St Paul’s – for the 1% or the 99%?

I’m not an unalloyed fan of the man who gave his name to St Paul’s Cathedral.  Saul of Tarsus was an uncomfortable and divisive figure in early Christianity.  Many of his pronouncements, which reflect his conservative rabbinical background, leave many of us equally uncomfortable today.

Paul had issues with women, gays and men with long hair.  If he’d found himself caught up in the Occupy crowd beside the great London church that bears his name he’d probably chew their ears off.

However that’s as nothing to the roasting he’d have in store for the denizens of the City; the men and women of the City of London Corporation, the trustees of St Pauls and the tens of thousands of highly paid men and women whose relentless pursuit of money strains at the leash of legality and, despite protestations to the contrary, whose employers are not permitted by law to pay heed to the constraints of morality if it curtails their profits.

Arguably Paul’s great contribution to Christian theology was his discourse of righteousness.  In framing his argument Paul pulled together many of the radical threads of Jesus teaching.

It’s best summed up in Matthew 22 36-40 “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

One of the reasons Paul readily seized on this is that it was already well established in Jewish theology.  Paul had studied under Gamaliel, the grandson on Hillel the Elder who had framed the commandment thus: “What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary” (Shabbat 31a).

But Paul developed the theme.  The aim of the righteous was to maintain a right relationship with God and with one’s fellow people.  Anything that acted as an obstacle to this relationship was an obstacle to salvation.

So though he’s often misquoted as saying that ‘money is the root of all evil’ what Paul actually says is that ‘the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.’  When the love of money supersedes the love of one’s fellow man it is morally and spiritually corrupting because that love of money prevents one from doing the right thing.

It’s in this light that we should read the parable of the Good Samaritan or the remark about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

And so back to St. Paul’s in London.  It has ‘sadly’ announced that it will be closing due to health and safety concerns arising from the #OccupyLSX protest.  It smacks of moral blackmail.

The Dean of St Paul’s, Graeme Knowles, explained that it was “simply not possible to fulfil our day to day obligations to worshippers, visitors and pilgrims in current circumstances”.  The implicit message is clear – these dreadful protesters are preventing good people from worshipping.

Aside from the fact that the credibility of this assertion is in doubt, as the Rt. Revd. Knowles would be the first to point out, God is everywhere, not least in the dozens of underused churches that dot the city of London, within a few hundred yards of St Pauls.  Indeed given how few people actually live in the Square Mile, the City of London probably has more churches per head of population than anywhere else on earth.

The Rt. Revd. Knowles should remember that St Paul’s is not just a place of worship, it is a symbol.  It was a symbol of London’s resilience and defiance during the Blitz.  He and his fellow Canons need to decide whether during the worst economic crisis in 80 years it’s a symbol of the 99% or of the 1%, of the poor, the needy and the dispossessed or of the city’s rich men and women stuck trying to squeeze through their own eyes of needles.

You can see the cathedral’s dilemma.  As its website reads ‘We are extremely proud of the close partnerships we have forged and continue to nurture with our corporate neighbours.’  Those corporate neighbours give millions of pounds a year to the cathedral and they want the protestors to go.

The City of London Corporation has called on the protesters to leave.  Well there’s a surprise – it’s the corporate interests that the CLC represents, and that enjoy such close links with St Paul’s, that the protesters are there to protest about.  It’s like Margaret Thatcher telling the striking miners ‘move along now, you’ve had your fun’.  Preposterous.

In truth it shouldn’t be a difficult choice.  All the Canons need to do is to listen to their hearts and consider the words of the man whose name their cathedral bears, and then they’d surely have no trouble in making the right – indeed the righteous decision.


5 Responses to “St Paul’s – for the 1% or the 99%?”

  1. […] post first appeared on Jonathan’s blog (function() {var s = document.createElement(‘SCRIPT’), s1 = […]

  2. Christoclifford Says:

    Oh thank you, thank you for this.

  3. Robert Good Says:

    I have visited St Paul’s twice since the demonstration started.

    I was amazed at the cleanliness, more so than at normal times, with young men and women going round with bin liners picking up every scrap of rubbish that has not made it to the rubbish collection station.

    So far as the fire hazard is concerned Mr Knowles clearly has never camped in his life, certainly not with camping gaz. And he has obviously never seen a camp site in his life, let alone a music festival.

    Perhaps he should be asking the millions of camping sites around the world to close. Also all the hot food stalls in markets everywhere.

    He obviously believes the stone of St Paul’s is dangerously inflammable.

    So far as the public health aspects are concerned, he says these “speak for themselves”. That is because he is telling a great big porkie. It is cleaner than any market area you care to name. Perhaps he should visit Whitechapel market just down the road.

    He represents the “Conservative Party on its knees” wing of the church and is happy to engage in the politics of deceit – like some others we could name.

    He also suggested the closure was because the law required it. That was totally untrue. No authority has asked him to close the Cathedral because of health and safety concerns,

    He is hoping to turn public opinion against the demonstrators. Ask him to present the written advice he has received to the effect the public should not be admitted to the Cathedral. He knows there is no such thing.

    Finally any suggestion that the way in might be blocked by demonstrators. On a busy day the steps are covered with visitors – often eating their lunch. The apparent visitors I saw going round the tents seemed delighted, with video cameras and snappers hard at work. They seemed happy as I was that the demonstrators – with numbers growing by the day – represent the 99%.

  4. “The Dean of St Paul’s, Graeme Knowles, explained that it was “simply not possible to fulfil our day to day obligations to worshippers, visitors and pilgrims in current circumstances”. The implicit message is clear – these dreadful protesters are preventing good people from worshipping.”
    The implicit message is, rather, that it’s none of our business who’s who! He is welcome who treats church like different from politics. this is derationalised christianity! secular state running. what they expect us, muslim Iranians, to bear upon our religious gov!

    • headstrongclub Says:

      I disagree. The move to declare that the church was unable to operate on health and safety grounds (the Dean spoke about a fire hazard), despite advice from the fire brigade that this was not the case, simply looks like an attempt to make the protesters ‘the bad guys.’ It’s not a neutral, ‘don’t bring us into politics’ response. The cathedral authorities could simply do nothing other than abide by the letter of the law and let the secular authorities get on with it, thus stepping aside from the situaltion. Instead they took a position, not supported by the facts, that seemed calculated to discredit the Occupy movement. My point is that the close ties between St Paul’s and The City and the funds the cathedral receives from the latter gives additional context to Graeme Knowles’s response and makes it look like collusion between the city and the Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: