Sunday, October 21, 2012

The cathedral as a broad church (Opinion)


The interior of Manchester cathedralOne of the commonest arguments against Christianity having a position of prominence in national public life is that it is a religion, and therefore necessarily exclusive.

Coming from a particular, confessional position, Christianity is bound to alienate those who do not share its creeds.

And if moments of national life are to be truly national, they need to be as inclusive as possible, points at which there cannot be first and second class citizens, particularly if that division is made according to religious allegiance.

There is merit to this argument. 

Members of religious minorities, including Christian minorities, were for a long time effectively second class citizens in Britain. 

Toleration of a sort may have been official policy from 1689, but it wasn't particularly meaningful at least until the Catholic Relief Act and the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts 140 years later. 

Even then it took decades for legal toleration to filter down into cultural acceptance. Still today, some historically Christian countries, especially those in eastern Europe that are characterised by a deep, historic loyalty to (a particular branch of) orthodoxy have similar problems with cultural exclusion.

That recognised, just because public space that is coloured by confessional identity can alienate, it doesn't follow that we have a workable alternative. 

The one most commonly proposed – that public life should be hosted or officiated by neutral bodies – is fraught with problems. Public neutrality is an illusion. When attempted, it has usually involved the suppression of the various commitments that jostle in civil society, while someone else speaks on behalf of the alleged general will.

Moreover, it does not follow that a confessional space is necessarily an exclusive one. Put another way, it is possible to be religious and socially comprehensive. Spiritual Capital, a new study examining the present and future of Church of England cathedrals, shows that these institutions are particularly good at being just that.

Nearly half of people in the project's national research element, conducted by ComRes, agreed that "cathedrals reach out to the general public, not just those who are part of the Church of England" (as against 12% who disagreed). 

More than half (53%) agreed that "cathedrals are welcoming to people of all faiths and those who have no faith" (compared with 8% who disagreed). Conversely, just 15% agree that "cathedrals are just for people of Christian faith and not for people of other faiths or no faith", compared with 50% who disagreed. People spoke of Church of England cathedrals as "our cathedral", irrespective of who they were, and they meant it.

Yet, at the same time, there was no doubt that cathedrals were understood as Christian institutions. 

In a parallel local survey of 2,000 people around six case study cathedrals, the vast majority recognised that the cathedral was "a beacon of Christian faith" (including 67% of non-religious people), and even more understood that it was "the 'seat' (headquarters) of the bishop/mother church of the diocese" (including 78% of non-religious people). 

It is perfectly possible, it appears, to be both confessional in your identity, and inclusive in your operations.

Cathedrals are especially good at this because they serve as resources of what sociologists call "bridging social capital". 

They are places where people from different and disparate bodies within society can meet and build the relationships on which they draw to achieve shared goals. 

In a society marked by what Charles Taylor has called "deep diversity", in which ever more ethnic, religious, cultural, and ideological groups share the same physical and social infrastructure without ever meeting one another, this ability to meet and bond across boundaries is increasingly important.

Cathedrals, of course, rarely talk about "bridging" (or any other kind of) "social capital". 

They have their own language and logic, of generosity and grace, hospitality and holiness, worship, love and sacrifice, words and ideas that are formed by Christianity and not social policy.

That, however, is precisely the point. 

Cathedrals' inner, confessional logic does not alienate. Deans and chapters do not see it is as necessary to parade the reasons behind their corporate life (which does not mean to say they can't do so when it is appropriate). 

They just get on with their pattern of welcome, worship and work, which is deeply confessional but at the same time accessible even to those who do not share their convictions.

Cathedrals are living proof that the common refrain of our public discourse today – that for a location or institution to serve well as a public venue in a plural society it needs somehow to be "neutral" – is wrong. 

The challenge is not to abolish difference in the quest for total inclusiveness, but to encourage those organisations within civil society, whether religious or not, which reach across boundaries and engage with people who are different to them.