The unplanned challenge of the tents

St Paul was a tent maker.  The irony of the cathedral in London named after him being forced host to a tented protest camp has been pointed out by several people.  The precise focus of Occupy London's protest is not at all clear - from those interviewed it seems to range from the end of capitalism as a financial system (probably an unrealistic aim for one protest) to anger at casino banking and out of touch bonuses.  Their website says they want a financial system based on justice for all.  When many are struggling with rising fuel prices for home and transport, the average shopping basket costing more each year, 50% pay rises for the super rich seem to be taking the mick.

The protesters have a point - well I can have sympathy with something of what they are trying to draw attention to.  Whether occupying St Paul's churchyard for the long term is realistic, I'm not convinced.  I can see the safety issues for the cathedral - the camp presents a security risk at a time when manhole covers are sealed for some events.  Other safety concerns can be overcome with good will.  So all in all I can't see them being allowed to stay long term.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of all of this the blogging world is pretty clear that St Paul's has lost the media battle.  They should have come out straight away and said 'it's a fundamental right to protest and democracy requires debate, but you can't stay because this camp is a security risk for us'.  Up front and transparent.  The other safety issues were a matter for negotiation.  The result of their vague health and safety concerns was that they have been portrayed as being more concerned for the money they are losing - though cathedrals can't afford to lose any money given the tightness of their funding so the loss of £16,000 a day is a real concern.  They have also appeared to be frightened of upsetting the big money in case it goes away.  That said the Stock Exchange have said they have no problem with a protest, it's the tents they object to.

One of the problems is with how the church is perceived.  It is seen as an institution which exists because it exists rather than as a movement.  Movements have a clear purpose and without that purpose they lose their way, even get parked.  The unintended, even on the side challenge from the St Paul's camp is for the church to rediscover it's movement credentials.

It does this every time it tells the story of its faith and finds imaginative ways to inspire faith, making it infectious.  It does it every time it cries out for justice and reminds the rest of society of its moral heart.  It does this when it provides sacred space for prayer and special moments to be marked.  It does it when it provides a sanctuary amidst the clamour for breathing and reflection.  It does it when it provides or supports social provision - soup kitchens, homeless and asylum projects, lunch clubs and community larders.

As a movement the church has a vibrant future, because it is as a movement that it has travelled down the centuries.  Tents are for people on the move and a question we have to face with our fabulous cathedrals and parish churches made of stone is how much they help us remember this faith on the move and when they block it.  As a vicar with a Grade I listed building in my care, this is a challenge I live with daily.  Sometimes our buildings are part of the problem.

May be we need a festival of the tents in the church's year to counter this.  Tents feature quite a bit in the Old Testament.  Moses went into the tent of meeting to converse with God.  The Ark of the Covenant was sheltered in a tent before the Temple was built and because they were people on the move, it travelled from place to place.  The first story of Solomon wanting to build a Temple for the Lord was met with God scratching his head.  What did he want a house for, he had a tent.  Given that no place could contain him and he moved where he willed, a tent seemed to fit him better.  Later on God seems to like his new house, but that may be more it's fans wanting praise for their efforts and looking to bolster stability.  A house of stone is harder to knock out of the way and ignore - so it has it's benefits.  Take St Paul's out of London and the skyline would be impoverished and iconography changed.

These camping protesters provide a symbolic challenge to the church of the tent maker.  They remind those of us who live in religious houses of stone that we are fundamentally a movement not an institution.  Without the movement there is no point to the stones.