayers' money for rebuilding the cathedral.'

One or two things are missing from this letter, such as, should their contributions assist the rebuilding, how would we know ratepayers would require a multi-faith board of managers to run the cathedral? Would (say) Muslims wish to meet in a building called 'Christ Church Cathedral'? But letting these things go for the moment, the point is fair. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

My own (somewhat limited) soundings suggest that Brian Turner represents a view in this city: let's have a centre to the new spirituality of the 21st century, not specifically tied to the old time religion of Christianity, let alone such an exclusive and narrow version of it called Anglicanism. But there is another view out there: the cathedral must be rebuilt, exactly as it was. On this view it is the building which matters more than what activities might take place within it, let alone who would manage it.

As for the Diocese, our Bishop and Dean are quite clear and agreed that the ultimate decisions for the future of the cathedral are ours to make once all views have been made known. If there is a financial cost to that resolve, in the sense that we have less funds than we might otherwise have, then we will have to make do with what we have. (There will be a goodly insurance payout, and I am sure there will be benefactors comfortable with the future cathedral being thoroughly Anglican).

An intriguing question in the future could revolve around the commitment of the city and province to the second view represented above: what if we all agree on an exact rebuild (albeit reinforced to building codes etc) and there are insufficient funds to proceed?

It is not as though there will not be alternatives ... I notice advertisements and news articles informing us of forthcoming dramatic and musical shows being put on in tents and converted warehouses ... what is liturgy but a dramatic and musical performance to the glory of God!

Any which way, I cannot see our cathedral becoming a multi-faith centre run by a board of managers. It's not just the 'multi-faith' bit of the vision which goes against the Anglican grain, it's the thought of a 'board of managers' which is difficult for the Anglican throat to swallow :)

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Peter

The ChristChurch Cathedral was regularly used and rented out for a variety of events which included balls, tertiary graduations, dramatic and musical shows, and multi-faith services. You yourself on this blog advocated that the Cathedral should be ecumenical.

When you write, “our Bishop and Dean are quite clear and agreed that the ultimate decisions for the future of the cathedral are ours to make” – where have the Bishop and Dean stated this quite clearly publicly? And it may be perfectly clear to you, but who in this clarity is the “ours” – you, the Bishop and Dean? Church Property Trustees? Standing Committee? The Cathedral Chapter? The Diocesan Synod? The Christchurch City Council?

As for a board of “managers” being “difficult for the Anglican throat to swallow” – there are plenty of examples of Anglican institutions run well by a board, including your own.

Yours

Mark

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Mark,
I see a difference between a Board of Managers running the cathedral as a multi-faith centre and the Anglican church's traditional cathedral authorities (Dean, Chapter) running the cathedral as a multi-foci centre. One difference would be that if the diversity got out of hand the bishop of the day could bring it back into 'Anglican' line.

In the latest Taonga, not yet online, Bishop Victoria (p. 19) says in an interview, "When it comes to rebuilding something like the cathedral, the church will make the decision." Exactly what part(s) of the diocesan structure will be involved in making the decision I will leave to her and the Dean to work out.

The Anglican church has many boards, though in my experience they are boards of trustees and boards of governors, not boards of managers which sounds like a mix up of the fine distinction between 'governance' and 'management'! My particular point here is that I think we Anglicans like our cathedrals run by our deans, albeit with them accountable to our bishops and their chapters/vestries as "boards of governance." A Board of Managers would be, well, a cultural shift.

Yes, I have advocated consideration of our cathedral as an ecumenical cathedral, by which I mean 'for all the churches' not 'for all the religions'. Such a cathedral would need to be managed by an individual (IMHO) and not a board; but governed by a board.

Anonymous said...

Dear Peter

Is leaving it up to the Bishop and Dean to decide exactly what part(s) of the diocesan structure will be involved in making the decision similar to leaving it up to the Bishop and Dean to decide? Is not being in any way clear three months after the quake who will make the decision, being “quite clear”? Is there no agreed decision-making process? This is not the first time that a church building has been built or altered.

As for your point about having a board of governance rather than managers, might it not be the case that Brian Turner was making a good point which you are failing to listen to because he is not using the 100% correct terminology?

Yours

Mark

Peter Carrell said...

Fair enough, Mark, if "Board of Managers" is a loose way of speaking, amenable to Anglican lingo, then it can be digested nourishingly.

The question of who decides the future of any church building, let alone a cathedral, is very interesting. I understand that, technically, the Dean and Chapter, with support of the Church Property Trustees, and Bishop (who would need to sign the faculty/permission to proceed), could make all the decisions without wider reference [but, I may be wrong]. Relationally speaking, I believe that lots of Anglicans would appreciate some voice of Synod being included in discussions. Public relationally speaking, as a Cantabrian I believe it would be good if some way was found for the voice of the citizens of city and province to be heard ... with the final decision being made by the appropriate authorities.

Anonymous said...

Hi, It is amazing how Gods Word, the Bible is barely mentioned in this discussion. What was the building called..ChristChurch Cathedral... did I see Christ (eg Jesus) Church, so is it Christ's Church or not????
If it is, God will not be mocked, He is a jealous God, it is in the 10 Commandments also "have no other Gods before Me" so renting out to other religions is not right...To solve the problem, change the name and abandon the Anglican connection eg make it a Hall type building....closing note...real Bible believing people don't use these sort of buildings now, why, because too much importance was placed on wonderful buildings, the New Covenant is 'the temple of God is within us' also Jesus says 'where 2 or more are gathered in my name I will be with them' (paraphrase from memory)

Father Ron Smith said...

'Anonymous' (no-name)

What, exactly is your point here?
Are you speaking of buildings as your priority, or people? What point are you trying to make?