It’s been almost a year since Giles Fraser resigned from his position at St Paul’s after officials opted to have Occupy protesters removed from its steps. One year on, the cleric-turned-columnist reflects on his decision to leave the Cathedral.
Sitting on the concrete steps above the stands overlooking Cheltenham Racecourse, blustering winds carrying away his cigarette smoke, Giles Fraser is a far cry from the stereotypical clergyman. Over the last twelve months, the former Canon Chancellor of London’s landmark Cathedral has become one of the most well known and outspoken of the Church of England’s clergy. Since his resignation, he has become a regular Guardian columnist and provoked criticism and praise from religious and non-religious figures alike. He’s just delivered a talk entitled ‘The Trouble with Growth’ to an attentive audience at Greenbelt Festival – a place “where arts, justice and faith collide”. His ideas are radical, but his tone is matter-of-fact.
Reflecting on his choice to leave St Paul’s, Fraser is sure that he made the right decision. “I think I couldn’t have done anything different. I’ve played things over in my mind a number of times and I still think that I had no alternative under the conditions. So to that extent I don’t regret – and I’ve never regretted for a moment – my resignation.” Speaking to him now, it seems hardly surprising that Fraser would lend his support to the Occupy movement. He is passionate about issues of social and economic justice – a position which led him to defend the protest last year.
Fraser says that he has “a limited appreciation of capitalism” but his position now is some way from his younger Marxist days. “I’m not communist any more, and in a sense it was youthful enthusiasm… I’m not simply about getting rid of capitalism per se – I think we need a form of capitalism that works for the common good. Markets were made for human beings, not human beings to serve markets.”
Despite receiving such widespread media attention last year, there are many who would argue that the Occupy movement was, to all intents and purposes, a failure. Now that the movement is no longer visible and capitalism remains intact and relatively unchanged, does Fraser think that Occupy achieved its aims? “Well, its goals were various. And because it had this idea of horizontal responsibility, it didn’t have a clear set of objectives that it did or didn’t achieve. What it did achieve, I think, was that it raised the issue of economic justice and how our economic system works much higher on the political agenda and in terms of our national consciousness.”
The very fact that people have turned up to his talk, Fraser asserts, is testament to the impact of the Occupy movement: “This morning, 9.30 in the morning, we had two thousand people sitting out here to hear a lecture on economics. Do you think that would’ve happened two years ago? I don’t think so! Part of [Occupy’s] success is they’ve made people sit up and think about all this. And no, they haven’t supplied all the answers. But they’ve given real impetus behind the questions, and I think that’s brilliant.”
Fraser maintains that the forced removal of the protestors from outside St Paul’s was “utterly ridiculous”. “My position was: it’s absolute nonsense to kick people out, especially when kicking them out would be inevitably, particularly at the beginning, a violent thing to do on the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral, without even beginning to engage in dialogue.”
Fraser’s attitude towards the Church of England is not antagonistic; he is, after all, still a member of the clergy, working as Priest-in-Charge of a church in London’s Elephant and Castle. But neither is he afraid to appear critical of the Church or those in positions of power. There is no note of apology in his voice; Fraser is not one to make excuses for his convictions. This, it becomes apparent, is a matter of integrity for the cleric. “I think you bring to politics all your convictions. It’s one of the reasons I’m always slightly distrustful of people who talk about separating religion and politics – I understand that you might want to separate those on a formal level, but anyone who’s half religious knows you can’t separate your convictions from what you do at the ballot box. They’re deeply related.”
Despite Fraser’s belief that religion does inevitably have a part to play in politics, he says he is “increasingly convinced” about the need for separation of church and state. He believes that a too-close relationship with the state “is a way in which the church blunts its message and compromises itself on what is a very radical message.” And what is that message? It is clearly a question he has answered upon many an occasion, as the response comes without a moment of hesitation: “Good news to the poor, freedom to the captive, sight to the blind.”
As the conversation turns to party politics, it becomes clear that Fraser has little time for politicians who tote “so-called” Christian values that do not comply with this message. “In America, Christianity is part of the spin of politics, but I don’t know whether people really take it that seriously. I mean, do the Republican Party really believe in good news to the poor, freedom to the captive, sight to the blind? Can they really sign up to Mary talking about bringing down the mighty from their thrones and lifting up the lowly? No. I don’t think so. I think they focus on some of the social issues, they think being Christian is about being anti-abortion and anti-gay, which is just absurd to me.”
For statements like these, many would describe Fraser as a liberal Christian; but he rejects the label on the basis that the term is “still under-explored. I’m more of a socialist than a liberal. ‘Liberal’ in the church has a really indistinct meaning – I think it probably means you’re pro-gay or something. Well, I am pro-gay, so if people want to call me that… But I think the word ‘liberal’ needs to be understood in a more distinct way. I think it’s about individualism, and actually that is something I have much more of a problem with.
“I believe that freedom has to be balanced with a whole load of other values, like fairness. And I believe that community’s rather important, it’s not just a collection of individuals. I’m fundamentally a Christian and a church person, and sometimes that aligns itself with the left and sometimes that aligns itself with the right. That’s just how it is. Politically, I’m a socialist; but I really don’t like party-mindedness about thinking.” He has defended Russian punk band Pussy Riot’s protest against Putin’s regime, saying that they “were absolutely right to call the church on their cosy complicity with the Putin regime.” He says that he is “outraged” by the way in which the Orthodox Church has been “cosying up to Putin”.
By all accounts, Fraser does not shy away from the controversial. When I note that he is not afraid of offending people, he takes this as a matter of course. “I don’t think Christianity ought to be afraid of offending people. Was Jesus afraid of offending people? Not at all. I mean, Christianity is profoundly provocative stuff, and the idea that it’s become domesticated and turned into some kind of folksy wisdom about being good to people, is a betrayal of the hard message of someone who died on a cross…offensive is part of the point.”
Fraser is no stranger to criticism, as he is viewed as a somewhat controversial figure by many both within and outside of the church. Some of his views are considered far too provocative by more conservative figures; others have led him to “fall out of favour with the liberals”. He appears unconcerned by this, and accepts that it comes with the territory. “You stick your head above the parapet and people will always have a go. That’s the price you pay for having a public profile, I guess.” As for the suggestion that he might be called a ‘stereotype’ (as he has been on more than one occasion for becoming the Guardian’s resident Reverend), he seems genuinely amused by the idea: “The funny thing is, of course, the Guardian has not always been traditionally regarded as natural territory for clergy, so that’s not as neat a fit as you might think.” The phrase sums up Fraser well; far from preserving the status quo, his concern is to disturb it. Social justice is not, he asserts, a comfortable business. If Fraser cares about anything – and there can be no doubt that he does – it is not ‘finding a neat fit’.
Words: Beckie Smith. Photo: courtesy of Giles Fraser