I think the Anglicans and Catholics should share the rebuild of the Cathedral in the Square and share the site for their services. When David Williams of Newsroom How Christchurch got sucked into an expensive cathedral rebuild (newsroom.co.nz) sought the opinion of each of the bishops individually, he received a joint response. What’s to stop the sharing of a church? Is denominationalism more important than sharing? You can tell the Christians by their love……except if they are from another faith journey. I have obviously been misled all my life when I thought that they all worship the same God.
I received an email from a minister friend of mine, the other day. He wrote this to Duncan Webb who had written that the Cathedral needed to be saved. Here’s what my mate wrote:
Dear Duncan
The moral compass associated to the Cathedral is badly out of alignment.
I am and have been at all points, strongly opposed to any public money, locally or nationally sourced, being applied to the propping up of any religious building such as the Christchurch Cathedral. Nothing had changed for me.
I am strongly of the view that church and state are to be kept apart. My Baptist tradition is non-conformist, and celebrates the freedom of conscience and ability of the church to speak out, to speak up, and do as it is called to, without any ties to government. I could not imagine asking for public funding for a church building in my own tradition, regardless of architecture, history, or location.
This project has been a debacle from the start. Jim Anderton made outrageous statements in support of it that flew completely in the face of his (and yours, and mine!) socialist principles. This was at a time, after the earthquakes, when a leaky old church roof was being prioritised over the needs of the little people of Christchurch who needed an actual roof over their heads. Those little people are your constituents without a voice. It was and remains a vast sum of money, money that the church, of all groups, could apply to property needs in the real world of those little, voiceless people, living with the unresolved housing crisis.
I strongly disagree with pouring more money- good after bad- into this building. I similarly strongly disagree with building a stadium- indeed with a roof- when there are people- our people in our city- who need a roof of their own.
This is a moral compass issue. It is a political issue. It is a religious issue. I look forward to meeting you in person soon, to tell you what I really think!
Rosemary comments: “I think that the world has moved on, cathedral square is no longer the hub and centre of our city – probably the Bridge of Remembrance is – with Earthquake memorial and Riverside nearby and the river running through it. I think the mood of the city has changed and certainly the Church seems even more irrelevant than it was then. We need to rethink this.”
I agree with Rosemary on this. I’m definitely not at all keen on any more ratepayer or taxpayer money going towards the rebuild of the Cathedral and never was. Nor do I think the Anglicans should be forced to spend more of it to the rebuild. Why? I believe the church should spend what they can on the people they serve in the community. In the next little while there will be many more people needing assitance from agencies such as Anglican Social Services, Sallies, Methodist Mission et al, due to the austerity measures this current government is persuing. Help is being cut by government where they might normally assist, so our churches & other agencies will be called upon to do even more than they already are.
After all, that is what the Anglicans wanted to do – build something they could afford & to be able to serve their community, which is what churches do.
The Anglican Church has found itself hijacked by the landed gentry faction – represented by Philip Burdon and the faction of the Church that is tied in with Christs College and other landed gentry establishments in the City. That is the group that should be funding the restoration.
The reasoning behind having two different builds is quite sound when considering the Anglicans have had the Transitional Cathedral operating for many years and Catholics out of the Pro Cathedral. Your rationale is like saying all the churches all across Christchurch should share a single building, and ignores there are quite big differences between the Anglican and Catholic faiths.
There are three entities that could have an interest in the Cathedral.
The Anglican Church who own it.
The Catholic Church who need a Cathedral.
The City of Christchurch whose people and business community benefit from the tourist dollar and the fact that we have a proper centre piece for our city.
Together they should have the financial strength to own and run the building.
The secular Council would have the casting vote if the religions could not agree on any particular matter.
There would not be anything to stop each denomination having a dedicated side Chapple as part of the rebuild.
This solution would make international news and enhance the reputation of our City.