Consider the significance of the altar to the Dominican sisters

The controversy about the proposed removal of the altar from Teschemakers to its proposed new home in Holy Name Church raises a number of intriguing questions.

Clearly, the altar is the property of the Dominican Order.

Clearly, too, it is the wish of the sisters of that order that in the changed circumstances of the time it begin a new life in the vibrant Holy Name Church in North Dunedin.

Equally clearly, however, this is seen almost as an iconoclastic act by some members of the Oamaru community.

Feelings are running high.

Part of the story, no doubt, has to do with local North Otago pride in what they regard as part of their heritage.

Teschemakers was, of course, for long the centre of a much-loved girls' school, to which many will have fond associations.

That is understandable.

For a long time now, however, the chapel in which the altar is situated has not been used as a chapel.

There is a sadness about that, but times and circumstances do change.

Church history, after all, is littered with examples of transfers of altars or pulpits, of bells and no doubt belfries, from one church to another.

But, of course, the implications run much wider.

What is an altar? Is it an artistic creation, offering aesthetic satisfaction to the beholder? Well, quite obviously, in this case it is all of that.

How significant is that aspect, however, compared with its religious significance for generations of Dominican sisters, some of whom now worship regularly at Holy Name? Those of us who have enjoyed the gracious hospitality of the sisters over the years, when Teschemakers functioned as an ecumenical retreat centre, can imagine the prayerful and difficult discussions which will have preceded their decision that it be gifted to Holy Name.

Is it not interesting that secular interests quite obviously have a good conscience now about ignoring or seeking to negate these wishes?Again, on one level, one can understand their point of view. It seems on the face of it a heartless procedure to remove the altar and transport it elsewhere.

Yet is it not much more heartless to stymie the wishes of the sisters and the Holy Name congregation? After all, which comes first: the altar as an object of local pride and nostalgia for the past, or the altar as the centrepiece of the daily Eucharist in a flourishing Catholic church?Where are the priorities here, and who has the right to decide on them? For better or worse, and it is by no means all for the worse, the Church in this country is being pushed to the margins.

People with limited understanding of religious issues or of the challenges facing parishes and religious congregations consider that they can come to conclusions on legalistic or heritage grounds about church matters.

For example, it was not so long ago that the Methodist Church in South Dunedin had to fight very hard, in this case successfully, for the right to replace their old, and none too beautiful building, with a more functional and socially relevant complex, one in tune with their desire for community outreach.

Of course, such conflicts are by no means restricted to New Zealand.

I remember visiting a Reformed Church in Strasbourg, famous for its association with Martin Bucer, the irenic and very influential contemporary of Luther.

Yet virtually the whole of the front of the church was taken up with a hideous memorial.

It was explained to me that the congregation could not remove it, inappropriate as it was liturgically, for reasons of historical heritage.

Whose interests are being served here? Is the unspoken presupposition one that churches these days are primarily museums, relics of a bygone age, and should be treated as such? Those who take such a view may be in for a surprise eventually, but at the moment they seem to be making much of the running.

• Peter Matheson is a fellow of the department of theology and religious studies at the University of Otago.