An art installation plastering graffiti-style questions for God across Canterbury Cathedral has provoked sharp backlash after one of its organizers, poet Alex Vellis, publicly celebrated the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and embraced a string of provocative, left-wing positions.
The “Hear Us” project, set to open October 17 and run through January 18, frames itself as a platform for “marginalised communities,” including Punjabi, Black and brown diasporas, neurodivergent people, and LGBTQIA+ groups. Church members and critics called the display sacrilegious, while public figures, including U.S. Vice President JD Vance, denounced the choice to host graffiti-style slogans in England’s mother church for the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Vellis, a Canterbury-based poet and organizer, has cultivated a confrontational public persona. On social media he described himself as a “genderless gremlin,” an “agender goblin-thing,” vegan, and queer, and uses they/them pronouns. He has taken hardline stances on transgender issues, declaring “Trans women are women. Trans men are men,” and has attacked prominent cultural figures who criticize gender ideology.
Beyond contentious gender politics, Vellis’s statements have crossed into celebratory responses to high-profile deaths. In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination in September, Vellis posted that he was “glad Charlie Kirk is dead” and asked followers for footage of the shooting. He has also posted celebratory comments following the deaths of other conservatives, drawing outrage from clergy and laypeople alike.
The cathedral’s decision to host the installation has thrust the Church of England’s cultural direction into the spotlight. The exhibit opens just days before the expected confirmation of the Right Rev. Dame Sarah Mullally as the first female Archbishop of Canterbury. Mullally has signaled a leftward tilt on social issues, backing blessings for gay marriages and opposing certain deportations, deepening tensions within the communion.
Parishioners told reporters the display transformed a sacred space into a political stage. Critics argue that no matter an artist’s identity or intent, a venue as central to Anglican faith as Canterbury demands greater respect for tradition and worshippers’ sensibilities.
Supporters of the installation call it a necessary platform for marginalized voices; opponents see it as an unnecessary provocation that weaponizes faith spaces for ideological theater. The controversy underscores a broader clash between progressive cultural projects and institutions that view sacred places as off-limits to partisan provocation.
