If the answer is 80% and the local membership highly values the institution, and for good reasons you say by all means let it continue. If the answer is 20% then a first class case for its continued operation would be required.

What such parents often fail to recognise, however, is how the College was often a spiritual and academic step up for a significant number of those who attended. The success of the College was that it lifted those who came from less privileged backgrounds, not that it exceeded the expectations of mildly neurotic middle-class parents. As a result, some areas of the church in New Zealand will probably experience the loss of the Church College more deeply than others.

Many will argue that the attachment many have to the College is more emotional than rational and I would tend to agree. I think the demolition of the College is part of the rationalisation of church operations in the country in terms of a cost-benefit analysis. I think the strength of the College and the church in New Zealand in its heyday was that it was deeply romantic and irrational, in the same way that the church Joseph Smith restored was deeply romantic and irrational. As Max Weber recognised, however, such moments are only ever followed by increased rationalisation and bureaucratisation. I think the last General Authority in New Zealand who was able to see the NZ church in a truly romantic way (in the positive sense of the word) was probably Rulon Craven.

For me the irony is that over the coming years leaders will increasingly be scratching their heads (like they are now) over the retention of youth and young single adults in the country. This is because rationalisation does not always lead to deeper commitment. There is always something deeply irrational and romantic about our deepest commitments that achievement programmes from childhood simply cannot replace. The old model was built around community and commitment and at its best these were the things the College stood for. The newer models are built around programmes that try to keep people on track while they respond to the pressures of modernity and capitalism. The church is doing the best it can in responding to the times. I for one, however, would at least like to mourn the passing of an earlier model. Goodbye CCNZ.

Architectural
The buildings at CCNZ, particularly the David O McKay auditorium and the Library, are the best examples of 1950s American post prairie architecture in the country.

Social
CCNZ is the largest complex in New Zealand that was built almost entirely by volunteer labour. Leaving aside the respect we have for the Laobur Missionaries and their mahi aroha (labour of love). On a purely community level the buildings stand as a monument to what can be accomplished by a group of motivated volenteers, way before Habatat for Humanity or World Vision and other volunteer organisations were thoght of.

Educational
CCNZ as an institution has performed twice as well at educating Maori and Pacific Island students, who make up over 80% of the schools roll, than any other school in New Zealand. “in 2006, statistics showed that Year 11 students achieved well above the national average in NCEA Level 1 At this time, the College had a decile rating of three, yet performed at a decile 10 rating.” Education Review Office Report 2006. (decile ratings are a socio economic rating for schools in New Zealand) While this may not relate directly to the buildings heritage status they have provided the physical environment for outstanding level of educational achievement when compared nationally.

Spiritual
Buildings at CCNZ have for 50 years provided a spiritual haven for those who have attended; they have provided a gathering place where those of like spiritual persuasion have found their own Zion.

Despite some comments these buildings do not require major investments to bring up to standard. Originally one of the reasons given to demolish the school was that it was too expensive to bring them up to earthquake proof standards. This has been totally refuted by local architects and building engineers.

I have been in meetings with the local Mayor, and Members of Parliament who have been very disappointed with the attitude of those in the Church bureaucracy they have met with to try and find a more constructive use for the buildings.

This story has made the local paper headlines five times over the last week, the public relations damage this process is doing to the church will take a long time to repair.

I do not wish to be seen to be attacking the Church, but I believe the decision to close the school and demolish the buildings was based on incomplete and in some cases erroneous advice.

The school was established in response to revelation, I await a miracle that will enable some of the buildings to be retained, and have them put to a wiser purpose than returned to farmland.

I really appreciate your comment, however, because it is the kind of thing that I do want to know about.

Of course, if the church decided that BYU was no longer the best investment they could be making it would be more difficult to pull the plug, the reason being that more of the true power players have an emotional attachment to the place (though I am not saying it would be impossible). Of course, some will say that it all comes through revelation and we just need to get in line. It is impossible to ignore, however, the very real influence certain power players can have. When one does not have a real voice in (at least the human part of) the decision making process, it can leave people frustrated and alientated. I think that is what you are seeing in some of the responses coming out of templeview.

Other churches take a less centralised approach to expansion that empowers local members to make their own way and this entails both potential rewards and pitfalls. One of the potential costs of the Mormon model is the sense of disempowerment that comes. What is the point of investing in something when you really have no power over it and it could be taken away from you at anytime? It can lead to apathy and a lack of real ownership.

Another thought is that in the McKay and Kimball years the Church College was very much immersed in the rhetoric of the Lamanites blossoming like a rose. The College always had a large number of Maori students, and this implicit mission of the school used to be much more overt. Did the weakening of this rhetoric in the age of DNA discoveries and the internet make it easier for Salt Lake to withdraw from this investment and put it elsewhere?

Increasingly, the leadership in New Zealand is trying to move away from the mixing of enthnic, cultural and spiritual identities that are common amongst many New Zealand and Pacific Island members. They are trying to get people to identity first and foremost with the church. This is obvious from the kinds of messages we get at Stake Conferences with general authorities. I’m pretty sure they would also love to bring an end to the large number of ethnic wards in the country, but they also know they have to move very slowly on this one. They know from experience that there are many members in the church in New Zealand who are Tongans and Somoans first before they are anything else, and that if the church threatens to take their ethnic units from them they’ll walk if they have to. The irony is that since the early years of missionary work in the pacific it is the church itself which has encouraged this mixing of ethnic and spiritual identities.

One has the feeling then that the church in New Zealand is at a crossroads. In real numbers the church is probably declining, not because of apostacy, but because of the significant number of members who continue to move to Australia (a Kiwi does not need a special visa to go and work in Australia and many continue to take advantage of this opportunity). Gains through missionary work are fairly minimial due to the general apathy to religion seen in New Zealand and Australia, not disimilar to what has happened in Europe. I would expect that the tithing revenues that come from the country have thus probably declined somewhat and this would have factored into the decision to close the college. Also, the buildings were going to require major work to bring them up to modern building standards and the investment simply was not seen as worth it.

The growth of the church in New Zealand may have thus stablised (for at least the foreseeable future) and the explosive growth amongst Maori in the late 19th and early 20th century, and the injection of more white faces in the early postwar period followed by the injection of many Saints from the pacific islands in the 1970′s and 80′s may be a thing of the past. The demolition of the college thus marks the end of an era and signifies a shift in church investment away from the country and towards more productive fields. It may also mark a turning away from a certain polynesian romanticism that informed church policy in the Pacific most strongly in the McKay and Kimball years (though the church still does have church high schools operating elsewhere in the pacific).

That came to a head with the demolition of the Coalville Tabernacle in 1968 or 69. There was a noisy, but unsuccessful push by preservationists to save it. My seminary teacher used it as an object lesson for why it is futile to argue with an inspired Church leadership. But the bad publicity had its effect and, to my knowledge, no building of comparable significance has been razed by the Church since. I have no idea, however, who was responsible for the change in attitude within the leadership (although Hinckley, with his PR background, is certainly a plausible guess).

I visited the New Zealand Temple in 2006 and was disappinted with what I saw. Instead of the usual first rate upkeep of the temple and surrounding grounds, I noticed significant lack of maintenance in the area around the visitor’s center. The brick pillar holding the name of the church had letters missing and the mortar joints needed repointing as well. It certainly wasn’t a blatant example of disrepair, just not the usual pristine appearance we have all become used to. It seemed the church had already begun a program of cutting back on the upkeep of the buildings.