I agree, I doubt God Cares about that sort of thing, but I was intrested in what others thought. Are the elements a taboo to people, or can you throw them around?

(the S-word bother me because I was brought up not to swear! But I do when I feel something is worth swearing for. But was Vaux just using the word to be "radical"??)

I did not find using the words "God" and "shit" in the same sentence offensive.

Flinging about the Communion elements was off-putting to me at first, but later I thought it was just rather stagey. A gimmick. So yes, I suppose I found it offensive, but not in the sense of desecrating, but in the sense of being manipulated by dramatic staginess.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I suppose I found it offensive, but not in the sense of desecrating, but in the sense of being manipulated by dramatic staginess.

---

Now, that really surprised me. I had just assumed that it would bring about a heart attack to anyone with a 'high' understanding of communion. I would have been quite taken aback, and would have been worried about the sensibilities of those around me. But I would have like to have been there.

Just imagne the shock effect that Jesus' words would have had that first time. I was thinking about communion a few days ago and how stylised and ritualised it has become. And how small is the similarity there is between the original event, and whaat happens in churches now.

Chorister has a point about the shock value being something you could really only do once, and I would wonder about someone who attended this kind of service on a weekly basis.

On the other hand, I can still vividly remember going into a church after years of absence from Christianity and looking at a crucifix and being horrified by the image of pain and torture it depicted. It was almost as if I saw it for the first time, and I wondered how people could worship it.

I'm not bothered about the "God and ****" bit. This is in its own way a bit of a Zen-like statement trying to get its audience to cut through the layers of images and preconceptions and experience the reality behind it.

I think the imagery of the spilled wine and scattered bread would be very powerful - I immediately try to consider ways in which I could use this idea. It is shocking, almost as much as Jesus original comments "This is my body ... eat" and "This is my blood ... drink".

In a "free" church it seems a bit tougher to shock people in the same way, as there is less respect, and no set way of serving communion in the first place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
So yes, I suppose I found it offensive, but not in the sense of desecrating, but in the sense of being manipulated by dramatic staginess.

---

because there's never any dramatic staginess in high church worship, is there...

maybe this is changing the subject a little, but i sometimes find church services full of fine robes and gold offensive. but... we each find a style of worship that has resonance for us. that's what i see vaux doing.

I don't have a problem with the staginess of the communion action. After all, communion services are by definition "stagey" - bowing, raising the host, kissing the altar - all these things are staged. What I liked about it was that it resonates so much with the acts of the priest in Leviticus - the blood and the gunk was to be physically hurled at the altar and the floor. It is far more representative of the crucifixion than our polite little fractions. Of course, you should only do this sparingly, otherwise it becomes commonplace and loses its impact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:
I was thinking about communion a few days ago and how stylised and ritualised it has become. And how small is the similarity there is between the original event, and whaat happens in churches now.

bb

---

Surely the description in the article portrays a ritual no less stylised than any to be found in a "normal" church?

When I saw this article on the front page of the Ship I dived in with interest so full marks to the alternative nature of the content for capturing my attention.

Like Kieran I found the description of the service uncomfortably close to a Black Mass and not something I would want to attend myself. For the record though, the 'I'm so happeeee, Clap,clap, Jesus loves meeeeee' fixed plastic smile type of worship mentioned by Chorister would fill me with equal (possibly greater) horror.

I would like to add my support to HT's comments about the sheer theatricality of the thing; something underlined for me by the writer's use of the word "audience" in the article; the whole thing smacked to me of performance art or devised theatre of the sort churned out by fellow students during my Uni days.

As far as it relating to an urban environment, Steve, do you mean that they reflect their surroundings (i.e. Vauxhall in all its concrete splendour) purely as an asthetic choice or as a means of appealing to their audience? If the latter this would seem to me to be slightly patronising in a "Oh you're urban aren't you, oh well, no Mozart for you I'm afraid." sort of way.

The thing that I find most distrurbing about this article is the central message regarding our relationship to God, where the writer says

quote:

---

Our concern for God's purity has placed him out of our reach, detached him from our world. We are tempted to believe that the only way to seek God is to leave behind our present compromised circumstances.

---

What he seems to be saying is that oh well, if you can't change never mind, just carry on as you are and God will change instead. No more effort on your part required, old boy. Perhaps I am lacking the context of the service - it would be interesting to know what sort of prayers were said about the toilet paper.

Again, as Kieran says, this service could be completely misunderstood or even misused by certain people. It is interesting to note that the writer

quote:

---

asked Vaux's permission before writing about this service, because by doing so I am exposing it to an audience with whom this trust has not been established, and who may not be used to such strong imagery.

---

How is trust established? Does a prospective worshipper have to attend an interview? If the audience is only there on a need to know basis, does this mean that the same group of people congratualte each other on their alternativeness every week? If so it reminds me rather of the way contemporary artists, in a desperate attempt to prove how clever and different they are, have moved towards producing works which are only enjoyed and understood by other artists; breaking barriers can sometimes lead to elitism and inacessibility.

But well done to Steve Collins for putting the article up there; thought-provoking stuff.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Septimus:
As far as it relating to an urban environment, Steve, do you mean that they reflect their surroundings (i.e. Vauxhall in all its concrete splendour) purely as an asthetic choice or as a means of appealing to their audience? If the latter this would seem to me to be slightly patronising in a "Oh you're urban aren't you, oh well, no Mozart for you I'm afraid." sort of way.

---

My experience is that they reflect God in Vauxhall - that is, and aesthetic choice, about worship that reflects their environment, rather than tries to deny it or escape from it. I don't think it is patronising, although it can be. I think it is challenging, especially to those ( of us ) more used to comfortable middle class worship ( alternative and otherwise ).

it can be difficult to look in on an alt.worship service and fully appreciate what's happening with having been present at the planning, at previous services, in the pub with them, sharing stories as part of that group etc.
of course, some services are very accessible and you can just turn up.

although vaux can sometimes give the impression of being painfully cool, to describe them as elitist or performers would be to misunderstand what alt.worship is about.

one of the reasons people like Steve C share their experiences in alt.worship is that many of us feel that alt.w has much to share with the wider church. we hope there might be a wider use and celebration of creativity in christian worship - vaux's 'god in the shit' is one little piece of creativity. you may wish to walk away from this, but let's not start using phrases like 'black mass'.

Steve - I don't understand the urban comment. I live in a city (albeit a very pastoral one). I do not think that Vaux related very clearly to ME as an urban person.

Adrian. Oh dear, yet again. It is a common misconception to see High Church worship as a drama acted out in the chancel. It is a drama, but the stage is the nave, and the actors are the people, not the priests. In any case, that drama is become familiar with time and repetition. Although one may well be manipulated by it (am I manipulated by Merbecke? Well of course, but at least I expect to be and acknowledge it) one is not usually left with the impression that one has purposefully had one's emotions toyed with on purpose to produce a desired result.

When this happens in the theatre or cinema we are likley to dismiss the result as "melodramatic".

I agree with Septimus's charcterisation fo Vaux as performance art, and it does remind me of the sort of thing one sees on video-tape at the Tate.

I guess I'm not sure what it is FOR. As Adrian admitted, he can be shocked and attended by going to Mass. So presumably it's about more than that.

quote:

---

it can be difficult to look in on an alt.worship service and fully appreciate what's happening with having been present at the planning, at previous services, in the pub with them, sharing stories as part of that group etc.

---

I don't understand this bit at all. All church is about community (hopefully). I like the fact (indeed rely on it) that I can go into a church in Bradford, or Kalamazoo, or Bombay or Kentish Town and fully appreciate what's happening without having been in on the planning. Fortunately, Archbish Tom did the planning for me 470-odd years ago.

So I'm back to what is it all for?

I like the idea of using of Serrano's stuff. His crucifix image is so beautiful. Sometmies I wonder what would have happened if he had titled it differently. If he had made some comment about the way the human race treats Christ by p*ing on everything he stands for then I'm sure less people would have been bothered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Septimus:
Surely the description in the article portrays a ritual no less stylised than any to be found in a "normal" church?

---

Sorry, I was not comparing the Vaux thingy with how things are done in my church. I simply saying that I had been thinking about how removed communion is from the Last Supper.

HT, I also thought about starting a discussion in MW, but just like you decided against it.

I have had very little experience of alt.worship. But I have no problems being part of an audience, or being involved in a performance. That is the vehicle, dare I say it, in a similar way to the Liturgy.

I really like the idea that we have made God too pure and inaccessable. The incarnation was about God coming down to us, and being in the shit with us.

The thing I liked about this report was that it brought some people to Small Fire and they started discussing stuff.

Vaux have always struck me as laid back rather than theatrical. But I've only got being at some of their services to go on.

The book of psalms would use the word 'shit' if we were willing to translate it as such.

I get offended by the wrong things most times I go to church.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wibblethorpe:
The book of psalms would use the word 'shit' if we were willing to translate it as such.

---

"God is in the Shit" is a challenging statement. It fits with these two: "Shit happens" and "God is".

If you're aiming for the Truth, I don't think you can go 'too far' - although we all need to be aware that our aim might not be as good as we like to believe. I suppose people who are wary of self-conscious theatricality are bothered by a perceived lack of humility.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wibblethorpe:
The thing I liked about this report was that it brought some people to Small Fire and they started discussing stuff.

---

I don't normally come into SF. Simply because it tears me apart to hear of what is happening in other places and to know that nothing like that is happening around here.

Perhaps when we get a new minister I might raise the subject...

quote:

---

Originally posted by starbelly:
oooh no, I cant see Paul swearing! where an earth would the word Shit fit into his letters? Do you know any greek to back this up stoo?

Neil

---

this reply is all backwards...

ed's right about paul using the word shit. although the word crap sounds better because it alliterates.

vaux were using it because we all use it rather a lot. it feels false not to use it when that's the word we mean. i'm sure we've said 'shit' on the mic at grace, we just haven't projected it on the wall!

i'm mystified about the comments re black mass - esp not having been to one! the throwing down of the bread and wine just came across as a powerful reminder of what gets tidied away - that christ's body was broken, that his blood was spilt. we're not celebrating something pleasant here. but there was a tenderness in the way people ate and drank. some dipped their bread in the spilt pool rather than drinking the unspilt cups of wine. i think such intense reminders of the brutality of what christ went through bring us to renewed awe and appreciation of the cost of our redemption. that was really the point of the service. we make light of god's suffering love.

re performance art:
that's certainly a point of reference, but it's one shared by a lot of the people who go to vaux. they would be flattered to be compared to something at the tate! some are artists, some dancers, some actors, etc. london has a thriving art scene, it's fairly central to the culture. so it comes naturally for them to do that sort of thing. and personally, i did a lot of drama in small churches long before i got involved in alt worship so i'm used to the idea. at least vaux integrate it into the service!!

re urban:
a major point in vaux's theology is that church culture privileges the rural over the urban - implies so often that we'd all be closer to god if we lived in the country. but most of us live, irrevocably, in cities. so we have to seek and relate to god there too. vaux are trying to work out how to create liturgies that don't just reject or ignore the city. they are doing this for themselves - they all live in central london, it's their own need to relate to god in the city they're working on, not a clever idea for the sake of other people.

quote:

---

How is trust established?

---

by making church with and for a regular bunch of people for several years, until you know how they react to things and what helps them meet god.

quote:

---

Was the tension between God being "in the dirt" and God being perfect and pure explored? and in what ways? (or is this for a later event?)

---

this may be explored later. but i think they're working from the viewpoint that we all know too well about god being perfect and pure, that that message has been overdone. so 'the season of dirt' isn't about balance, it's to explore one direction for a while.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

I don't understand this bit at all. All church is about community (hopefully). I like the fact (indeed rely on it) that I can go into a church in Bradford, or Kalamazoo, or Bombay or Kentish Town and fully appreciate what's happening without having been in on the planning. Fortunately, Archbish Tom did the planning for me 470-odd years ago.

So I'm back to what is it all for?

---

Just how much shit was there at St Peter's by the way? I mean real, turdiferous crap. None perchance? Symbolism has to be backed in reality. Don't use terms you then can't back in reality. You don't wipe shit on your foreheads but you do use ash. Therefore today is Ash Wednesday. Your little gathering was not called 'Shit Saturday' is suppose. If you are going to employ symbolism you have to learn how to use it properly not just for effect.

Go to Mass not playschool.

And stop trying to re-invent the wheel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
And stop trying to re-invent the wheel.

---

you can't put a cartwheel on a modern car. we're just trying to find the most approriate wheel for the vehicle of our life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
Go to Mass not playschool.

---

what was it jesus said about becoming little children?

"I have to alert you to minor inaccuracy (that actually for some had a large part in the impact of the service)
It was not me that picked up the pieces
I walked away

And interestingly Kester, Suse and others looked at each other slightly horrified at the gap in proceeding I opened up as I left the scene. I had only told one person the intention for that and the following bit. They confessed afterwards, that that moment of unknowing, actually made the whole thing not just a procedural run through, but an impactful act to them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
If you are going to employ symbolism you have to learn how to use it properly not just for effect.

---

The symbolism of brokenness and being poured out was done properly, not in the clinical way it is often done. It's about broken bodies and poured out life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:

Go to Mass not playschool.
And stop trying to re-invent the wheel.

---

Cosmo seems to be making the assumption that Christian Faith and Christian Worship are seperable. However this is a false dichotomy. You cannot seperate an individuals faith from they way they worship. You cannot say to someone, "You are a christian, you must worship like this, it is Biblical/Traditional/NewTestament/Whatever", because once you seperate Faith and Worship the Faith is changed.

The issues of corporate creation are key to my experience and valuing of alt.worship. I think the point re developed trust is also very relevant and well made.

Just wondering out loud however about the problem of balancing this with the idea of 'public' worship. There seems to me to be a tension between being an open group and being able to create worship as a group in an established group trust situation.

Then again I guess similar issues apply to any style of worship. Being an outsider is always an issue for any style or tradition. I guess it's just that some of the groupings are bigger?

i can't help thinking that vaux are much more in the high church tradition of taking the sacraments seriously than the usual bland denatured stuff we get.

and i think cosmo shoots his own argument in the foot. if dust and ashes can be reenacted [we've done this at Grace, it's great] why not spilt blood or a broken body? even if you believe in the Real Presence [and Vaux certainly believe that god is present at their worship, by whatever means], what happened to the bread and wine was nothing compared to the trampling of christ every day by our sin. if it reminds us of that for a moment it has done us a service. it certainly cuts for a moment through the numbness that enables us to take the bread and wine without thinking about the cost. sure we talk about the cost, but it's something else to feel it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian:
I think you've answered your own question there Hooker...

We feel this process can be as worthwhile as the worship itself. That's what it is for.

---

Yes, I know I answered my own question -- it was a leading question anyway.

I'm interesting in contrasting the "process can be as worthwhile" with statements made elsewhere about another process -- the formulation of Common Worship, where a very typical reaction is that the process was tedious, bureaucratised and flawed, and that liturgy-by-commitee is inevitably terrible.

Perhaps Vaux should go to Synod and the Synod should trot down to Vaux.

By the way, how is "Vaux" pronounced? Is the x silent as in faux, or pronounced as in Vauxhall?

this is the actual Communion prayer spoken by Jonathan:

Strung up on a tree and abandoned to suffering. Racked with pain to the point where the living cells of his body could not sustain themselves in the face of the torture.

A crucified man. Worn down. Heavy with mud and with stubble; thin and dirty; a haunted man, filled with uneasiness and exhaustion.

Ugly, rejected, betrayed, cast out. A man who from the depths of this hell could truly say:
"I understand your pain and suffering." "I know I have been there."

Incredibly only the day before, this same man had addressed the companions that he had shared his life in community with. In the course of a passover meal - a traditional Jewish festival - he had blessed and held before them bread and wine

and so standing here now we have the chance to confront again the staggering impact of that act, performed by that illegitimate Jew

I am now holding this bread and wine before you

This is the body of that Jew which was broken, which became dirt

this is his blood spilt

that fell to the ground

quote:

---

Just wondering out loud however about the problem of balancing this with the idea of 'public' worship. There seems to me to be a tension between being an open group and being able to create worship as a group in an established group trust situation.

---

i was thinking about this as i got up, before i saw your mail. i made some notes, here they are:

worship as a service to the general public put on by a small team of professionals
who have to produce a broadly acceptable product
like mcdonalds - the same everywhere to reassure people
worship divorced from community

vs
worship as an activity produced by a community primarily for themselves and their friends
can be much more specifically tailored
the assumption is that those who don't like it can go elsewhere

if worship were routinely the expression of community then people would not worship outside their communities

the hope is that people 'away from home' will appreciate difference, or at least make due allowance for it.

the alternative, which we currently have, is that everywhere strives to be blandly acceptable by removing anything that might be of particular interest to a particular person;
or, like mcdonalds 'doing' ethnic cuisine, makes token gestures of inclusiveness by reducing other cultures to bite-sized cliches.

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve collins:
worship as an activity produced by a community primarily for themselves and their friends can be much more specifically tailored the assumption is that those who don't like it can go elsewhere

---

BTW, BP used "Piss Christ" as an image and it passed without comment - partly because we didn't tell the attendees what it was ... Maybe part of the controversy is because of the title rather than the image itself. Just a thought

Steve, your comments about the service as a participant and your discussions with the planning group at Vaux probably give you greater insight than the average attendee. It certainly gave me plenty to think about next time I plan a Communion service. [But given that it's my first one at my new church I think that we won't be doing something quite so full on]

It would also be interesting to hear from people actually involved in the planning of the service - what they indended, the reactions they got etc - as this would be interesting as well.

quote:

---

Cosmo advised us:
Go to Mass

---

Yes, it must have been some other Cosmo who was lecturing us about what it means to be an Anglican.

I agree with Jonny's final comment in the above post - thanks to all the people who were involved in the service.

Amos, I for one didn't find that the most helpful post of the day.

It is so important that we re-invent worship all the time, otherwise we can do things without thinking about the meanings. This is a classic example of mind stretching stuff!

Thoughts about the report keeping popping into my head at random times (its not often I can say that about my Sunday services!)

no no not that

There are people for whom the older forms and liturgies still mean something very deep and emotional, and who therefore don't need more than them to feel moved, but who feel bad when other people do something in a different way.

Then there are people for whom these forms don't do very much emotionally, or don't make them think enough, and who are moved/caused to think by things that are more in their everyday "idiom".

It may relate to the kind of world you live in (as our Doug says, a Radio 3 world or a Radio 1 world - classical music vs dance music for the non-Brits), or it may be a newness-seeking part of ones personality, or something. But most of the people here seem to be saying, my own type of liturgy moves me. Yours doesn't particularly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostie:
But most of the people here seem to be saying, my own type of liturgy moves me. Yours doesn't particularly.

---

Some of us, who have been lurking, have been forced to think about Communion from a new perspective, and to question our reactions. So maybe it's OK that people have highly polarised opinions and state them firmly. Discussions don't have to lead to unanimous agreement. If people react as we might expect them to, given what we know of their background, then that's fair enough. It doesn't devalue this discussion at all.

All the best,