Around 40 people gathered at the cleared demolition site on the fringe of the city’s red zone cordon to hear the official announcement of the city’s $5 million temporary cardboard cathedral.
The Anglican Church today revealed plans for the “transitional” cathedral designed by a top Japanese “paper architect”.
While debate rages over the decision by the Anglican Diocese of Christchurch to demolish the crippled city centre landmark, work will start on the temporary A-frame building in nearby Latimer Square next week.
Demolition of the old Cathedral is going ahead with what will be taken as an unseemly haste. This is really a decision not just for Canadian Bishop Victoria Matthews, but for the city of Christchurch and New Zealand as a whole; but rather than sitting on the sidelines criticising, they need to dig in their pockets and show their commitment. Cathedrals are long-term projects for communities and the timescale is measured in centuries.
But cutting off the debate by sending in the wrecking ball before anyone wakes up is something one associates with sharp developers, not Anglican bishops. Less haste and more transparency is the way to deal with this criticism, not making people gasp.
But then I suppose having been party to wrecking Canada’s doctrine with her enabling St Andrew’s report, she has a bit of form as a wrecker.
Albeit rather naive as to how her report would be used by a ruthless departing Primate.
This is not the way to do things, Bishop Matthews.
Interesting story. I wonder if Pageantmaster would care to comment.
Unfortunately there appears to be a political backlash against the way in which decisions are perceived to being handled. Prayers that this will not be allowed to become entrenched and relationships deteriorate any further as it could affect the future relationships between church and city, funding, and mission long into the future.
The diocese is in a cleft stick – faced with crippling costs and presumably uncertain insurance payouts, it is in no position to finance some of the proposals being touted by others – short term it also has better things to be spending money on. Better to come clean with that and put the financial ball back in the hands of those who want a say in the Cathedral’s future, as they really have to put their money where their mouths are. I hope relationships between church and city are not allowed to deteriorate any further and precipitate demolition seems to be making that the most likely outcome for which the church may well pay heavily.
It is also up to the Church of England to do the decent thing and ensure the ecclesiastic insurers play fair with Christchurch. RDW’s visit and such of an ACC meeting which takes place should not distract Christchurch diocese from their main mission. Trinity Wall Street will no doubt come up with whatever funds RDW needs for his meeting and venue, and we understand the pressures Christchurch is under and do not want to add to them; or so I trust.
Here is a good idea. Furthermore if the money spent by LamPal, TEC and the ACO bribing and undermining Africans with the so called ‘continuing Indaba’ process and similar manipulative schemes indoctrinating bishops with people flying hither and thither it would have been much better spent helping the New Zealanders, and perhaps contributing to building churches and cathedrals in Africa and other places.
Such is the wretched state we have been reduced to. There is an irony in the fact that LamPal were so busy undermining Africans that they took their eye off the domestic dioceses, leading to the current debacle for them. Rich irony indeed.
12 He frustrates the devices of the crafty,
so that their hands achieve no success.
13 He catches the wise in their own craftiness,
and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end.
14 They meet with darkness in the daytime
and grope at noonday as in the night.
Job 5:12-14
This is not an issue of theological stances, nor an issue of nationality of the decision-makers. It is a matter of physical damage, and the costs of different options.
Interestingly when the decision to pull down the Cathedral was announced there was general dismay across Christchurch and to a much lesser extent, the whole country.
Then shortly after there was an open day in the central city (most of the time it is cordoned off because of the level of damage and the extent of the demolition going on, so the public can’t see much).
After people saw the extent of the additional damage (and it was shown on TV) it has only been a few shrill voices that are calling for restoration.
Some recent photos:
http://static.stuff.co.nz/1325839490/693/6223693.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vsCLammXvUs/TrrE7sqkBpI/AAAAAAAABCg/Ayn0DktkFrg/s320/315901_2662096390338_1193807377_33243217_1244092027_n.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/–cyQQUv32Gc/T0M_brDwj7I/AAAAAAAACxc/d2Gu5QNjeco/s1600/ChristChurch_Cathedral_23.JPG
Margaret from New Zealand
I am not sure the problem is quality of decision-making, but a perception of decisions being made without reference to people. However it got to this stage, and I have no doubt all acted in good faith, nevertheless the perception has been allowed to spread that the people of Christchurch have not been allowed to have a say. When both an ex-mayor and the current mayor criticise the diocese for lack of transparency and consultation, and it now appears that the public backlash will affect peoples’ willingness to fund necessary church projects, well, what can one say? I fear worse reaction may be to come and an already traumatised people are being given an opening to transfer their anger and frustration onto the Anglican church, something which to be allowed to get to this stage is a great pity. I have been reading the news reports and even more surprisingly the comments of people in Christchurch on them and they are frankly shocking.