Should cathedrals be used as playgrounds?
Some other unusual use of a cathedral—some other slew of 'Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells' letters to the printing. That, at least, is how it ofttimes feels. The latest episode of this is the conversion of the nave of Rochester Cathedral to be used as a crazy golf form, with each hole featuring a bridge to be crossed, for the duration of the summer. This follows other similar adaptations, including artist Luke Jerram's Moon installation doing the rounds of a series of cathedrals and larger church buildings, and controversy surrounding Derby Cathedral showing films about paganism featuring full-frontal nudity. Norwich Cathedral planned to install a helter skelter (though I don't know whether that ever really happened), and Gloucester Cathedral turned itself into an indoor skate park in 2016, and appeared to avoid the negative comments. And in a similar venture, Blackburn Cathedral produced and sold its ain brand of gin to raise funds. Information technology does seem that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in our cathedrals!
Such controversies inevitable give rising to awful headline puns, and this 1 is no exception. 'Let us putt' is the weak offering from the Times; the Daily Mail beats that with 'Holy in I'; whilst the Sun offers a 'Fairway to Heaven'. My personal favourite is the suggestion that the cathedral is now moving in the 'par of the Holy Spirit'. But the objections were expressed more directly:
The thought has been met with horror from parishioners and clergy – including some who were ordained there – who say the Church of England is dumbing down and the course is an 'embarrassing abattoir' and 'lamentable and painful.'
'Rochester Cathedral was founded in Advertisement 604. Information technology survived the Norman Conquest, 2 fires in the 12th century, and several rounds of pillaging. St. William of Perth is buried there. And now*'
'What an embarrassing shambles.'
'Wonder what the shades of the holy Benedictines who built these places think.'
'Rochester cathedral'due south idea of mission. Then devoid of theology they have forgotten 'This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven'. Shame on you lot.'
Is there any merit in these criticisms, or are they just the usual moaners and nay-sayers? (In our new political climate, nosotros cannot tolerate negative attitudes…!)
The theologically most substantial criticism comes from those who run across the cathedral as a holy building which somehow distinctively encloses the presence of God. There is some irony that the quotation 'This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of sky' is taken from the story of Jacob'south vision of a ladder to sky in Genesis 28:ten-19—which took placeaway from whatever sacred building! Simply it has long been associated with a theology of church buildings, then much and so that, for case, the forepart of Bath Abbey is busy with 2 carved ladders on which angels ascend and descend on the exterior of the W end.
Dr Michael Lakey, formerly tutor at Ripon College, Cuddesdon, outside Oxford, expresses this understanding of sacred space:
A sanctuary, and the liturgy enacted in it, is an idealised representation of universal and archetypical relationships between God and the cosmos equally it ought to be (think of the manner that the biblical temple represented the Hebrew cosmos with its metal sea and its creation-themed decor). In the Sibylline Oracles, there is a text about the eschatological temple which describes it every bit vast plenty to serve the entire creation (there are like ideas at play in ane Enoch and in the final affiliate of Revelation). In that sense, I think the Church as Temple is always ideally more than or less representative of God and the Globe in idealised relationship.
This understanding was conspicuously an important part of Jewish understandings of the temple building, which is why the destruction of the first temple at the end of two Kings, and the devastation of the second temple past the Romans in 70 AD were both such traumatic events for both the Jews sense of identityand their theological agreement of God and worship.
The problem with applying this temple language to contemporary (including historical) church buildings is that the New Testament consistently transfers the language of sacred space to Jesus and his followers—equally Michael Lakey goes on to betoken out. In John two, Jesus refers to his ain body equally a temple. In keeping with his theology of disciples as the trunk of Christ, Paul extends the temple linguistic communication to the Christians in Corinth both equally individuals and collectively in 1 Cor three–5. And the climactic department of Romans 12, in which we are exhorted to 'offer your bodies every bit living sacrifices' is cultic and sanctuary linguistic communication. For this reason, Protestant churches have been very reluctant to re-appropriate this kind of temple language for buildings.
(Information technology could be argued that Paul was leading a long and mobile movement, and so doesn't answer the question of what Christianity, one time settled, might think near its buildings. In fact Judaism, both in Judea and in the Diaspora, offered an answered, as synagogues became increasingly like replicas of the temple in the commencement century, with the far end holding the Torah scrolls functioning as a sanctuary. So the local-meeting-place-as-temple option was available to Paul.)
This might then mean, at least in principle, that we can be fairly flexible in our use of our buildings. This is the reason why churches local to me have used their buildings to host picture show nights (though with the titles carefully called) or to screen showings of, for instance, significant football matches. (We even watched Earth Cup matches at Synod last twelvemonth!) Information technology is reasonably well documented that the distinctive feel of celebrated church building buildings can be off-putting for people non used to church building culture, so many of the new Anglican Church plants are using not-traditional buildings, as are many of the 'new churches'; Trent Vineyard, local to me, meets on an industrial estate in a re-purposed factory warehouse, and in a neat reversal of use, a church is being planted using central Strategic Development Funding in a one-time nightclub in Bradford.
This kind of connexion and span building (pun intended!) is clearly in some of the thinking backside the Rochester projection.
The Revd. Rachel Phillips, Canon for Mission and Growth at Rochester Cathedral, said: 'For over i,400 years, Rochester Cathedral has been a centre of learning for the community. By temporarily installing an educational adventure golf course we aim to continue that mission, giving people the opportunity to learn while they take part in a fun activity, in what for many might exist a previously unvisited building.'
The Revd. Canon Matthew Rushton, Canon Precentor, at Rochester Cathedral said: 'The nave of a cathedral has e'er been a public space, where the sacred and the secular see. The gamble golf at Rochester Cathedral is primarily a articulation education project with the Rochester Bridge Trust to get young people, with their families, engaged with engineering and span building – and it's fun!
'Worship in the Cathedral is unaffected. We proceed to have at least 3 services a 24-hour interval and people can come in to light a candle, to pray or be quiet in areas of the Cathedral other than the Nave.'
But this approach raises another series of questions. Matthew Rushton's comments assume an answer to the question 'To whom does this space belong?' or perhaps 'Who is it for?' A well-worn Protestant answer is that church building buildings are not the house of God, but the business firm of the people of God, a identify set aside for the purpose of the people of God meeting for worship, for the building of relationships, and a sacred space where the proficient news of Jesus may be encountered by those who visit. I asked someone involved in hosting the Moon fine art installation whether there would be any accompanying reflection helping those who visit to connect what they were seeing with Christian organized religion. The reply came back: 'No: the terms of the installation were that it had to be costless-continuing from any other comment.' I call back I plant that problematic. Rochester are not succumbing to that; Rachel Phillips comments:
We hope that when people come in, they will know that they're welcome and they volition accept an enjoyable feel. So while people are here, having fun and playing crazy golf, they will accept the opportunity to reflect on that wider theme of building bridges that they might find that they would similar to pray, light a candle. Maybe talk to somebody. Nosotros hope that we'll reach more people with the message the good news that Christians have to bring that Jesus came to bring peace.
So it will be interesting to see whether there is any evidence from the cathedrals that these public events practise in fact lead to an increase in attendance at services of worship, and people coming to faith in Jesus.
The question of to whom these spaces belong is largely answered past the question of consecration. Different other denominations, considering the Church of England is established past law, consecration of Anglican buildings furnishings a change in their legal condition, and that in plow puts limits on what uses they can be put to.
When property has been consecrated information technology is gear up autonomously solely for sacred purposes for all fourth dimension (merely meet below). This is effected by the Bishop signing the sentence of consecration. In the example of aboriginal parish churches, consecration is presumed. Information technology is only when consecrated that a edifice becomes in the optics of the law a church.
Sure uses are therefore ruled out, including (as recently demonstrated) the possibility of an Anglican buildings being used, fifty-fifty temporarily, for the worship of another faith. In the by, the question of consecration has been key in legal disputes; in 1863, a vicar pulled out the pew which was the habitual seat of the owner of the local Estate House, and he responded past arguing that the vicar had no right to do so, since the edifice had mostly been demolished and rebuilt and therefore no longer counted every bit consecrated! Nowadays, this idea of consecrated points u.s.a. more than helpful to the theological and pastoral sense, that these buildings are, in some sense, set apart not for ane group of people or some other, only for God.
Only, information technology might be answered, if church buildings are for God, and God is lord of all, surely all of life should find its place at that place? There is some evidence that medieval church buildings did function every bit customs centres, and the lack of pews in many of them (either because of the utilise of chairs, or more probable because people stood all through the service of worship) enabled that to happen easily; for many older buildings, the add-on of pews was a Victorian innovation.
That then leads us to a sense ofperception of whether the utilize of a church building space is advisable and is honouring to God. Watching films might not be offensive or inappropriate in itself; simply certain films might be. Selling appurtenances, in the grade of a traditional jumble sale, might be felt acceptable, only holding a high-end manner show offering expensive designer labels attached to exotic animals skins could exist beyond the pale.
My friend Toby Artis commented on Facebook:
I would say that, yep this is sacred space. Not because the stones are extra-ordinary, but because what takes place, and has taken place over the last 1400 years has been extra-ordinary. That is to say, the people of God have worshipped hither. They have heard and responded to the discussion and celebrated the sacraments, through which Jesus has been fully present. Thus, information technology has and I would promise proceed to be a sacred infinite, consecrated for people to worship and encounter the risen Lord. When you stick a golf class in there.. personally, I don't call back that's the impression you would go.
Nosotros want to build bridges—only nosotros want to build bridges betwixt the mundane life and the sacred, which might suggest that church building buildings should, in some sense, remain distinct. Cathedrals, which accept a trans-local significance, might need to carry this peculiarly advisedly.
Some people, especially those who look from a altitude, might well see this every bit something of a stunt, or that is smacks of agony of the church building to make itself relevant to ordinary life. And at that place is a take chances that such negative perceptions might impact the partnership with the collaborator, in this case Rochester Bridge Trust and HM Risk Golf.
So for me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating—or in this instance the proof of the putting is in the holing out. Do these 'social' adventures have an bear upon on relationships and, ultimately, attendance? And are they worth the (sometimes slight, sometimes greater) offence that might be caused, both within and outside the church? Only time will tell.
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media, possibly using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would you considerdonating £1.20 a month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance footing. If you lot have valued this post, you lot can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful fence, can add together real value. Seek kickoff to understand, then to be understood. Brand the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view contend equally a conflict to win; address the statement rather than tackling the person.
johnstonthervicarl.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/should-cathedrals-be-used-as-playgrounds/
Belum ada Komentar untuk "Should cathedrals be used as playgrounds?"
Posting Komentar