That argument about statues goes on. The arrival of a statue celebrating the early feminist Mary Wollstonecraft is the latest in a string of examples that have kept the issue alive. Memorialising Thomas Picton is another. Attention to monuments in Westminster Abbey and St Paul’s Cathedral has ensured that we continue to ask who should be so honoured – and who should suffer the indignity of relegation.
Whether in national shrines, country market towns or college niches statues are conspicuous reminders. Statues make us think about whether continuing public display is in order. The fact that £143,000 was raised for the latest statue also makes us think about who owns these memorials. Who decides which statues are worthwhile and which statues disfigure our society? Statues serve as symbols. Ownership concerns us all.
And so does ownership of other kinds. Ownership of land is one such issue. Although it is a dominant issue in human affairs, it may lurk unnoticed for decades. It may persist for centuries. The Bible speaks of a promised land. Colombia’s present problems are closely connected to land ownership. So is logging in Amazonia. Newly independent countries inherit assumptions and disputes from their former colonial masters. The spread of human beings on the planet guarantees that ownership will continually engage people’s minds. In one form or another it will generate sentimental or aggressive responses. It tests human resourcefulness in a way that little else does.
Equally troubling is the ownership of institutions. The Church of England is a lightning conductor in this matter since it equates as nowhere else in the Anglican Communion the people of the nation with the Church. Of course, that grand theory has always been subject to incremental erosion but to belong to the C of E is a recognition of the right of the English people to a share in the ownership of the Church. The Established Church often makes it clear that it has a duty to serve not just active worshippers but the population at large. The people who go to church and those who lead the Church cannot regard themselves as having unqualified ownership of the C of E. The populace at large have a share in that ownership, though they may be unaware of it.
We must be careful when we explicitly or tacitly assume that the Church or even Christianity is something that we (whoever that ‘we’ may be) own and can re-shape or re-define as we decide. Neither the Church nor Christianity is at the mercy of one generation or one tribal or power group. Thankfully the grace of God overtops our scheming.
If you have a comment on this post please send an email to Revd John King at johnc.king@talktalk.net Edited extracts may be published. To forward this to a friend click on the chain icon below.