Contesting memorials James Crockford

Contesting memorials

James Crockford, Dean of Chapel

How we remember the past is a topic that with renewed attention now faces churches, civic spaces, and public institutions. Many memorials, monuments, statues, road names, and building titles are facing the scrutiny of an awakened awareness of their presence and the histories they may signify, and a questioning of what values and virtues may be promoted by their visibility and publicity. This consideration concerns the shape of the common narrative in which we seek together to live, and how our awakened awareness of the past may at times challenge our public life, including the spaces and places that we seek to share together and call our common

home.

Public memorialisations have come into particular view within such debates. ‘Contested memorials ’ , as we have now learned to call them, are those where, to quote Historic England’ s statements on the matter, ‘the associated stories or meanings have become challenged’ , memorials which effect a representation of history in the public realm which ‘ can cause offence ’ or which act as ‘ symbols of injustice ’ . Such memorials signal a moral commendation of some person or attribute or event that seems, so interpreted, to be at odds with contemporary civic values, and perhaps to hinder the inclusion that public, educational or religious spaces seek to foster.

Over the past couple of years, as a College, we have been considering one specific instance of so-called ‘ contested heritage ’ : the large memorial to Tobias Rustat on the west wall of the College Chapel. Rustat (1608-94) was one of the College ’ s most significant historic benefactors and founded funds at the College for distribution to poor clergy families, including bursaries for accessing education at the College. Rustat was a close courtier of Charles II, serving as Yeoman of the Robes and Page of the Backstairs. He was also an investor, lender and ‘Assistant’ (akin, in some ways, to a Director) in the Royal African Company (RAC) over an extended period. During his involvement, RAC engaged in enslaving and transporting people across the Atlantic, of which Rustat was doubtless aware. He commissioned his memorial, displaying it in his house for several years, before it was installed in Jesus Chapel after his death. Its inscription celebrates and commends Rustat’ s financial activities and generosity. The memorial has been relocated several times within Chapel over the centuries since. The College resolved in November 2020 that the memorial should be relocated to a suitable educational exhibition space on the College site, and in time petitioned the Consistory Court of the Diocese of Ely (under which jurisdiction the Chapel’ s fabric falls). Following a three-day hearing of the Court held in the Chapel in February 2022, the College ’ s petition was rejected. In a truly remarkable development, the case received public comment during and after the judgement from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The rejection of the petition prompted a joint letter in resistance signed by over 160 clerics and church leaders, including a former Archbishop of Canterbury and leading Bishops, Deans and Archdeacons of colour.

Many of our College community and beyond have engaged with or observed the process, and it has been clear that many important and difficult issues are at stake in such considerations. How do public memorials relate to our

understanding of history? How do monuments shape the values of contemporary communities? How should we live honestly and critically with the shadow sides of our history? How should heritage concerns relate to issues of pastoral concern? What roles do sacred spaces have in providing safe sanctuary, and in recognising the realities of human failing? How can we best understand and interpret buildings of moral and spiritual significance? These questions are not only being asked within our College setting; the College ’ s deliberations about the Rustat memorial happened in parallel with the Church of England’ s developing approach to addressing the heritage concerns and pastoral implications of contested monuments, and this work will continue over the next few years.

In the area of its stewardship of historical buildings, the Church of England’ s Buildings Council and Cathedrals Fabric Commission produced their first guidance report, Contested Heritage in Cathedrals and Churches, just as the College submitted its 2021 petition. This report explored the relation of contested memorials to the pastoral and missional purposes of churches and cathedrals, highlighted key questions for consideration, and emphasised the need for local dialogue in exploring options and opportunities, and developing the right solution for a particular context, bearing in mind the needs of the community at hand. This initial work will be continued by a recently appointed Contested Heritage Committee, drawing together diverse expertise in heritage care, visitor engagement, worship curation, and racial justice. We look forward to seeing the fruits of their reflection and work over the coming year or two.

In exploring the church’ s own commitment to racial justice and inclusion, further work is also ongoing. In April 2021, the Archbishops ’ Anti-Racism Taskforce published its report From Lament to Action, examining a wide range of structural and strategic areas for work in enabling the church to be a place where all are treated and cherished

equally, and which works against the realities of racism in our own day. Contested monuments, the report commends, should be engaged ‘to use the built environment for repentance, reconciliation and as a spur for social action in the present’ . More recently, in June 2022 the first report of the Archbishops ’ Commission for Racial Justice offered comment and challenge on the Rustat case itself, and some areas to address in the Consistory Court processes. It notes the need for greater diversity among ecclesiastical judges, with training in diversity and racial justice, as well as the possibility for a Bishop to appoint suitable assessors with pastoral or theological expertise to advise such a judge on the concerns arising from a particular case. The report also recommends addressing some of the financial barriers that the average local parish church will face in bringing a case for change in their own communities and churches, and for more sensitive and compassionate formats for allowing pastoral concern and distress to be articulated and explored within the court by those who may be affected most personally. All these recommendations, in fact, would bring the Consistory Court processes more in line with standard best practice in other legal courts. Whatever one ’ s conclusion about the particular case of the Rustat memorial, these seem considerate ideas for developing and modernising a process such that it can serve contemporary communities appropriately.

It is, in a sense, no surprise that there are lessons to be learned – this was the first case of its kind, and one of the most high-profile church cases in decades. There will no doubt be other cases, quieter cases, that help to fill out the parameters and conditions for how communities and churches make their responses to monuments, statues, or other parts of their fabric that signify historical realities that we no longer wish to celebrate. It is in this context that the College will continue to learn how to respond best to the challenges and sensitivities arising from the memorial, and how we live with and engage our histories as a diverse, inclusive community.

What was evident from the engagement of both supporters and opponents was how much this all matters. We are careful over our Chapel because it is loved and valued, because it is the heart of our College community, a place of exceptional beauty, sanctuary, creativity and care. It connects us to 800 years of our past – a past that matters deeply – from chanting nuns and medieval parishioners to Cranmer and the inheritance of the Reformation, to the spirituality of enchanted and practical design by Pugin, Morris and Burne Jones. And yet we insist that we each have a place there too, that its history is not over. Rooted in that history, we open it out that all may have space to flourish, and that the whole of human life and our shared enquiry for truth and justice have their home in Chapel. Far from being a quiet corner for religious enthusiasts, Chapel is there to welcome all, of any faith and none, for civic ceremonies, concerts, creative activities, community life, and pastoral care. This inclusive witness speaks volumes to our students –and, I hope, to all who have ever known religious spaces and communities to be anything less than inclusive, accessible, and accepting.

As we move forward as a Chapel and as a College, we continue in this work of inclusion, building a community that challenges indignity and inequality. The College ’ s work on relocating the Rustat memorial has been just a part of that. As the Master says, we own our past, but we shape our future. Whatever the particular fate of the memorial, I hope that a shared commitment to the College ’ s future where openness, welcome, diversity and equality are embedded is something that can unite all Jesuans. n