The Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Canterbury is meeting in early September to decide, yet again, its Cathedral's fate. The business can rightfully be called a saga. Yet again, Christchurch City Council taxpayers (ratepayers) and New Zealand taxpayers are being asked to fund (in part) the restoration of the Christ Church Cathedral. The Council has gifted another $10m to Christ Church Reinstatement Ltd. The Government has put $25m into the Cathedral so far. Unsurprisingly, the costs of full restoration keep rising. Originally set at $105m, it is now estimated to cost between $209m to $219m.
The Press (McDonald (2024)) report that: “The budget hole was reduced from $114m to between $75m and $85m after the Church synod - the Diocese’s governing council headed by Bishop Peter Carrell - agreed in June to downsize the scope of the work.”
We are also told: “The Council is borrowing to pay the grant, and is levying ratepayers to fund repayment of it.” Splendid.
Let us return to first principles. I discussed this back in 2017 if the reader wants a fuller elaboration (Ahdar (2017)). Little did I know it would still be a live issue seven years later.
In brief, and to reiterate, the decision is properly the Anglicans’ and theirs alone to make. It is a well-established facet of the right of religious freedom for a religious organisation or community to determine the location, design and appearance of its houses of worship. The general right of church autonomy is found in section 15 of the New Zealand Bill or Rights 1990.
I was still living in Dunedin during the years immediately after the 2011 earthquake and I did not follow the tortuous machinations of the Anglican hierarchy, the Save the Cathedral (STC) crowd, and the Council. I always thought (and still do) that busybodies like Philip Burdon and the late Jim Anderton (Co-Chairmen of the Great Christchurch Buildings Trust) ought to have kept their “snout out” (as Basil Brush would say). The Cathedral does not belong to them. (I admit I do not know if Mr Burdon is an Anglican and Mr Anderton definitely was not). Sadly, the former MPs did not abstain from serious campaigning or sticking their oar in. They pressed their cause with legal action. The beleaguered Anglicans were, I surmise, reluctant to engage in expensive court proceedings to defend a synod decision to bulldoze, and buckled. The previous bishop, the Rt Reverend Victoria Matthews, advocated demolition but eventually recanted.
The Christ Church Cathedral, a decidedly modest ecclesiastical structure in my non-expert opinion, had to be preserved, said the STC coterie. To describe it as, in English terms, “a large parish church” as Bishop Matthews had done (Checkpoint (2017)), was sacrilege and came from “an ‘outsider’ with ‘neither sympathy nor respect for the history and heritage of her host community.’” (The Press (2017)) For what it’s worth, I’ve seen grander churches in Samoa, let alone back in Europe. No matter. It was a Christchurch landmark, an icon (to use an over-worked word), a beloved repository of significant memories for locals, a tourist attraction. I was starting to think they were referring to Notre Dame in Paris or Westminster Abbey. All that was needed to secure its future would have been a likeness of the Virgin Mary perceived to exist in the chaotic remains of the rubble.
In my opinion, as a mere non-Anglican, they ought to bulldoze it and either (a) not rebuild there at all, or, (b) build a more modest but eminently functional church like the Transitional or so-called Cardboard Cathedral in Latimer Square.
Their decision ought to be guided by the Diocese’s pastoral need (if any) for a central-city place of worship. If a CBD church is required, then its design ought to be determined by the Church’s liturgical and pastoral needs, not to mention the realpolitik of the filthy lucre. Option (a) would be chosen if Cantabrian Anglicans decided that there is no need for another central Christchurch church given the one they have in Latimer Square. That looks like a sound choice from an outsider’s perspective. Option (b) would be a compromise that will not satisfy the STC supporters. If option (a) is selected, then I suppose the STC kingpins will threaten further legal proceedings. The same litigation would be in prospect for option (b). Nothing short of full restoration--- let us call that option (c)---would seemingly persuade the supporters of the neo-Gothic-style cathedral that once graced the Square.
What the Diocesan Synod decide to do next month will be another eagerly awaited episode in the saga. Some find this all very fascinating. More, I suspect, want an end to the long-running Cathedral drama.
Sources:
Ahdar (2017) The Christchurch Cathedral saga and religious freedom- guest blog – Law and Religion Australia
Caley Callahan (2017) Special report: What to do with the Christ Church Cathedral? | Newshub
Checkpoint (2017) 'People before buildings,' bishop says re Chch Cathedral | RNZ
Emeritus Professor Rex Ahdar, University of Otago