The major argument of the Church of England in attempting to oust the Occupy London Stock Exchange movement's camp from its sourrounds is that St Paul's is not a banking or a government institution but that it is a sacred place and is therefore an unsuitable place for holding such a demonstration. Could the Occupy campsite be considered as sacred too?
I went overseas for the first time just before Christmas and being in London for a couple of weeks visiting St Paul's and the Occupiers was on the top of my to do list. I'm not much of a tourist, ever since participating in a pilgrimage to Uluru where it was explained that a tourist passes through the land but a pilgrim let's the land pass through them I've always been more interested in getting a feeling for a place than just getting photo's of it. In a sense visiting St Paul's was very much a pilgrimage for me being that I care deeply about social activism and being that I consider myself part of the fellowship of those that follow Jesus. Here was a place where those two interests of mine came together, somewhat in harmony and somewhat in conflict.
I say in harmony because they still exist side by side, the Occupy movement which began there in October is still there which is more than can be said for the so called tolerant nature of Australia in regards to what happened in Melbourne and Sydney. But that harmony may be over in London as the High Court has just handed down an eviction notice pending appeal and therein lies the conflict.
Two high profile members of St Paul's stood down last year. Rev Giles Fraser and Chaplain Fraser Dyer both felt compelled to resign from their posts because other members were heading towards forcibly removing the occupiers. Good on them for standing up for what they believe in, but what does that tell us about those that remain? What do they believe is a reasonable course of action? If the appeal fails and the Occupiers don't leave then the City of London Corporation that St Paul's are in bed with in this will use force to remove them.
So what of my personal experience of the place?
The sun was going down, it was cold and we were a bit lost when searching for the site while walking some eerily empty streets with guards watching over side streets and buildings.
Only after reading this article did I get a sense of the sinister nature of these streets and how guilty on a much wider scale is the City of London Corporation for occupying public spaces:
Then we could see the unmistakable dome looming between shiny office buildings and quickened our pace toward it. The eerily dead streets opened out into something alive, the grand edifice that is St Paul's and the campground at its feet. Not knowing if I was even allowed to enter St Paul's I explored the Occupy campsite and came upon what seemed to be the hub which was a library in a tent. This library was utilised by the Occupiers so that they could read up on activism, oppression, economy, theology, philosophy etc. A place that gives birth to ideas and to discussion and sharing and learning.
Walking past tents I spyed people sitting up in their sleeping bags and reading by candlelight. Spoke to a friendly guy who was handing out leaflets promoting an event that would be calling for the end to Guantanamo Bay and read the signs that had been put up on tents and trees. We walked all the way around the Church and it's fenced off grounds and then when we saw other people going inside we decided to venture into St Paul's.
Just in time for Evensong, taking our seats we listened to the choir and took in the majestic interior. An interior that I thought I might leave a sour taste due to a contradiction of the decandance inside and the poverty outside but that is not how I felt. I felt humbled by the place. I felt like I could stop, rest, meditate. I found myself being curious as to how different people find different ways to worship and express their faith and I was thankful that for some of them, building this living cathedral was it. It was undoubtedly a sacred place but as I exited out to where the occupiers were, I felt that their place was sacred too.
Sacredness is usually reserved for the religious but I like others disagree, I think we can find sacredness in a quest or in collectivity or counter-culture, or truth, beauty, in something that moves you to feeling that this is important to the story of humanity or that there is more to the story. Sacredness connects us to something special and bigger than ourselves.
Occupy has provided a place for those that believe that there is something wrong with the world. The Church also says there is something wrong with the world hence Jesus came to save it. Occupy has provided a place for many homeless, an issue that the Church is charged with caring about. The Occupiers are about to be moved on and the Church for a time now is in danger of becoming irrelevant.
I think wow when I imagine what it would be like if the Church opened up their grounds to the movement and joined in the demonstration against greed. I get that they see themselves as a sacred place of worship and seperate from meddling in national affairs but are they missing an opportunity? If the church can be vocal against homosexuality which Jesus never mentioned then surely they can be vocal against greed and abuse of power which Jesus had much to say about including Luke 12:15 “Be on your guard against all types of greed.”
Jesus also said in Mark 2:23-28 that the Sabbath was designed to serve humanity and not the other way around and that therefore if a structure is not serving the people then create one that does. The structure as it is does not serve the people and that is why the Occupiers are there, to occupy and bear witness to obscene corporate greed and abuse of power. To say that people have the right to demonstration and free assembly but that they've had their say and they should move on now in this case is saying we haven't heard you. To remove them is an attack on all they stand for which is to occupy until the world wakes up.
I would probably be considered to be living below the poverty line here in Australia but according to this online survey-
-I am still in the top 7.5% wealthiest people in the world. The 1% have too much but it is not me that needs a share of what they have, its the bottom 80-90% that do and as long as they are included and are a focus of being served by this movement, the movement will be considered sacred by me and I will stand by them, where do you stand?
Well written Kris.
ReplyDelete