Church history

Press, 8 February 1986, Page 18

Church history

Sir,—The interesting articles by Fr Hugh Bowron on Canterbury church history have so far had no better response than the letter of Peter Mating, who appears to wish to defend the persecution of Bishop Jenner and Mr Carlyon. It would indeed be sad if a movement that contributed so much to the development of Christchurch and Canterbury, having survived varying degrees of harassment for about a century, should in our generation be consigned to oblivion as a result of the prevailing indifferentism. For his work in keeping alive at least the memory of the Anglo-Catholic tradition, Fr Bowron deserves our sincere thanks. — Yours, etc., FR JACK WITBROCK. A<ihlpv February 5, 1986. Sir,—Peter Maling’s defence of Bishop Harper overlooks some facts revealed by “Seeking A See” (Diocese of Dunedin, 1984). Bishop Harper ignored the Otago and Southland Rural Deanery Board’s resolution that he inform the Rev. H. L. Jenner that there were insufficient funds to pay a new bishop’s stipend, and that it

was inappropriate for him, to „• come to Dunedin. Bishop Harper **J encouraged Jenner to come ; here, but when the board nomin-, ated Jenner as bishop, Bishop Harper persuaded Jenner : to , leave his fate to .the; next ” Diocesan Synod, assuring Jenner -, of strong support. When Jenner'' arrived to take up his see, Bishop Harper inhibited him preaching or conducting services. At the General Synod j before Jenner’s arrival Bishop; 7 Harper moved that Bishop Jenner’s appointment be not confirmed, and his son, Archdeacon Harper, moved that ‘Bishop Jenner be requested to resign his claim. The 1869 Dunedin Synod, presided over by Bishop Harper, narrowly voted not to confirm Jenner’s \ appointment.—Yours, 7 ’ HUGH BOWRON. «? Leeston, v., February 2, 1986. 7 ; ' ■ *• f