Print friendly
I am pretty sure the Anglican Church doesn’t get out of bed in the morning looking to infuriate people, hence I tend to side with them when it comes to ChristChurch Cathedral.
They got another court win late last week and are now basically allowed to get on with the demolition, as in deed they should.
The cathedral has turned into one of those heated overly emotive debates that becomes counter-productive and saps energy time and money.
I don’t doubt for one moment that those who oppose its demise aren’t passionate or determined or indeed think they’re right. But a couple of key things are at play.
Firstly, it’s not their church. Secondly, the courts have failed to side with them.
Of course the church’s role in Christchurch society goes well beyond its ownership.
Having grown up in the place, I am not Anglican but I always felt the cathedral was the city’s.
I’ve been in it many times, I’ve climbed to the top of it many times. But despite that, I have never felt as though I owned it or that I had any more say than anyone else, and certainly not as much say as those who do own it – i.e. the church.
Christchurch has a lot of big fish to fry and they’ll be doing that for many years to come.
And part of that scenario working out requires people to be reasonable in their approach to any given major decision.
Decisions like the city centre, the convention centres, the sports facilities, the general design – all of those big calls require input but not to the point where it becomes a fight and a delay.
The cathedral debate falls smack into the middle of that category. Continue reading.
Mike Hosking presents the breakfast show on NewsTalkZB, and has lived and worked in Christchurch, Wellington, currently based in Auckland.
Source: NewsTalkZB
Image: Joshua Drummond
Related Posts:
News category: Analysis and Comment.
