THE Consistory Court of the diocese of Oxford has granted a faculty permitting images of both a Star of David and a cross on a gravestone in the churchyard of a Grade I listed medieval village church, St Mary the Virgin, Weston Turville.
In granting the faculty, the Chancellor, the Worshipful David Hodge KC, declined to follow the precedent set by the former Diocesan Chancellor of Norwich, the Worshipful David Etherington KC, who refused a faculty allowing a Star of David on a monument in the churchyard of St Mary’s, Shotesham. It was refused on the grounds that it was primarily indicative of the Jewish faith, and was not ordinarily permissible as a symbol on a monument in an Anglican churchyard (News, 26 July).
The petitioner in Oxford diocese was Deborah Clark. She wished to commemorate the Jewish heritage of her late husband, Joe Clark, as well as his Christian faith. The Rector who conducted the burial had no objection to the proposal, and the PCC agreed that it was suitable for the churchyard.
The Chancellor consulted the Archdeacon of Oxford, who was of the view that there might be grounds for allowing a Star of David on a memorial in a Christian churchyard. In response to any concerns about whether the Star of David might be seen by some as a political statement of support for the State of Israel, the Archdeacon hoped that its presence on a memorial stone would be seen more in terms of personal identity than political affiliation.
The current churchyard regulations for the diocese of Oxford permitted black, white, or uncoloured etching or carving, provided it was “reverent and not indicative of beliefs contrary to the doctrine of the Church or England”.
The Chancellor said that, essentially, it would seem that “whether or not an image of the Star of David should be permitted in a churchyard memorial should depend on whether or not it was consistent with Christian doctrine.” He accepted “the proposition that any symbol, religious or otherwise, that is indicative of beliefs inconsistent with those of the Church of England as enshrined in its doctrines should not ordinarily be permitted within . . . [an] Anglican churchyard”.
But, the Chancellor said, he found “difficulty in accepting that there should be any blanket prohibition on the display of the Star of David on memorials in Anglican churchyards. . .
“Whilst the beliefs and doctrines of Judaism and those of Christianity . . . [were] not the same, both religions shared a common monotheistic history and tradition. During his all too brief life here on earth, Jesus was repeatedly recognised as and celebrated as the Son of David,” and, the Chancellor said, “he is introduced as such in the very first verse of the very first chapter of the first of the Gospels of the New Testament.”
The Star of David was “closely associated with the Jewish faith”, the Chancellor said, but it was also “shared as a symbol by the Anglican Church”. That was “evidenced by its display within certain Anglican church buildings”, and, if it was inconsistent with Anglican doctrine, it would have no place in any Anglican church building and should not be permitted.
It was also important to remember that those of mixed-faith marriages might understandably wish ultimately to be laid to rest together in consecrated ground at their parish church, to affirm their own individual faiths. The Archdeacon of Oxford had observed that a Star of David and a cross on the same memorial might be seen by a Christian as reflecting a natural religious synergy, but pointed out that it would not be perceived in the same light by sections of the Jewish community.
While a combination of a Star of David and a cross would almost certainly not be considered acceptable in a Jewish cemetery, “the different context of the character and universality of an Anglican churchyard should operate to avoid such a combination being the cause of any offence to those of the Jewish faith who may happen to pass through the churchyard.” For all those reasons, the Chancellor disagreed with Chancellor Etherington.
The Chancellor said that he had “given anxious and prayerful consideration” to judicial comity, consistency of judicial decision-making, and the desirability of securing equality of treatment between different petitioners in similar cases in the determination of cases in the consistory courts. The unsuccessful petitioner in the Shotesham case who was refused a Star of David might well entertain a legitimate sense of grievance when the petition was granted on similar facts in the present case.
But, having formed his own judgment on the matter, the Chancellor considered that it would be wrong to decline to apply it to Mrs Clark’s petition. He made it clear that, on the facts of this application, a request by a Christian widow for a Star of David and a cross to be placed on the memorial above the grave of her husband, who was of Jewish heritage, where she, too, would in due time be laid to rest, was granted.
The Chancellor said nothing about the propriety of placing the symbol of any other religion on a memorial in an Anglican churchyard, but agreed that a Star of David should be permitted in an Anglican churchyard only with the authority of a faculty granted by the Consistory Court.
Mrs Clark was granted a faculty, and allowed six months for the memorial to be installed on her husband’s grave.
