An elderly female parishioner is attacked during a church service by another parishioner, a younger male. This is the second attack and the vicar had been asked to speak to the attacker but does not. This time the elderly woman tries to defend herself and there's a bit of a racket, but a lot of the congregation see what happened. Much indignation as the woman is pushed out of the church and later is banned and trespassed off the church property. The attacker smirks and is returned to his pew by the vicar.
So why wasn't he pushed out? The male attacker is the vicar's ardent supporter, there's a strong suspicion she has put him up to these attacks. The elderly woman is spokesperson for a lot of dissatisfied parishioners who are upset by the disorganisation, chaos and lack of spirituality during the communion service. When the congregation is told the woman attacked him and is in need of mental health care they are as stunned as the elderly woman. As so many saw what happened there is now uproar and rumpus and a great deal of disgust expressed over the vicar's behaviour.
There's a chain of command in the Anglican church from the Archbishop to bishops to vicars. The bishop in this case does not know the elderly woman, hasn't spoken to her, although she has, along with others in that parish, complained about their vicar and her lack of priestly skills and behaviour to him.
So from his secular point of view it's all a great relief to ban this troublesome woman from her church and the communion service which is important to her. As for the male, well perhaps the police will deal with him. The bishop's not going to. I wonder where the bishop's spiritual and Christian morals were when he made that decision. There wasn't much Christian spirit in him when he made it.
Seems to me that the Anglican church in New Zealand has wandered away from the fundamental Anglican beliefs and is in danger of becoming a stand for nothing, meaningless church.