Views on the Office of Bishop of Aotearoa

Te Ao Hou, March 1968, Page 18

Views on the Office of Bishop of Aotearoa An item of some interest to the Maori Anglican population since the news of Bishop Panapa's resignation is, of course, his successor. Heading the list of likely candidates by virtue of seniority are the four Maori Canons, Canon S. Rangiihu of Te Whakatohea, Canon J. Tamahori of Ngati Porou, Canon Wi Huata of Kahungunu and Canon H. Taepa of Te Arawa. In a recent article in Te Kaunihera Maori, December issue. A. Mahuika argues that academic qualifications, confidence and ability in Maoritanga, and international experience are important prerequisites for eligibility for the office. Revd K. Te Hau of St Faith's pastorate, Rotorua, was inclined to stress the qualities of humility, sympathy, and understanding. He argues that a Bishop possessing these attributes is able to reach his people, and can communicate with them in a language they can appreciate. This, of course, extends the sphere of selection to include relatively unknown outsiders as well as those who feature regularly in public news. Whatever criteria is employed, the responsibility of selection rests entirely in the hands of the four North Island Bishops. They constitute the Selection Board, the convenor of which is Archbishop Lesser, who is also Diocesan Bishop of Waiapu. The subject of the Bishopric, if it were not part of the agenda, was very much to the fore in the minds of the delegates and lay people attending the Waiapu Diocesan Pastorate Conference at Murupara on 23–24 February. In his welcome speech, Mr H. Bird of Ngati Manawa set the mood when he stated on the marae that he hoped some decision would be made at this conference with regard to the Maori Bishop. A vain hope, undoubtedly, but he voiced an attitude shared by a large sector of his people, and more significantly his speech pointed to the interest that Ngati Manawa had in this important position. Sir Turi Carroll, chairman of the N.Z. Maori Council and a leading elder of the Kahungunu tribe, Wairoa, redirected attention to what he considered the primary concern of the moment. In a discussion on the Bishop of Aotearoa's residence he pointed out that this conference was ‘putting the cart before the horse’. ‘We need a Bishop first,’ he said, ‘and then we find a house’. While the meeting was in progress notice of a motion was proposed requesting that the conference be asked to examine fully the role of the Bishop of Aotearoa. I spoke later to those responsible for making the request, Mr Sonny Baker and Revd A. Mahuika. Three main reasons motivated the request for the discussion. First, they thought that the whole position of the Bishop of Aotearoa should be thoroughly examined, for few people actually appreciated the full import of the office. The discussion would question, for example, the rights and duties attaching to the Bishopric, the method of appointment of the Bishop, his significance and effectiveness to Anglicans generally. Then, given this information, combined with an awareness of modern Maori social trends, the conference could recommend amendments to regulations covering the Bishop of Aotearoa which would better equip the church in the performance of its duties. Finally, they recognize that the office of Bishop of Aotearoa is much more than an Anglican Bishopric—he holds a position of responsibility to all Maoris. Whether he likes it or not, once a man accepts the office of Bishop of Aotearoa, he automatically assumes a position—and a large one at that—as a leader of the race. So any assessment of the office and role of the Bishop of Aotearoa could not ignore this important aspect. As it was, the conference refused permission to allow an examination of the role of the Maori Bishop. Canon Rangiihu, opposing the request, said the conference as it was then convened was incompetent to handle the subject. He added that Canon Law clearly stated the regulations governing the office of Bishop of Aotearoa. Others supporting Canon Rangiihu said that a discussion would be time-consuming. Bishop Panapa, now retired from the post of Bishop of Aotearoa, supported them, stating that he was quite satisfied with the status quo and could see no need for reappraisal. Yet there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the office as it exists now. Among the ranks of the Bishops of New Zealand, the office of Bishop of Aotearoa presents some-

thing of an anomaly. The Bishop has no diocese of his own, but acts as assistant Bishop to the Bishop of Waiapu. Therefore he has none of the responsibilities which confront a Diocesan Bishop of which his most constant and pressing worry is the raising of funds. He is not selected in the normal way, but is appointed, and he holds full voting rights in General Synod despite his status as assistant Bishop. Mr Baker, a leading layman of the Turanga pastorate, Gisborne, disagreed that there was no need to re-examine the office, and was particularly critical of the means of appointing the Bishop. Neither clergy nor laity had a voice in the decision. A Diocesan Bishopric on the other hand, is an elective position; representatives of the clergy and laity meet in Diocesan Synod to vote, so that the appointment is a result of a majority decision in Synod. In an interview with Canon J. Tamahori at the conference, I asked how he thought the Maori Anglican community could express an opinion, given the opportunity. He said that the Bishop of Aotearoa should continue to be appointed by a Selection Board such as currently exists, but it should be assisted and guided in its choice by an advisory committee. The advisory committee could consist of prominent laymen of each diocese in which lived sufficient Maori Anglican population to justify membership of it. He thought too that the office of Bishop of Aotearoa was still necessary to the Maori people. He had observed that large numbers of young Maoris had moved out of the East Coast, Northland and King Country, many to settle in the South Island as well as urban centres of the North Island. In view of this transmigration there was a greater need for a Bishop of Aotearoa than ever before. The 1966 census reveals that in urban areas which fall under the Waiapu diocesan boundary, such as Napier, Hastings, Tauranga, Rotorua and Gisborne, 10% of the total Maori population is located. Despite the fact that the figures given pertain to urban areas only, still the greater proportion of the Maori population lies outside the Waiapu Diocesan district. If the Bishop of Aotearoa is to be an effective leader of his Maori followers, the greatest demand will come from outside his officially designated district which is Waiapu. But his power in reaching this section of the people is dependent upon the granting of a commission by the Bishop of the diocese which he purposes visiting. Therefore, while officially recognised as ‘Bishop of Aotearoa’ he is so, in fact, only at the request of the Diocesan Bishops of New Zealand. Archbishop Lesser stated publicly in a farewell ceremony to Bishop Panapa, that he looked forward to a time when, ‘the office will fall into abeyance and that a Maori priest will be appointed as a Diocesan Bishop so that the appointment is not consequent upon race, but simply ability to assume the responsibility of office.’ In view of the current mode in which Diocesan Bishops are appointed, the likelihood of a Maori succeeding to the office appears politically unfeasible. The most up-to-date figures disclose too great a gap between Maori and Pakeha parishioners of any diocese for the scheme to eventuate democratically. An alternative proposal by Revd A. Mahuika favours abolishing the office and appointing a Maori with his own Diocese, including too its consequent responsibilities and privileges. In this capacity the Maori Bishop would have jurisdiction over Pakeha and Maori parishes and pastorates, and would enjoy equal status with the other Bishops. An important side effect of this diocese would be the provision of a testing ground for New Zealand, of the extent and sincerity of European willingness for integration. If changes are envisaged to the office of Bishop of Aotearoa the decision rests ultimately with General Synod. Three houses constitute General Synod, and any alterations to the canons or constitution would require a majority vote in each house before it can take effect. If a proposed change is lost in any one of the houses then the issue is defeated. General Synod meets once every two years and since the next meeting is scheduled for April of this year, perhaps greater interest will be attracted to Synod proceedings among the Maori community than there has been in the past. Kiri Haira