Christianity is supposed to be based on the Jesus of the Gospels, clearing the money-changers out of the temple, sticking up for the poor, harassing hypocritical church officials. The reality is often different. The Church as an institution feels about the great unwashed just as the rest of society does - that they're a damn nuisance.
Years ago I used often to walk past St John's church in Waterloo, in the days when it provided food for the homeless. Just what Christianity is supposed to be about. But it was an eyesore - surrounded by rubbish, aggressive beggars and mangy dogs crapping on the pavement. No surprise when the church decided enough was enough.
Now the same drama is being played out across the river at St Paul's Cathedral. Anti-capitalist protesters are camped outside, and the cathedral's authorities are plotting to get rid of them.
It turns out that St Paul's Canon Giles Fraser was on his own in tolerating the protesters when they first arrived. His colleagues' decision to close the cathedral, on spurious 'health and safety' grounds, was contemptible, and I don't blame him for wanting nothing more to do with them. They could at least have pretended to possess some genuine Christian impulses.
The prospect of people who came to protest about bankers' greed being forcibly removed by police at the behest of professional Christians would be especially hard to stomach. Especially when St Paul's board is apparently run by bankers and other City bigwigs - the very types the protesters are complaining about.
Actually I was a bit puzzled that Fraser was so quick to resign. I thought he might stay and fight a bit. It seems he just didn't want to be part of any process that might lead to violence. I also wonder whether he hasn't been milking it a bit, with big interviews (the pic on the front of the Guardian today made him look like Jesus, gazing up at heaven).
But I've always liked him for his common-sense and the humane views about religion that he expresses in his articles. And it's inspiring to see someone acting with real integrity, at a time when people seem increasingly unwilling to accept personal responsibility for anything.
A lot of people think the protesters put St Paul's authorities in an impossible position. St Paul's is a national shrine, they say, a "theatre for the finest religious music and worship". It can't have riff-raff cluttering up the steps. What will tourists think?
That's the unsolvable paradox at the heart of Christianity - a religion based on spiritual values but in practice is so often human and materialistic.
The truth is that the Christian church is always in an impossible position - and from time to time gets reminded of it.
I've been seeing this on the news and finding it somewhat surreal, and I didn't even know (until reading this post) that the church's authorities closed the church voluntarily. One thing that has puzzled me is how blatantly negative the media coverage is.
Of course, you can understand the attitude of the church authorities when you see just how many glowing remarks Jesus makes in the gospels about wealth and power. Oh that's right, there aren't any.
Posted by: Robert Perry | October 29, 2011 at 04:43 PM
Don't go to church looking for Christians. That's not where they are.
Posted by: Michael D | October 29, 2011 at 08:40 PM
This reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons, "Homerpaooza" where Homer considers Christianity as the religion of well-intentioned rules in practice do not work.
Posted by: Juan | October 29, 2011 at 09:24 PM
One of the principles of my personal creed (right after "only the truly faithful dare to question their faith") is that everybody - no exceptions - virtually everybody walking the face of this earth professing a moral compass oriented toward being 'good' is a hypocrite. We can't help it.
We are thrown into too many situations in life where we can't win for losing. I'm sure the folks at St Paul's have sanctimonious reasons for locking the protesters out, and their reasons seem obvious to them, just as the protesters sanctimoniously carry on their fight against their vision of evil (a vision I'm sympathetic with).
In the end, I believe that Jesus calls us to address the evil from within, which in turn will affect our behavior, hopefully for the betterment of humanity and life on earth. Sure, we are called to take action, but so much of what I see is polluted by power-holding and grabbing politics.
We just blindly muddle our way through this sometimes dark world, looking for the light, doing the best we can.
Posted by: RabbitDawg | October 31, 2011 at 08:33 AM
From the Guardian: Occupy London could be protected by Christian ring of prayer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/29/christians-defend-occupy-london-protest
Posted by: Robert Perry | October 31, 2011 at 03:30 PM
I'm rather disappointed with this post, and I say this both as a Christian and as a person very sympathetic to the worldwide "Occupy" movement. From the outset you do nothing but assume that the leaders at St. Paul's are generally money-loving elitists with no empathy for the protesters ("damn nuisance") and merely making up excuses to rid themselves of the problematic rabble.
Did you read through the whole Guardian interview with Fraser? He presents a much more irenic tone about his colleagues and he points to the complexities of the situation. I would go back to that article and read carefully what he says if I were you. Even if you and I disagree with the way the Chapter is addressing this situation (and I do side with you and Fraser on that) that doesn't give us license for general mudslinging from our armchairs. The Jesus of the Gospels also says "Judge not lest ye be judged" after all.
And as much as we have to wrestle with what Jesus says about wealth an worldly goods, it is not so simple to declare such things irrelevant and go happily dancing in the meadows. As various commentators have pointed out, St. Paul's relies heavily on income through tourism and purchases in the shop and cafe in the crypt. It is also a location for daily worship. All that is disturbed, in potential or in actuality, by the encampment. And at that point the leadership, with very sober consciences, runs into very real difficulties in discerning the balance of needs and concerns.
That being said, I agree that St. Paul's has a problematic relationship with morally ambivalent centers of power. That is an inherited problem of the Constantinian church-state alliance that is now 1600 years old. What you are seeing is less a contradiction intrinsic to Christianity than to the Church as a component of statecraft (or, now, "bankcraft"?). Those of us who belong to anti-establishment Christian bodies are happy to remind our brothers and sisters the price of this chaplaincy.
And some intend to do so by supporting the protesters directly...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/29/christians-defend-occupy-london-protest
Posted by: Chris S | October 31, 2011 at 03:59 PM
Point taken - one can oversimplify these things. St Paul's really is in a difficult situation. And yes, Fraser's views are more nuanced than I'd suggested here.
The money thing is an issue. What is St Paul's - a centre of worship or a tourist attraction? Can it be both?
I used to work nearby in the mid 1980s, and often used to go in and sit and meditate for a quiet moment. Then one day I turned up and found turnstiles and people taking money. I remember feeling shut out, and I don't think I've ever been back.
Question: how did the cathedral run before it started charging for entry? £14.50 seems quite steep, and must bring in a pretty large income. Something in the dynamic obviously changed somewhere.
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | October 31, 2011 at 07:57 PM
'We just blindly muddle our way through this sometimes dark world, looking for the light, doing the best we can.'
Well-said!
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | October 31, 2011 at 08:00 PM
St. Paul's has to be both, I suppose. I don't know that they have a regular congregation that would support the church through tithes. And even if they did, such funds would doubtless be insufficient to keep the doors open. Besides, hospitality is intrinsic to Christian spirituality and what church would pass up on bringing in visitors every day if that presents an opportunity to share some aspects of the faith?
But you're right that the entry fee is rather high, especially for us Americans dealing with the exchange rate! During my most recent visit to London in September my wife and I entered as worshipers so thankfully we didn't have to pay. Of course, it is difficult to focus on the noonday Eucharist liturgy when so many people are milling around. I much preferred the noon service at Southwark Cathedral, which is free all the time anyways and was very quiet!
I wonder if it would be possible for St. Paul's to reserve a "meditation and prayer" space all the time like what you found generally available before. Perhaps to the side of the turnstiles would be the entrance to a small area set aside with chairs, prayer books, candles, etc? So why aren't they asking for our advice anyways? ;)
Posted by: Chris S | November 01, 2011 at 03:36 PM
I know you are busy but do you have any contacts at the St. Pauls protest please.? MY name is Chris Philpott and I am author of "Green Spirituality- one answer to global environmental problems and world poverty" authorhouse 2011. see www.greenspirituality.org I want to give a talk about global poverty and the response of the C of E to the protestors. Thanks.
Best Wishes
Chris Philpott
07503 7483699
Posted by: Chris Philpott | November 05, 2011 at 04:48 PM
I don't I'm afraid, Chris, but they have a website with a press page. You could try ringing one of the numbers:
http://occupylsx.org/?page_id=77
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | November 05, 2011 at 07:38 PM
Christianity is, and was from the beginning, focused on the afterlife. Jesus advised his followers to give everything away because they would not be in this world much longer. Buddhism is also a world-despising religion, so the two are kind of similar.
Materialism means, I guess, in this context, caring about this physical world. Is there anything really wrong with that? Is it wrong to appreciate the beauty and pleasures of this world? Does that mean we can't have a pleasant afterlife also?
Of course I don't know. But my point is that you can't expect people to be anti-capitalists and to despise the material world. We are creatures of this world and we can't help caring about beauty and pleasure.
There is plenty wrong with our current capitalist system, but I don't think that's because it's capitalist. Capitalism is simply the natural result of human social evolution.
Yes of course there is a contradiction between what Christianity preaches and what it does. Because it tells people to despise the world and to only think about heaven. But you just can't stop people from caring about this world and this life.
Posted by: realpc | November 11, 2011 at 07:07 PM