All church buildings are all symbolic - even those that people have tried to make as bare as possible still make a statement. I imagine that there are whole sub-disciplines of architecture that look into this stuff and there's no way I'm going to put myself forward as any sort of expert. But I have found a couple of very stark and unexpected symbols in cathedrals that would get an immediate reaction from many people.
Although it's now scheduled for 'deconsecration' and at least partial-demolition, in the days when you could go into Christchurch Cathedral in New Zealand, it was a bit shocking to find dozens of swastikas set into the tile-work lining the walls. But realising the impact that this symbol has on people post-WWII, there was also a very prominent and helpful sign explaining the pre-Nazi Christian history of the swastika, which was, of course, a variant of the cross.
In St Paul's Cathedral Melbourne, there's a similarly confronting display. The chancel is lined with a number of large, inverted pentagrams. Although now very commonly associated with the occult, this symbol also has a history of Christian usage (eg. commemorating the five wounds of Christ). However, in St Paul's there is no prominent sign explaining this.
I recently asked a friend of mine who works at the Cathedral about the pentagrams and he told me there was a flyer explaining them somewhere but he wasn't able to find one for me at the time. Years ago, I asked another member of the Cathedral staff and they only told me that the pentagrams were quite an attraction for gothic youth...
While I understand that these kinds of symbols have taken on new meanings since they were put in place, I do wonder if they really are too confusing for today's casual visitor. I wonder if there should be a conversation about removing them. Something of the building's originality would be lost, but it's always changing anyway and it would seem worth it in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
Symbols are meant to point us back to something we understand (as opposed to 'signs' which tell us something new). They're meant to be memory-joggers. But when the intended meaning of the symbol isn't known and newer, very different, meanings are overlaid onto the symbol, their presence can be confusing at best and disturbing or even damaging at worst.
Maybe we should replace the St Paul's pentagrams with Latin crosses? While many people still need to learn exactly what the cross represents, it's at least universally recognised as the symbol of the Christian faith - something that the pentagram certainly isn't. Just a thought.
PS. Although it's not a cathedral, St Peter's Eastern Hill, a liberal church in Melbourne's inner city, also has a very confronting symbol. Its logo is an inverted cross! For those who know, this is meant to commemorate St Peter who was supposed to have been crucified upside down. But again, for those who don't know... !
I always loved the symbol of the inverted cross, and the story behind it.
ReplyDeleteAre we further alienating ourselves the more we push away from unimportant things? I've had faithful friends telling me recently that we should be up in arms about things like Macca's competitions which may be promoting gambling. I think there are bigger fish to fry, personally.
I don't feel that a pentagram will invoke Satan's presence- quite the opposite. Showing that we're not a bunch of fusty, fearful fogeys might be just what we need.
To quote a wise puppet: "Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering."
:)
The Christian church has appropriated pagan symbols and celebrations and subverted them for many centuries. Why should we reverse that process?
ReplyDeleteI think it's important to hold onto those symbols and return them to holy use.
The reverse swastika is also used by Buddhists.