(no subject)

[tree_and_leaf]

Yesterday I was at the Scott-Holland lectures, which this year were given by Neil MacGregor, the director of the British Museum on 'the constraints and opportunities of a visual tradition' - or rather, what the making of images does to Christianity, and what the images we make, inherit and modify say, particularly to people outside the church. The Scott-Holland for whom the lectures was named was Henry Scott-Holland,† sometime Dean of St Paul's, high-churchman and one of the founders of the Christian Socialist Union - he was one of the second wave of churchmen of the Oxford Movement, whose strongly incarnational understanding of God as intimately involved in the world and concerned for the poor led them to the East End, and to a passionate interest in social justice (even to the insistence that it is as important to pay a fair price for goods as it is to pray and receive the sacraments). This, incidentally, is why so many Anglo-Catholic churches are in poor places - or what were poor places at the turn of last century - and also why I get irritated when people assume that all 'Spikes' are only interested in ceremonial and the cricket pages of the Daily Telegraph.


It might sound as if that hasn't got much to do with art, but MacGregor - who is an excellent, if unassuming, speaker, and apparently a very devout, intelligent and unpretentious Christian - brought it all together in a very satisfying and though-provoking way. The justification for Christian representational art in the first place is incarnational - God, as uncreated spirit, cannot be imaged, but you can make pictures of Christ, who is both human and God; furthermore, justifications for devotional art often appeal to the need to reach out to the poor and ignorant. But art is made because rich and powerful pay for it, and that can affect what gets shown and how it's shown, whether it's the polite nativities attended by richly dressed kings, with Mary looking as much a well-dressed aristo as the Magi, or the interesting fact that there are a vanishingly small number of pictures that show the young Christ telling his parents off for not knowing he'd be in 'his Father's house', despite the popularity of images of the wunderkind teaching in the Temple, or of happy nuclear Holy Families, with a gentle Jesus, meek, mild and submissive to authority. It ought to be bourne in mind that Mary is also almost always also a symbol of the church, so that the two pictures MacGregor showed which do show conflict between Christ and Mary can be seen as a rebuke to an institutional church which likes to think that it's infallible, but is actually quite capable of being blind to God's purposes (even when it starts out with the best of intentions, as it generally does). This certainly seems to be what's going on in Simone Martini's Christ Discovered in the Temple, which has the most fantastic body language, with Mary an exasperated mother, Christ standing with folded arms in the immemorial pose of the stroppy pre-teen who doesn't understand why adults are so stupid, and poor Joseph stuck in the middle, apparently saying something along the lines of "now, let's everyone calm down..." (or maybe it's "Don't speak to your mother like that!")

So art is ambivalent - and limited in other ways, as it's quite hard to paint parables - but it can speak to us in quite profound ways, inviting us to stillness and contemplation. It's also one of the places where religious discourse is still evident in a largely secularised world, whether in terms of art galleries and churches. But odd things can happen with churches - whether they're institutionalising powerful images hat were intended to speak directly to everyone, such as the Holman Hunt Light(s) of the World, both of which have ended up in places where you have to pay admission (unless you have a Bod card, for the Keble one) - and embarrassingly, both those places are churches. It was here that we got to the controversial bit, in which MacGregor attacked - politely and with the due humility of someone who knows he gets a government grant that, say, St Paul's and Westminster Abbey don't get - the policy of charging admission to churches. Because St Paul's and the Abbey are the most obvious symbols of Christianity in the capital, and do have things to say to individuals and society - but it costs £10 to visit St Paul's (I think Westminster Abbey is even dearer). And what that says - regardless of the intentions of the Dean and Chapter, which is a pragmatic decision designed to safeguard the building they're responsible enough - is that the church, and by extension God, is available primarily to the rich; those who are too poor to afford to pay the charge don't matter. Which is not something Christianity can teach, even inadvertently, without totally betraying all we know of God and try to live by. MacGregor asked whether, if here really is a choice between cathedrals that charge, and no cathedrals at all, it might not be better to have none.

... and I think he might actually be right, if that is the choice (though it surely can't be). If a church is a church, then it's a house of prayer for all the nations, and it is, frankly, obscene that they should charge enough money to feed a family for access to a building which belongs in one sense to the God who had nowhere to lay his head, and in another to the whole community. It's not a question of whether we can't afford not to charge, it's a question of whether we can afford to - and I think we can't; the price is too high. I can't help feeling that if Jesus should suddenly return and visit St Paul's, there would indeed be barriers pulled down and cash registers turned over. There's a part of me that would like to do so myself, though I won't, because I am a coward. But if the cathedrals really are only sustainable as museums (though Westminster Cathedral (RC) and St Giles Edinburgh (Church of Scotland) both seem to manage as freely-accessible churches), then it would be better if they were museums, instead of pretending to be the house of God.

Ahem. Here endeth the sermon, but I do feel very strongly on the issue.

† He's best known these days for that thing that often gets read at funerals, 'Death is nothing at all', but this would annoy him, as the passage has been violently wrenched out of context; Holland was actually arguing that while we'd like to think of death as 'nothing', it isn't, it's violent and disruptive and hurts like hell for those who are left behind, and Christian faith and hope only mean anything if they can take the suffering seriously. He's much better remembered by that magnificent hymn of Christian challenge to an unjust and sinful world, Judge Eternal, throned in splendor - ignore the awful midi file, the correct tune is Rhuddlan.



In conclusion: I seem to have turned into a Neil MacGregor fangirl (though I get the impression that he wouldn't know what to do with one), and I really wish I had seen the exhibition Seeing Salvation in 2000; I wonder if you can still get the catalogue?

Comments

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

The catalogue seems to be available on Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Image-Christ-Catalogue-Exhibition-Salvation/dp/1857092929); I've not checked the British Museum shop.

I remember trying to visit Westminster Abbey in the early 1990s and seeing with horror that they had introduced a series of gates which visitors operated with coins... I think these disappeared soon afterwards in favour of a more simple charging process, but it disturbed me too.

[tree_and_leaf]

I feel a trip to Amazon coming on...

Turnstiles! What were they thinking? Though the current system is only marginally less offensive.

I'm not actually convinced it even makes short-term economic sense, given how many people, many of whom probably would have left donations, are put off going. But it all savours of a disappointing (to say the least) lack of faith in your own purpose.

[tree_and_leaf]

You do realise you're enabling my book-buying addictions, right?

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

You might like to know that Amazon have considerately cut their supersaver delivery threshold from £15 to £5 recently... ;)

*negotiates percentage deal with Amazon*

[scionofgrace.livejournal.com]

Y'know, it amuses me to no end that a Nebraskan Mennonite and a Scottish Anglican can agree on so much, but I must say "word!" to this. Paying to visit a church? I mean, I understand what they're trying to do when that church is a work of art, but you (and MacGregor) are right: it defeats the entire purpose.

I've even felt slightly guilty that our church locks up after hours - the city's cathedral certainly doesn't. "Sanctuary" is a synonym for "safety" for a reason. Part of our message is that God is here for everyone at all times, with nothing to block the sincere seeker. Charging money at a church contradicts that - and I was thinking of Paul's letters as well, and his words against preferential treatment. If the art's that precious, it ought to be moved to a museum, so the church can get on with its real business.

Y'know, I'd never really thought about any of this before. But then again, my ancestors threw out all art centuries ago, and it's only in the last couple decades that it's been restored to its proper place as a form of worship.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You are assuming that the establishment of the Church of England (I am not speaking about the few unfortunate believers who, for one reason or another, can still be found in it) has anything to do with the Christian faith. To the contrary: it exists to neutralize, neuter and eventually demolish it. And it has been astonishingly successful in doing so: according to a recent report, eleven per cent of children in English schools believe that Christmas celebrates the birthday of Santa Claus. Ignorance about Christianity is so total that, to most people baptized in the main churches, church buildings might as well be temples. They only see the inside of them when they are married or buried, if then.

[tree_and_leaf]

I do not see myself as an 'unfortunate' Anglican - I could be something else, after all. The C of E has many faults - and things like admissions charges to churches are an obscenity - but even its worst decisions have been made, by and large, by decent people who thought they were doing the best thing in a difficult situation. All the Anglican bishops I have come across have struck me as sincere and faithful people, even when I disagree with them on certain matters.

The problem is, I think, that all institutional churches - and given that humans are social animals, you can't actually do without some form of institution - carry the seeds of their own corruption within them, and the cause of it, apart from the simple sins like greed and pride - generally seem to come down, fundamentally, to a lack of faith. It's disturbingly easy to fall into a mindset that comes close to wanting to protect God from the consequences of trying to live out the Gospel - which is something of an absurdity, apart from anything else. But the answer isn't to walk away; it's more along the lines of "wrestle, fight and pray" (not necessarily in that order).

But nonetheless - even just looking at bishops over the last century, an institution which has produced people like William Temple, Michael Ramsey and David Sheppard can't be all bad, and that's without even considering what's actually more important: the numbers of ordinary, unspectacular Anglicans who have lived out their faith in these islands.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

A man I know once found himself on some sort of board to do with education, together with about six English Anglican bishops. After about half an hour, it dawned on him that not a single one of these mitred gentlemen spoke as if they believed a word of the Gospels or of the creeds. He might as well have been discussing with half a dozen secular social workers. We know that the Archbishop of Canterbury has a strong personal faith and is capable of quite exceptional performances in the pulpit - one of which I have quoted whole in my blog: http://fpb.livejournal.com/288361.html - but his fantastic inefficacy, and indeed surrender, as a Christian leader, is symptomatic of what he feels he can achieve. Bishops such as the past incumbent of Durham and the present one of Southwark are nothing more than embarrasments, but what is most embarrassing is that they plainly represnt in public what many or most of their fellows prudently keep private. As for earnest decency, it is a virtue for schoolmistresses and social workers; bishops should be leaders and fearless fighters. Otherwise their apolostic succession is from Judas.

[schreibergasse.livejournal.com]

Also: please note that the phenomena you describe (utter cluelessness about Christian doctrine, only seeing the inside of churches when they are married or buried) are also fairly widespread among churches that AREN'T established, at least in North America. It applies to most mainly Protestants here, and a significant portion of Catholics. While one may debate the reasons why, it seems to be a factor anywhere where church membership is not a (social OR political) necessity, or where the majority of the membership doesn't consist of converts.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Rather, it is where people are not distracted by a stream of communications that can dominate every free moment of daily life, and that takes attention away from every serious issue. However, all the bad sides of modernity are heightened and concentrated in the Anglican body, which was created and has long been kept into being merely in order to go forth and tell the world that it is quite all right in everything he does - from a vicious murdering king wanting to get rid of his kindly and beloved wife for the sake of a frippet half his age, to a whole nation not wanting to be restrained by any scruples in anything it does. Anglicanism is the church of the English nation, and it faithfully serves its master.

[tree_and_leaf]

Oh, they aren't charging because of the value of the art specifically - it's the general expensiveness of running a historic building (MacGregor quoted the figure of £5m a year, which the bloke from the chapter of St Paul's who gave a rather lame response to that part of the paper didn't correct). But other cathedrals seem to manage, despite having exactly the same problems (lots of them suggest a donation, but that's a different matter).

I think churches should be open wherever possible; it can be surprisingly difficult to persuade people of this, and there are sometimes genuine obstacles, but a church should be there to help people find God, and providing a quiet space where people can reflect and pray is an important part of that.

I'm not a particularly visual person, so I haven't thought much about the specific issues around art and religion, but it's a very interesting question.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I think churches should be closed whenever there are not at least a plural number of people present in them. Otherwise, the first people they will attract are burglars and vandals - often ideologically-motivated ones. The notion that churches should be open to the world is a merely local and outdated one, based on the idea that the near-totality of surrounding society was Christian, and that therefore most of the public could be trusted to treat them with respect and to use them appropriately. That is no longer the case, and I would remind you that the early church in the Roman empire forbade entry to its sacred buildings, not only to pagans, but even to catechumens.

[tree_and_leaf]

Otherwise, the first people they will attract are burglars and vandals - often ideologically-motivated ones

I don't think that's true; not in my experience of English country churches, anyway; I agree that in a town centre you need to have someone there (but that's not the problem with St Paul's). In the one case I have personal experience of where a church was damaged and property was stolen, it was locked at the time, though obviously as it turned out the alarm system was completely inadequate. But locks are only a limited protection.

I know what the practice of the early church was; I just don't think it's a model for today. But YMMV, and clearly does.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

If it is, as it has long been, the policy of this country to reduce its local Christianity to a museum exhibit, I cannot see what should be wrong about charging admission. It is expected that very few of the visitors to St.Paul's and Westminster will be practicting Anglicans, most of whom are immigrant Evangelicals these days anyway.

[tree_and_leaf]

It doesn't matter whether the visitors are Anglicans or not; they are people, made and loved by God.

[schreibergasse.livejournal.com]

Hm. That's a perspective I hadn't thought of. I guess you're right; but...probably most of the people who go through the doors of St. Paul's or Westminster ARE going in as tourists, interested in the place for its historic significance, rather than as a house of God. So I'm still sort of viscerally inclined to want a sign that says (slightly more politely),
"If you are here as a tourist, please give us two quid. (We won't actually make you, but please, it's still less than the National Trust would charge you.) If you are here to pray, please consider yourself excused from the above, although we do still like donations..."

[tree_and_leaf]

Well, I don't mind appeals for donations aimed at tourists, even appeals that you might unkindly class as guilt-tripping, but I draw the line at a fixed charge (and the very fact of charging admission, I think, signals that the institution is to be viewed as a tourist attraction rather than anything else).

And that said - people do sometimes go in for one reason and find it turning into something else. That was one of the points MacGregor made, actually - that if you work in art galleries which have large amounts of religious art, you see a surprising number of people who come for the Cultural Significance but find the religious imagery speaking to them in a way that goes beyond that. It may not make them want to immediately dash out and become church-goers, but I'd hesitate to write it off as merely aesthetic, all the same. God moves in mysterious ways, and all that, after all...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And therefore do not need a building of stone set up by an alien body they do not recognize in order to pray to their God. Your attitude, which is sentimental, unreasoning and based on a mistaken idea of human goodness which is not Christian, would see these places vandalized and eventually turned into mosques or museums of atheism.

[tree_and_leaf]

I really don't follow how thinking that a church building should be a means of proclaiming the Gospel is promoting Islam!

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Do you for one minute imagine that any one of the agnostic, atheistic, pagan, hindu, shinto, buddhist, etc etc etc, visitors to St.Paul's can possibly be taken one step closer to Christ by the architecture? That is not how evangelization happens. Christian sacred buildings are not built to evangelize outsiders, but to serve Christians already made. They are machines for offering sacraments and prayers, both of which are wholly irrelevant to anyone who is not a full member of the community already.

[tree_and_leaf]

That's very reductive - whether you like it or not, the church buildings _are_ the most visible symbols of Christianity in any community, and they inevitably will be taken as such by visitors and all those that pass by, whether consciously or not. I don't think anyone suggests that they can teach the whole of the Gospel - this would definitely fall under the heading of the limits of visual tradition! - but they are a statement of Christian witness in the world and as such not solely addressed to the faithful.

For instance: I have had conversations about the Christian concepts of atonement and salvation with a Buddhist friend that arose directly out of her having seen an altarpiece and been puzzled by it. Whether it, or the conversation, brought her closer to Christ is not for me to judge, but I think it does illustrate that you can't cleanly separate out what can be evangelization and what can't.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The most visible symbols of Christianity in any community are the local Christians. When your Buddhist friend wanted to ask a question about Christian doctrine, s/he did not visit a church (again), she asked you. And I do not see what is reductive about saying that churches are built for Christians to offer sacraments in.

[tree_and_leaf]

But she wouldn't have thought of asking the question otherwise. I'm not arguing that the symbols are self-interpreting, only that the fact that they aren't doesn't make them worthless, or incapable of speaking in one way or another to people outside the church.

The most visible symbols of Christianity in any community are the local Christians.

True in one sense, but the buildings are there, and visible, and people are going to think of the church when they see churches, and you having a better theological understanding doesn't change how they see it.

[itinerantsphinx.livejournal.com]

John of Damascus: Icons are open books to remind us of God ... if a pagan asks you to show him your faith, take him into a church and show him your icons .... The icon is a song of triumph and a revelation.

In the days of early Islam, I believe, the iconography (as well as other public displays of faith such as processions, festivals) of the Byzantine church was actually perceived as a threat by caliphs, since as symbols of faith they were so powerful, impressive, and therefore appealing. (Although also as the cross, in particular, symbolized the great power of the Byzantine Empire, which could invoke unfavourable reaction. Being a symbol of 'triumph' can, I suppose, be a double-edged sword.)

When visiting cathedrals as a child, I was always impressed not only by the immediate magnificence of the architecture, but also by contemplating how much faith had gone into the building it - as demonstrated by the money and effort that it must have entailed. Now I have more understanding of the idea of magnificence as power-display as well a simple statement of faith... but I do still get caught up in the wonder of how belief could cause such things to be built and accomplished. And feeling the faith of those others I find to be encouraging, and going beyond the primary functions of the church as somewhere to worship and pray.

On a less extreme track than seeking to convert or destroy another faith, personally, if I enter a mosque as a tourist, I do not seek to 'vandalise' it, or even denigrate it, but recognise it as a holy place where prayers are offered by faithful(ly intentioned) people, even if I disagree with them about the content of that faith. But such holy places should, in my view, still be respected. An increase of such (mutual) respect for others in the world could only be a good thing, in my opinion.

[itinerantsphinx.livejournal.com]

Ps. And I do think it's more a matter of evoking respect rather than leading to conversion, which may occur, but I can't think it is very likely from this means, in which I agree with you. Or not directly. I still feel the respect (and perhaps greater understanding) part is important, however.

Pps. Apologies for length of the previous comment, compounded by it's lateness of arrival.

[sillymouse.livejournal.com]

'Seeing Salvation' was excellent indeed.

I've never been to Westminster Abbey or St Paul's precisely because they charge (actually, I nearly got to St Paul's once, but 7th July 2005 turned out not to be a good day for going anywhere in London). I sometimes think about digging out my confirmation certificate and demanding free access, but even that's cliquish. Like you, I wish I had the courage to start overturning a few tables.

[tree_and_leaf]

Likewise.

I sometimes think about digging out my confirmation certificate and demanding free access, but even that's cliquish.

Yes; church membership shouldn't be about special privilege! A priest recently told me that he'd been to St Paul's and had been waved in for free because he was wearing a dog-collar; he was rather embarrassed.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

"Church membership should not be about special privileges?" Sez who? Beginning with the special privilege of Baptism, Christians are meant to be a separate body, a priestly and kingly nation, a city set on a hill. If this means that they have sacred buildings reserved for their own use, then so be it. You talk about your own sacred buildings as though they were football pitches for week-end recreations. If you take your own religion seriously, they aren't - they are sacred, and that means they are set apart.

[tree_and_leaf]

A special privilege in one sense, yes, but not in the sense of a book of money-off vouchers. What you are suggesting might, incidentally justify closing churches except for services, but surely not charging admission.

>You talk about your own sacred buildings as though they were football pitches for week-end recreations

If you think that's what I'm saying, then you have misunderstood me so completely that I don't think there's any point continuing the discussion.

I would respond to your comments about the history of Anglicanism, because I think you're overlooking the fact that there is more to the origins of the C of E than Henry (who I agree was a bad man; but I'm not keen on Constantine, either), but I don't think any good can come of it.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Constantine did not found the Catholic Church, contrary to protestant propaganda. Henry did found the separate Anglican body, and gave it its own essential mission: that it was in the service of the English kingdom. That has not changed. And if Henry was a bad man, the advisers of his son, who brought in the Protestant strain into the church, were not better, and I am not disposed to estimate Elizabeth as one of the world's saints either.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

But if the cathedrals really are only sustainable as museums (though Westminster Cathedral (RC) and St Giles Edinburgh (Church of Scotland) both seem to manage as freely-accessible churches), then it would be better if they were museums, instead of pretending to be the house of God.

Yes, absolutely. I'd love to see St. Paul's deconsecrated and turned over to the National Trust or similar; it makes a rather poor worship space anyway. (Just in case any of your commenters don't know, btw, you can get in for free quite easily if you are attending a service. You also used to be able to get into St. Dunstan's chapel for private prayer, but that wasn't the case last time I went.)

[tree_and_leaf]

Mm, yes, I should have made the point about the services clear; but while that's better than nothing, they shouldn't be excluding the possiblity of private prayer.

It would be a shame to lose such a historic site of worship, but I'm almost inclined to say that anything is better than the current situation; I'd almost rather that the Luftwaffe had managed to demolish it than have the situation we have now (though I'm sure they'd have rebuilt it, probably with added and unfortunate use of concrete, so that's not a solution, either...)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

If the Luftwaffe had demolished it, they would have commissioned Sir Basil Spence for a new modernist one, and quite right too. If you believe that your church has any of the attributes of a real church, why aren't you willing to treat it as one?

[tree_and_leaf]

If the Luftwaffe had demolished it, they would have commissioned Sir Basil Spence for a new modernist one, and quite right too.

That was a not-entirely-seriously-meant comment on my dislike of the architecture of the post-war period rather than anything else, but I am willing to admit that it was flippant and arguably in poor taste.

[thealmondtree.livejournal.com]

Ely Cathedral is one of the ones that charges although it's free for all services, on Sundays and for various people (so if you live in Ely or worship at any church in the diocese you can get a free pass). They say it costs approximately £1 million to run the cathedral for a year. Apparently before they started charging the average visitor donation was 34p. I couldn't find it on the website just now but I'm sure I remember being told that their visitor numbers have actually gone up since they introduced the charge.

I still find it slightly disturbing that they need to charge. And that's despite the fact that I actually work for them!

[tree_and_leaf]

Did they at least try a guilt-tripping sign along the lines of 'This cathedral costs £1m a year to run; if every visitor gave (whatever)' first?

I think it's very odd that the visitor figures went up, although I suppose it might be tour parties. There's a certain type of tourist that thinks an 'attraction' that costs is automatically better than one that's free, I suspect.

... but, yeah. I know it's difficult (and I also think that the government should be more forthcoming with funds for historic buildings belonging to charities, at least if they intend to make the unfortunate owners' lives difficult by listing them!), but it's disturbing, to say the least.