"Murder in the Cathedral" is the name of a play based on the same incident that inspired the movie "Becket."
In a very succinct nutshell:
Thomas Becket was the childhood friend of the future king of England, Henry II. Under Henry, Becket was appointed as chancellor. He later became the Archbishop of Canterbury. This set up a very contentious relationship between the two former friends, as Henry felt Becket should accede to the dictates of the crown, even when it came to matters of the church. One issue was that Henry believed that the government, and not the church, should punish members of the clergy for crimes. Becket disagreed. Although the details are murky, an exasperated Henry is said to have muttered, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Or words to that effect. Opinions differ as to whether or not Henry ordered the execution or if someone in his retinue overheard him and took matters into his own hands. But the upshot is that Becket was murdered in Canterbury Cathedral while at prayer. He was later canonized as a saint. For years, people regularly made pilgrimages to Canterbury to make their supplications for healing.
Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" is a collection of stories told by people on a pilgrimage to Canterbury. The incident mentioned above is a prime example of the conflict between church and state. The Becket Fund takes its name from St. Thomas. Becket is revered both by Catholics and Anglicans, and he is buried at the Cathedral. The Cathedral has been designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO.
Which leads us to this question: who in the hell thought that Canterbury Cathedral would be a good spot for a rave? What dim-witted, secular-minded nincompoop thought this would be an excellent venue for what people are calling "The Rave in the Nave," complete with a cash bar? Even the Church of England could not be so theologically bankrupt and culturally obtuse that it could green-light such an irreverent idea. Could it?
Oh, yes, it could.
Fantastic atmosphere at last night’s Silent Disco! 🎧💃🕺 Thanks to everyone who joined us.
— Canterbury Cathedral (@CburyCathedral) February 9, 2024
We’re looking forward to welcoming everyone this evening!
We'll be sharing more pictures later 📷 pic.twitter.com/zowUn1UErX
That was the scene at Canterbury Cathedral on February 9th. Why? Writing at Anglican Ink back in December, Gavin Ashenden explained the impetus for the then-upcoming events.
But today the Cathedral needs money. The new Dean, the Very Revd Dr David Monteith, says he wants to reach out to younger people as well as finding ways of raising the “large sums” the Cathedral requires to survive. He has scratched his head and has decided that the stones under his feet might be put to a different use than worship and pilgrimage.
He is opting instead for dancing, accompanied by booze and rave music. He wants to draw “the young” in to the Cathedral; them and their money. The Dean knows what he wants to do with their money, but he’s not so clear about what he wants them to get out of their entrance into the sacred space.
The dean wanted funds and wanted to appeal to young people. So naturally, he came up with the idea of turning a place of solemn reverence into a hotspot for boozing, dancing, dry-humping, and hookups. Seems legit.
ITV pointed out that 1,600 people signed a petition opposing the events, adding:
Petition organiser Cajetan Skowronski said: “It will not bring young people closer to Christ, rather it will send the message that Christ and his church, and all the truth, beauty and goodness it has to offer, are unimportant – that entertainment deserves our attention more than God, that Christians do not take their faith or their holy places seriously.”
Monteith told ITV:
Cathedrals have always been part of community life in a way much wider than their prime focus as centres of Christian worship and mission, and whether people choose to come to Canterbury Cathedral primarily as worshippers, sightseers, or attendees at our events – which include classical concerts, light and sound installations, and craft workshops – it’s always joyous to see them discover this incredible place anew and on their own terms.
Whilst dancing of all different kinds has happened in the Cathedral over the centuries - and The Bible memorably celebrates the gift of dancing with King David dancing before the Lord (2 Samuel 6) – there are many different views on the secular and the sacred.
Our 90s-themed silent disco will be appropriate to and respectful of the Cathedral – it is categorically not a ‘rave in the nave’ - but I appreciate that some will never agree that dancing and pop music have a place within cathedrals.
Rationalize much, Dean?
Whatever the excuse, many X users were not amused.
(Courtesy of Not the Bee)
This is the bar at the disco dance party at Canterbury Cathedral.
— Sidge S. Mondo ن (@Magister_Mondo) February 11, 2024
I can't stop shaking my head even as I type. Just jaw-dropping. pic.twitter.com/fwSFIQd6uv
You're embarrassed by the Bible, but you're not embarrassed by this?
— Aaron Edwards (@aaron_p_edwards) February 10, 2024
It would be better to have this church reduced to rubble than to suffer the disgrace the Anglican Church has wrought
— Harrison (@Harrison0880) February 10, 2024
Looks fun, will the next rave be held in a mosque? If not, why?
— Alexander Bramham ⛪️🦖 (@BramhamAlex) February 10, 2024
Your average youth ear-gauged pastor, reeking of Axe Body Spray, hair product, and day-old pizza, will be the first to say, "Hey fam, don't judge! Remember Jesus hung with the prostitutes, tax collectors, and sinners and hated religious people!" And then, he will launch into a sermon about the woman at the well or the woman accused of adultery. Those seem to be the only things taught in Bible colleges today. Anyone who disagrees is a PHARISEE, a word that has been used to silence anyone with a different point of view.
Yes, for the umpteenth time, Jesus met people where they were. But also, for the umpteenth time, he didn't leave them there. He may have eaten and drank with the sinners, but he did not get drunk with them or encourage them to carry on. Those who say otherwise are merely looking for ways to justify their behavior. They seek to drag Jesus down for their own comfort. Jesus may have gone to a rave, but he wouldn't have been smoking a bong or trying to get phone numbers. He would have been trying to get people to listen to him.
Chris wrote today about the "He Gets Us" Super Bowl ads. One commenter took him to task, stating in part, "If it is your opinion that beating people over the head about repentance and telling them what disgusting pigs they are will be an effective way to get them interested in a faith walk, well, more power to you, but I think emulating Jesus, through service with humility, would be more effective." We can argue about methods all we like, but since sin is frequently not only destructive to the sinner but to those around them, at what point do we confront sin? What good have we done by saying, "Jesus meets people where they are," and leaving it at that? That's spiritual novocaine, either for ourselves or for others. And it isn't doing anyone any good.
Whoever has been going around saying the Christian walk is easy needs to start handing out refunds. Service is important. Jesus and the Epistle of James make that clear. The Parable of the Talents might even be applicable. But it is not the only call on a Christian life.
With that in mind, the function of cathedrals, and for that matter, liturgies, is to take a worshipper out of the ordinary and the mundane. It is to remove them from the normal world and help them think in supernatural terms. I know not all of our readers are fond of liturgy or the things that accompany it, but the sacred spaces are designed to assist in the transformation of the soul. That transformation is not necessarily dependent on those things, but that is why they are there. Sacred spaces are not supposed to be normal. Or the scene of raves. What we say and what we do are two of the ways our faith manifests itself. They are ways of keeping us from taking faith for granted. For that matter, if we take a space dedicated to God and turn it into a nightclub, what does that say about our opinion of God?
It is also helpful to remember that the very people who see no problem with a "Rave in a Nave" would never dream of disrupting another culture's sacred space in the same way. The depredations of tourism aside, none of these people would defile the spaces of a Native American, African, Pacific Islander, or Amazonian tribe like this. Or, for that matter, a mosque.
Finally, what Western Christians hold so cheaply, Christians in persecuting countries hold very dear. Western Christians may poo-poo a rave in a cathedral or accuse someone of being too judgmental, season or edit Scripture to taste and turn up the contemporary Christian music, But in countries where persecution takes place, Christians are willing to risk being raped, beheaded, drowned, crushed, enslaved, dismembered, burned, imprisoned and shot for their faith. And those things happen.
It has been said that Jesus came to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." If we can pick and choose only the parts of faith that appeal to us or reduce faith to a sound bite, how comfortable have we become?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member