I'm really really "alternative" (see above) by many people's standards, but I don't want the church to change its liturgy (if anything, I think it's gone too far in that direction), for me or in general. I have pondered the notion of "leather liturgy" for some time, or additional liturgies for leather or other purposes, but not to replace the rituals we already have. I think we could do with a Franciscan nature-related liturgy as well -- but once again as a separate thing, not as a substitute for Communion or Morning/Evening Prayer. (In fact, some variations I'd toyed with turned out to largely be morning/evening prayer with specific readings rather than something profoundly different.)

I think alternative rituals could be great, but for me, the theology must be orthodox. I attended a men's gathering once in which we were told we could "bring our own theology," was looking forward to it all very much, and was very upset that one event I'd looked forward to involved expressing reverence for "Mother Earth" to a degree which seemed to me idolatrous -- the people running this didn't seem to realise the conflict. (I brought it up and a few others were glad I did because they'd been troubled too.) I simply could not, would not do such a thing... and felt quite lonely and cut off from the other men there. (On the plus side I had a very good, or at least helpful, time of my own off in the woods with no other human beings around at all, so I suppose that made up for it.)

Steve Collins some posts back rightly suggested that if "traditional" worship is not careful, it will put people off rather than attract them by being obscure and unintelligible (my words, not his). Does alt.worship have to pass the same test?
If I have to explain what I am doing and what it means to an outsider, whether it is the BCP or Vaux, is it what the church should be doing as public worship?

What are the boundaries between private worship, in which a person or group (+friends, by invitation) can do anything it pleases, public worship which should be accessible to all comers, and public worship that sets out to target people of a specific type/background/geographical location/set of interests?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

If I have to explain what I am doing and what it means to an outsider, whether it is the BCP or Vaux, is it what the church should be doing as public worship?

---

I disagree. I don't like the term "relevent" because it suggests nothing more than pebble dashing the 1970's council house that passes as worship in some sections of the church. I don't think worship needs be accesible either, it needs to be explained to people.

alternative worship is strange to people who are used to church as it conventionally is. but it's made by people who find the conventional church strange, and who want to express their faith in terms of the world they live in when they're not in church - which is most of the time. they don't want church to be an escape from the 'secular' world but a continuation of it in many ways, because like it or not that's where we've got to find god most of the time. it's trying to make [theologically orthodox] worship out of the cultural language of the non-church world. which, let's not forget, is most people.

At the Sunday morning service in the main arena we were asked to split into groups of 12 to share the communion with. Each group was given a cup of wine and a bread roll. I remember the communion as being a powerful experience of meeting with God. There was inevitably some of the elements left over from most groups. Feeling I couldn't just leave it on the floor (seemed irreverant somehow), I took ours away with me. Not being very sure of "church procedures" I didn't know whether to finish it all off, or throw it in the bin... or what?

Most however had left their's on the floor and I remember being absolutely appalled to see the hundreds of pieces of bread and wine being trodden under foot by 5000+ people as we left the arena.

My theology isn't at all "high", so I'm used to seeing the elements not finished off. So why did I find it offensive? It really made me grapple with why it upset me... (should we have all finished it off? was it really any different to trample on it than it would have been to throw it away?) Many questions, no answers.

I am guessing that if a church doesn't "finish it off" then it either throws it away, or "puts it out for the birds". Basically it happens outside the view of the congregation, so what we don't know doesn't harm us (or challange us?)

Strangely though, I can see the worth of such an experience, disturbing as it was..... and for that matter, the "throwing down" of the elements at Vaux.

I think that it is important for us to be confronted with things that fall outside our "nice and neat" ideas, as these are the things that challenge us, make us think, make us define what is important, and to learn to value it.

I wouldn't want to see that every week. In fact once was QUITE enough. But I think that the discussions, and thoughts that people left Vaux with that week, would have drawn them closer to God, and helped them to grasp some of the Truths of Christ that for them maybe had remained hidden up until then.

Even as Christ was on the cross, there were probably some religious leaders who were saying "this is not right.... this is not how we do things here".

Even partaking in a discussion like this, can expose us to that sort of challange. It is up to us, whether we come with a closed mindset which "knows" everything, and seeks to "correct" everyone else.... or whether we come in openess, to engage, to share, to learn, to grow.

SO to finish the story...... what did I do with the elements I took away? After much thought, I left them very close to the base of a tree!!! (I figured no one would trample them, but I wouldn't have to "Throw them away")

Basically to totally misquote Douglas Adams I turned them into SEP's. Somebody Else's Problem!!!

I find myself now (with a more refined theology) trying to decide if I was back there now, would I have acted differently.

But more importantly.... something to make you think... What would you have done? (or even WWJD?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve collins:
hmmm....all this talk of explanations. but i have this hunch that it's the people inside the church who need alternative worship explaining rather than the people outside.

---

Okay Steve. I'm not sure I agree, because the alt.worship of my subculture is very different to that of another. I have a friend who loves alt.worship but really struggled with a service we did because she didn't like Jazz, and we had picked down tempo d&b electro Jazz as our soundtrack.

I think good worship can be hard for church and non-church people to get into to, but maybe, just maybe, church people expect it to be ultra accessible and easy for them, and non-church people are willing to work a bit harder to explore their spirituality.

quote:

---

My theology isn't at all "high", so I'm used to seeing the elements not finished off. So why did I find it offensive? It really made me grapple with why it upset me... (should we have all finished it off? was it really any different to trample on it than it would have been to throw it away?) Many questions, no answers.

I am guessing that if a church doesn't "finish it off" then it either throws it away, or "puts it out for the birds". Basically it happens outside the view of the congregation, so what we don't know doesn't harm us (or challange us?)

---

i'd go for finishing it all off. i was head communion steward in a methodist church for ten years, and i never liked the business of throwing out the bread afterwards.

[the wine was a non-alcoholic substitute in little individual glasses so any untouched glasses could be poured back into the bottle. it had a preservative in that made it unsafe to drink large amounts. grim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Um... this all makes me wonder if there's a place to post thoughts, discussions, etc. relating to my own experience. Those here who follow my posts, or see me in the Cafe, know I'm pretty odd, and if people read between the lines they can figure out that I am very odd indeed. I am used to rather unusual things, devotionally, which work quite well for me (and even apart from devotion) -- though I have not done them in church -- and was wondering, well, if a thread relating to all this would be appropriate or not here on the Ship.

(If this means anything to anyone reading this, I'm a sexually celibate Christian leatherman. The only reason I have not gotten involved with groups like The Defenders (WARNING: This link is G-rated, but if you follow links to linked pages there you may run across some things which may shock some -- please be aware of that!) is that I believe in sexual celibacy apart from male-female marriage, and as far as I can tell, Dignity, the parent group of the Defenders, specifically believes the opposite -- so strangely I can deal better with my local, non-religous leather groups much better, as they don't have a doctrinal concern I must be troubled with, and I may simply abstain from certain activities when necessary.)

So, um... is there a place one could discuss all this (in a non-lascivious manner, of course)? I haven't read Small Fire much in the past but perhaps this is a place for just that sort of issue.

Or is it just a tad too "alternative"? I've kind of tried to be cautious here on SoF... and people have generally accepted me and been polite, which is very, very welcome. And I don't want anything to change that...

---

Chastmastr, here is your official apology for slamming your preferences in Hell when I was too drunk to be civil, and I truly do find you a very sweet and loving person in many ways, but I just have to get this off my chest (so to speak).

Do you have to turn every thread into a discussion of your obsession with leather, discipline, and a desire for punishment for your "sin" of being gay? Even in this thread where it's gone too far already, IMHO, in discussing the Sacrament and cow shit in the same breath, you insist on bringing S&M into a discussion of the liturgy also? Might I suggest you are abit of a monomaniac and perhaps should get counseling for this problem? I mean I love cats, but do I mention that fact in every post?

And folks, before you rush to string me up from the nearest tree, I'm just giving him what he really wants: a good thrashing. And yes, I do know the difference between S&M, B&D and just plain love of leather. I'm not saying everybody who loves wearing leather is a freak. I'm just Sick and Tired of hearing about this from him on every damn thread on the Ship. That's all.

Ultraspike this is completely unacceptable behavior.

Your Post has caused far more damage to this thread than ChastMastr's, which actually touched upon some important issues in Alt.Worship.

I will not have this sort of crusading against individuals in Small Fire. You had a thread in hell and you were advised to back off. I'd take that advice now if I were you.

But burning it? I dont think that would work, unless we held a service in a field!

quote:

---

I don't want the church to change its liturgy...

if many of us have different visions of "alternative" approaches to worship, how can we gather together to enact them if we have visions different enough to cause conflict?

---

given the relative sizes of 'the Church' and 'alternative worship' it's going to be a long time before people run out of conventional liturgies to attend.

but it's wrong to assume that alt worship intends to totally replace all existing forms with some new rubric. that's the way the Church has modernised in the past, but imposed uniformity has no place in the alt worship vision of things. so your favourite rite is secure as long as there are a few of you to do it.

I found the bread being thrown to the floor to be initially horrifying. Remember, I come from a very high church Anglican background where the elements are treated with the utmost effect.

But once I got past the initial shock horror I found the symbolism to be immensely meaningful. After all we did (and still do - by our doubt and our disbelief) far far worse to the body of Christ than throwing him to the floor.

I found it especially moving in the context of the first person perspective of the liturgy. "This is my body, broken for you" A real reminder of the shockingness of what God did for us. He threw his son, part of himself, down to earth. To be broken. For us.

Throwing the Bread and Wine onto the floor is outrageous. But far less so than the incarnation.

Thoughtful,

The problem is about creativity and worship. For those who are really ‘into’ the traditional forms of worship, the service comes alive for them and they re-create the act of worship on each occasion. But they do that by, as it were, losing (or is it finding?) themselves in the ritual. They are focused by the ritual, but not on it, I think. I remember being struck several months back by someone posting, probably on MW – sorry, can’t remember who – who said they achieved an almost Zen-like state of awareness through the ritual.

But alternative worship isn’t like that, is it? Because the focus is on exploring and pushing back the boundaries and therefore on newness. And so there’s a tendency to focus on what’s taking place and, as an unfortunate consequence, on the people creating that ritual, which I find unhelpful. When alt.worship works well, it’s great: when it doesn’t work, it’s uneasy and self-conscious and embarrassing and just plain bad. Mmmm….but then so is traditional worship, when poorly conducted. However, I think the weight of tradition behind the old rituals helps to push past that barrier – alternative worship has to find it’s own way and that’s much harder.

One of the key factors behind my departure from the C of E was the ‘family service’ syndrome, which was just a bad (very, very bad) early form of alternative worship; someone’s idea of helpfully re-wording the old services of Morning Prayer and Evensong. Amos is quite right, that sort of thing really stinks. When people create alternative worship anew, when it works well, then it’s really great – but it might not be everybody’s cup of tea. So again, it throws the focus on something we don’t want to be in focus, namely on people’s personal taste and critical judgement, and I think that makes it potentially quite divisive. However, if alternative worship moves on to create new liturgy…. Well, that gets round one set of problems, but at the expense, perhaps(?) of losing that cutting edge excitement.

As an aside - I would love to have been part of the congregation at such a service, but I would hate to think that the spilling of the elements would be repeated. IMHO once is OK, for the other reasons that people have said in their posts, but ritualising that would be going too far – it would become stagy and inauthentic. Curiously though, I feel it would be OK if video’d. Not sure if this is a rational response.

It's taken me so long to read/scan through the comments placed about this subject that I've kind of forgotten why I wanted to add a comment.

Well, I am offended by the use of the 's' word. Yeh, I was brought up by parents who don't swear and I've spent most of my life not swearing. When I do swear and I look at the motivation, well... it isn't a Fruit of the Spirit is it?

I don't think that profane language is acceptable, neither do I believe that David in the Psalms or Paul in his letters used it. Fair enough, they talked in reality, and when you look at the way the Psalms are paraphrased in The Message I think they're pretty forceful and awesome. But it seems to me that what are regarded as 'proper swear words', like the one we're talking about, just aren't appropriate. I mean, if I've spent time reading the Bible or praying or worshipping God, I don't come out of it wanting to swear. Again, it isn't a fruit of the Spirit.

If I'd walked into the Vaux meeting and saw that sign, it would have really disturbed me, because it seems to slander the God I love. Yes, shock me into thinking about something, that's great, but don't cause someone to stumble.

****
I've read these posts with much interest, as I don't have an Anglican or High Church background at all... very intriguing. For example, the 'sacraments'... well, when I was little, I really looked forward to helping tidy up the communion things so I could eat all the leftover 'bread' - we used Matzot crackers and I loved them! Would that be offensive to some people?

I more or less agree - but in this instance the reason I said the comment wasn't helpful was because it was aimed at an individual. The people who created this service have been willing to be vulnerable and let us hear about what went on - I don't think it's fair to make a comment that probably wouldn't be made to the individual's face.

quote:

---

diorboy shared:
All in all, the whole deal with 'alternative worship' - I find it quite puzzling. I mean, I would just get on with worshipping God. Please see my heart, I just wanna know what the big deal is with having a whole label for 'alternative' worship. I don't get it! Someone help!

---

Hello diorboy and welcome.

Some of us find most of what is described as 'worship' these days quite puzzling. As for having a whole label to describe it - yes, it is a bit selfish taking up a whole one - we should probably share it with someone else. I think we'd be quite happy if you didn't use the 'Alternative Worship' label to describe what's going on here, it just makes it easier to call it something.

I suppose the question I'd ask you is: do you think it's possible that this could be an example of people 'getting on with worshipping God' but in a different way to you?

If you have any more questions I'm sure we'd be happy to answer them, though a new thread might be in order if they aren't connected to the article in question.

I went out on a limb - Farnham is too far, and Woking isn't.

At first hand I found the service provoked me to really appreciate what big deal it was for God to enter a dirty world.

It is all too easy to shut God out of parts of our lives and forget how keen he is to get in an clean things up. We end up being more worried about the dirt and afraid it will offend him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by diorboy:
Well, I am offended by the use of the 's' word. Yeh, I was brought up by parents who don't swear and I've spent most of my life not swearing. When I do swear and I look at the motivation, well... it isn't a Fruit of the Spirit is it?

---

It's OK. You're allowed to be offended. I think that's the whole point, though. Although, of course, there are Biblical injunctions against profanities of every kind (the bit in Colossians 3v8 where we're exhorted to avoid 'foul language' springs to mind.)

quote:

---

I don't think that profane language is acceptable, neither do I believe that David in the Psalms or Paul in his letters used it.

---

OK. I'm going to have to correct you there.

Can't speak for David, since I do not know Hebrew, but I do have one and a half classics degrees. The Greeks and the Romans alike had swear-words, which were not supposed to be used in everyday conversation. Just as a Roman would have been deeply shocked by Catullus' use of the word futuo, futuere (no, I'm not going to tell you the English equivalent. You can PM me or work it out for yourself), the Greeks of the NT era would have equally been shocked by his use of the word xémia, translated in the KJV 'excrement', which has the same force, meaning and effect as the English word 'shit'.

Paul was going for effect. And it is a rude word. Trust me on that.

quote:

---

Fair enough, they talked in reality, and when you look at the way the Psalms are paraphrased in The Message I think they're pretty forceful and awesome. But it seems to me that what are regarded as 'proper swear words', like the one we're talking about, just aren't appropriate.

---

There's a famous quote from Tony Campolo, who at a large Christian meeting, said something like "thousands of children are dying every day, and none of you give a shit. In fact, most of you are more upset that I used the word 'shit' than you are at the deaths of all those children."

That, I think, was an appropriate use. Paul's use of the profanity was appropriate. Was Vaux's?

Now that is open to debate.

quote:

---

I've read these posts with much interest, as I don't have an Anglican or High Church background at all... very intriguing. For example, the 'sacraments'... well, when I was little, I really looked forward to helping tidy up the communion things so I could eat all the leftover 'bread' - we used Matzot crackers and I loved them! Would that be offensive to some people?

---

Not to me, but to some people, yes, it would indeed be offensive.

Go and browse some of the threads in the archive on 'communion', 'mass' and the 'eucharist'. There's a lot of them.

Basically, people of Anglican, Catholic or Orthodox traditions consider the bread and wine to have become somehow imbued with the nature of God (exactly how depends upon the tradition). Protestant traditions don't - to them the action of joining together is the thing. But if the bread and wine becomes 'holy', then the argument goes that it definitely deserves the treatment of a holy thing.

I think what I was meaning though, was that sometimes we can stress so much about what we do in worship, when at the end of the day God just wants us to worship Him.

Another thing I've thought about is that the Vaux service seems quite dark. Depressing even. I understand that they want to convey the amazing fact that God wants to deal with our dirt and shady parts of our lives, but I think it would definitely be a one-off for me. There's a time for being intense and reflecting on things like that, but God said He came to give us life, and life in abundance. Fruitfulness, excess, extravangance, abundance, joy, prosperity, blessing, over-and-above - they're all God's heart for how He wants to lavish our lives.

From what I understand of how the early church shared communion, they met together, from house to house, sharing a meal - and I bet they had a laugh! The communion was remembering Jesus' sacrifice, so the meal in remembrance of that is sure to bring thankfulness and joy, because it means lives changed.

I think people would dispute that, if you want to take it to Purg...

But on the worship front, I disagree there as well. If we only associate God with the good bits of life, how can we find Him when the excrement hits the air conditioning?

quote:

---

There's a famous quote from Tony Campolo, who at a large Christian meeting, said something like "thousands of children are dying every day, and none of you give a shit. In fact, most of you are more upset that I used the word 'shit' than you are at the deaths of all those children."

---

He did it twice - once at Spring Harvest (the s-word) and once at Greenbelt (the f-word).

I was at Greenbelt the year he did it and heard various comments along the lines of, "It was such a good point ... but it was a shame he had to spoil it by swearing ..." Like, er, DOH!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
But on the worship front, I disagree there as well. If we only associate God with the good bits of life, how can we find Him when the excrement hits the air conditioning?

---

I didn't say the crap came from God as well (although one pre-exilic scripture verse does say that), but that we have to find Him in it.

Mind you, I don't think it comes from the Devil either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
Which theology is that?

---

I liked 'God is in the shit'. I read it as 'God is in the people who are thought of as shit'. That worked for me.

As for the elements. Yes I found it shocking that someone threw what they believed was Jesus' body and blood on the ground. Shocking I think because the act of throwing something to the ground is a contemptuous gesture, it is what you do with worthless things.

But also, I am disturbed by it because Jesus did not throw the bread and wine down in front of his disciples as if they were animals that should grovel on the floor. He shared the last meal with them with civility even knowing their traitorous and fickle natures. For me, the significance is of a call out of our sinful nature into communion with him and each other rather than a reminder of our sinfulness. So if it were me I would want the act free of any abasing symbolism.

I was very moved by Steve Collins's description of the worship at Vaux.
My understanding is that this was the first service in a series and I would be interested to know how the series progressed.

In reading the responses I have been struck by a tendency to either/or thinking and at times to responses of a fairly harsh tone.

I enjoy my traditional middle of the road Anglican worship and have found I prefer the simpler 8am service without the hymns (some of which are dreadful) and the jollity bits.

Is it appropritate for someone to refer to Ultraspike as "that nasty person"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Is it appropritate for someone to refer to Ultraspike as "that nasty person"?

---

In private or on this thread? Does this have anything to do with this thread? Do I really care? Why don't you Email me or turn Private Messages on if you want to ask such esoteric questions?

In the course of this thread, steve collins referred to Ultarspike as "that nasty person". For the life of me, I cannot understand how this was not a violation the above quoted commandment. Ultraspike apologized and was spuspended nonetheless. Is steve collins not held to the same standards?

I don't want to derail this interesting thread, but I don't do email, and I am very troubled by what has happened here. If I am being a pest, just ignore this post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Out of interest, who would try something like this in your own church/worship group/back room?

HT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve collins:

the question is, why don't we all eat and drink more of the elements? presumably to make sure there's enough to go round. but after the ritual necessities are satisfied, why not polish the whole lot off as a group?

---

This is a very interesting question. I think we`re inhibited by, as you say, the thought that we need to leave enough for everyone else, but I think there`s more to it than that. At Greenbelt, there`s half a glass of wine and a whole roll of bread to share between a dozen people. It`s obvious that the small pieces that people take will end up with half the roll left over. And yet people still take tiny crumbs of bread and tiny sips of wine.

I appreciate that a lot of people don`t want to take too much bread for fear they`ll still have a mouth full of half-chewed bread when the win comes round. But I think there`s also some kind of separation going on in people`s minds. This is a holy ritual -- God forbid we should actually act like we`re *eating food*! Rather, we emphasise the symbolic nature of the act by pecking at these tiny crumbs. For me, this rather misses the point -- if we`re meant to be feeding on Christ, shouldn`t we try and get as much of Him as we can?

so knocking it back seems like a truer salute imho

As part of the Eucharist done by the Celebrant, it doesn't.

There's an condescending implication here that these urbanites are not capable of learning reverence. To see the Celebrant treat the Body and Blood of Jesus this way as part of the eucharist doesn't set any sort of standard of what it means to mankind(whether we believe it does or not). I see it as an attention-getter, just like using the word shit, feeling that you have to sink to the lowest common denominator to reach people.

quote:

---

It strikes me that Jesus' approach was to leap straight into the bog. And get totally covered in the crap. He even let Himself get suffocated in it in the process of giving us a leg up out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Texas Tumbleweed:
As a theatrical piece to show how Jesus' body and blood cannot be sullied by Man, no matter how hard Man tries to sully it, it works.

---

But not only is that bad theology ( IMO ), it is not what was trying to be shown.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Texas Tumbleweed:

As part of the Eucharist done by the Celebrant, it doesn't.

---

I suppose it depends on your understanding of eucharist. I always understood it in terms of a remembering of Jesus physical, dirty body being broken and killed, and his physical red blood being dripped on the ground, into the mud.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Texas Tumbleweed:

There's an condescending implication here that these urbanites are not capable of learning reverence.

---

I disagree - there is no implication that they cannot learn reverence. There might be an implication that even if they choose not to, the death of Jesus is still applicable to them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Texas Tumbleweed:

You can't save someone from a bog if you're in there with them. But you can reach out to them and draw them up onto the bank and safety with you without being condescending and condemning about their being in the bog in the first place. But that's a lot more difficult than being shocking, isn't it?

---