It has often been claimed that we see a process where religious objects and sites are heritagized, and through this process secularized: religious objects and buildings become seen as historical monuments and museum pieces, rather than as sacred objects and places. Yet, it has also often been observed that there are similarities between the norm-prescribed approach of museum and heritage audiences to the displayed objects, and the prescribed venerating attitude expected of a religious worshiper approaching a sacred object or place. It is not only the case that churches are becoming increasingly museum-like, it is also that museums have always had similarities with sacred places.
Based on the examples in this article, I suggest that the ongoing heritagization of Church of Sweden’s church buildings could also be seen as a process where they are decontextualized from the denominationally specific religiosity of the Church of Sweden, but rather than being re-contextualized only as secular heritage, they could be more clearly understood as becoming the sacred places and sacred objects of a post-Lutheran civil religion and generalized religiosity, i.e. not simply as a disenchantment, but also as a re-enchantment. People come to churches to contemplate heritage, spirituality, and aesthetics, as well as to celebrate life events, often without making a difference between secular and religious categories. This approach could be understood as a continuation of traditions of approaching memory and the sacred, developed in a society characterized by the near hegemony of the established church in the religious sphere, but also in partially counter-clerical movements, such as the Romantic movement (including, e.g. von Heidenstam). It is not only an example of heritage and religion coexisting in the same spaces, but of the close relationship and strong similarities between these two categories. While many visitors to Swedish churches may seek to experience both spirituality and history, the separation of church and state requires both state and Church to separate religion and heritage, even when both the state and the Church appears to want to take responsibility for aspects which could be described as spiritual.
Kommentarer