As for the Communion I work on the principle of intention. Would I have done what they did. Probably not, but was God offended by it? I doubt it.
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"??)
Neil
Although I've also learnt to sometimes err on the side of caution with 'shocking' techniques - The aim/intention is good, but sometimes it undoes itself. One sermon I preached contain a very tame swear word, and i know several people after that refused to listen to any of the rest of the content, or any other message i preached for months afterwards.. While I stand by my decision, I've learnt perhaps to work out when a 'shock' tactic might not be necessary and could just alienate. They still have their place though!
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.
HT
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.
bb
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.
Having said all this, I think this kind of service is treading a very fine line between acceptability and straying into the darker side of religion, and I could see that if not handled carefully, this might well appeal to the wrong sort of people for the wrong sort of reasons.
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".
I don't think they went too far. Quite. And that is the point - to not quite go too far. It is a very difficult line to tread, and I have no doubt that they overstep it on occasions. But they are gritty and urban, and that works for them.
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.
I can see this working well with a priest, altar and rites and all that (been there), but how can it be done in an NFI church?
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.
long may alt.worship continue to upset people - not as a knee jerk reaction, but because that's what the Good News does. perhaps we should rebrand it the Diffucult News? (hmm, i feel a worship idea coming on...)
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.
The writing of prayers on toilet paper, however, was...er..crap.
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.
S.
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 ).
But this comes from a very limited experience, and a positive reaction to them. I like their challenge to find God in the concrete jungle, because, for a lot of people, that s where they spend much of their lives.
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'.
it often takes guts and faith to share these sacred moments with the wider world.
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?
HT
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.
I did have this thought last year of getting my husband (who we have used a number of times as a model for Jesus as he has the classic long hair and beard), a fishtank and an action man dressed as a photographer. Photograph Malcolm dropping the action man in the fishtank full of orange liquid and title it "And also with you"
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.
bb
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.
dave
quote:
Originally posted by Wibblethorpe:
The book of psalms would use the word 'shit' if we were willing to translate it as such.
and paul's letters too.
Neil
"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.
Shock levels are an unreliable measure - I've met people who are shocked by the use of real bread instead of wafers.
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...
bb
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
"PHP 3:8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them shit, that I may gain Christ"
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.
you can all read kester [brewin]'s introductory speech at this link, it'll give you a better idea.
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?
I think you've answered your own question there Hooker. Archbish Tom did your planning for you. We however would prefer to plan worship together in the here and now. Plan it this week rather than have something form 470-odd years ago. We feel this process can be as worthwhile as the worship itself. That's what it is 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.
Cosmo
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.
(boy i love metaphors )
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Go to Mass not playschool.
what was it jesus said about becoming little children?
(off to play with jesus)
"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.
It was Vanessa (a woman) who came forward, rising from the void, who picked up the pieces and poured out more wine, and encouraged people to come forward."
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.
The sh*t was not symbolism, but expression. To have backed that with piles of dung would have been inappropriate and unnecessary ( and unpleasant, but that's by the by ).
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.
As for reinventing the wheel that strikes me as a voyage of great discovery, and a suitable focus for the christian life. It is perhaps another way of expressing our living tradition.
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?
just thinking really...
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.
none of this was done lightly or trivially. Vaux aren't theological or liturgical innocents. 'chucked all over the floor' is not what happened. if they had chucked it all over the floor for the sake of cheap shock i'd have reported so [and wouldn't have been very pleased].
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?
HT
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
[incidentally, jonathan isn't ordained. so for the high church people this wasn't the sacrament anyway. does this make a difference to how you react? of course for vaux this was the sacrament.]
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.
maybe they'll end up as an article somewhere.
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
When I read this it made me think of the ECUSA. Which represents less than 2% of the churchgoing population in America, makes very little effort at outreach, and basically contents itself with its home-grown prayer-book designed for it's own community.
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.
Tubbs
i also think that it's a vulnerable thing to have your worship dissected in public.... hope vaux can handle it. keep it up guys!
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.
dave
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!)
Neil
and even though to me the elements are symbols only, i don't like the idea of deliberatly throwing them on the ground. maybe precisely because they are only symbols... after all, symbolically, what does that say we are doing?
it was painful, and shocking, and messy.
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.
And Amos, no that wasn't helpful.
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,
Rachel.
one kind sees the bread and wine as, actually or in effect, the person of christ - and therefore deserving to be treated with dignity and respect.
the other kind sees the bread and wine as an event - which can therefore be restaged according to the methods of art. but things that are valid as restagings of an event would be indignities if visited upon a person!
quote:
Originally posted by steve collins:
i've got a different spin on hostie's two kinds of people in this debate:one kind sees the bread and wine as, actually or in effect, the person of christ - and therefore deserving to be treated with dignity and respect.
the other kind sees the bread and wine as an event - which can therefore be restaged according to the methods of art. but things that are valid as restagings of an event would be indignities if visited upon a person!
but these same indignities - being broken, being spilt - were visited upon a person, namely Christ.
My position on transubstantiation, like most of my theology, is fuzzy at best, but I wonder if there's anyone who does fall into camp A (person of Christ) but would be interested in more alternative presentations of the eucharist?
quote:
Originally posted by steve collins:
things that are valid as restagings of an event would be indignities if visited upon a person!
I think this hits the nail bang on the head. Frankly, if the bread and wine contain the "real presence", however you construe that, it really limits how you do what you do - discussion after discussion in MW has basically proved that.
But it's not a question of trans-or con- substanwotsit people being unimaginative or anything. It's not a question of imagaination. It's a question of deeply held belief.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But it's not a question of trans-or con- substanwotsit people being unimaginative or anything. It's not a question of imagaination. It's a question of deeply held belief.
Actually, to a certain extent I think this is about people being unimaginitive; we are living a culture nowadays where people are either unable or unwilling to exercise their imaginations, to make the effort to understand anything which is not immediatley obvious. I remember once during my youth complaining to a priest that mass was boring and being told "you obviously weren't taking part". Participation isn't always about jumping up and grabbing the mike.
I am not suggesting for a second that this argument is the crucial point here, but not one that should be forgotten. Why should we assume that people are unable to appreciate less obvious forms of symbolism just becaue they are Urban?
Should people turn up to Mass as an audience (as described in the article), a word which suggests to me a either a need to be entertained or a priviledged meeting with an elite few? Certainly it wouls seem to suggest a one way flow rather than a sharing act of worship.
Re: the black mass comments, Steve, I assure you I have never been to one either(though as a Roman Catholic there may be some shipmates who would disagree); there was simply somthing vaguely reminiscent based on my limited experience of descriptions of them. I am sure that people attending High mass might freely associate to their own expereinces/knowledge in a simlilar way.
As a fairly new-comer to this whole Alt thing, could I just ask whether the sort of Service described is the only one those particular parishoners go to or do they tend to visit more mainstream masses too?
S.
quote:
If you really want God to be in the dirt with you and you to be with him then go to Mass today. At mass you will have a little piece of dirt rubbed onto your forehead in the shape of a cross with the words said to each individually 'Remember thou art dust and unto dust shalt thou return'. [Or repent and believe the Gospel] Then receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord which he gave for all people to receive and give thanks for,O Lord, you gave your body and blood for us all ...
I find myself agreeing with some parts of Cosmo’s post 
Last night I went into my local High Anglican church for the first time ever last night for the Ash Wednesday ceremony. The ash-ing reminded me that we’re only visitors, the need to let go of the stuff that gets in the way. The communion that follows was a reminder of the eternal and that God is with us “in the shit”. It was very powerful and extremely thought-provoking. In alt w* services I’ve seen ash-ing used, but not usually followed by communion – which is a bit like getting half the message.
I can’t help feeling that something like that – if done well in an alt w* context – might be a more effective way of saying to people “God is with us, in the shit” than throwing the elements on the floor. I’ve thought about this and I can’t get away from the following:
Tubbs
1. Steve C's reference to the church as providing a "McDonalds" type service. This made me jump, because of course McD's is often associated with the commercialisation of the world. But of course, Steve is right - the Church has one product and tries to make it the same everywhere. It may well be that the English obsession with commonality drives out the creative and localised elements of worship - after all, even McD's have local variation around their standard Big Mac n fries.
2. Tubbs referred to "universal symbols". I think part of the problem - and hence a drivign factor in alt.w - is that there aren't any universal symbols. Through their abuse (by Church and non-Church alike) our symbols have simply stopped meaning anything. Even the regulars probably don't know what bits mean - after all, how many congregants know why we break the bread so late in the service, and not at the actual words of institution, which seems a far more logical place to do it? And all the other "universal symbols" - the "Gradual" hymn, the censing of the gospel - all of these had pretty mundane, practical beginnings, and yet have been invested by some with meaning, meanings which are then assumed to be universal and not explained. Despite Peter's exhortation to explain what you're doing and why, the Church is very, very at this.
3. All other things being equal, why is it worse to spill Jesus on an altar than to rip him apart at the fraction?
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Even the regulars probably don't know what bits mean - after all, how many congregants know why we break the bread so late in the service, and not at the actual words of institution, which seems a far more logical place to do it?
I'll put my hand up to that one.
Tubbs said:
quote:
If you need to explain what you’re doing and why then maybe something is wrong. Universal symbols tend not to need explanation as that’s the whole point of them imo.
Sadly symbols cannot be universal unless everyone's had them explained (or learned them in some other way). Even quite regular church-goers haven't learnt all the symbols whether through lack of teaching, lack of initiative, or something.
quote:
As a fairly new-comer to this whole Alt thing, could I just ask whether the sort of Service described is the only one those particular parishoners go to or do they tend to visit more mainstream masses too?
vaux itself has only been going for three years. many of the people involved in vaux also go to other churches and have wide experience of liturgies. some have ordained parents. they're experimenting on the basis of considerable theoretical and practical knowledge, not ignorance.
it's not that they don't understand the older symbolic language, but that they don't think it communicates well enough anymore in a changed society. ultimately the whole purpose of symbolism is to communicate [pun unintended]. if the language is not widely understood then it's not much use, however good in itself [the mass in latin is a fine thing after all]. it becomes arcane, and i don't think the church was meant to be arcane. that's as true of ritual or visual symbolism as it is of written or spoken language. note that this isn't an argument for a 'lowest common denominator' approach. "urban" people appreciate "less obvious forms of symbolism" too - in a different language. maybe you don't appreciate the less obvious aspects of their symbolism.
in fact there is a more serious charge, which is that old symbolic language can actually obscure or corrupt what was originally meant. the church tends to 'freeze' symbols for so long that they cease to mean what they originally meant - like those words in shakespeare or the book of common prayer whose meaning has altered [the father incomprehensible, the son incomprehensible, and the holy ghost incomprehensible!]. so there is a work to be done from time to time of recovering the original intent by changing the language. this is part of the point of alternative worship. it means taking a risk and trying out things that look very different from what has been customary. and it means allowing for the fact that the new language has not yet been perfected.
and any language that cuts deep is unlikely to be universal. why should it be anyway? how many culture-hopping strangers do you really expect to turn up to your worship? the big irony is that the non-christian 90% probably don't struggle with the word shit or violent symbolism. it's the ones used to the very un-universal culture of church that do!
(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...
quote:
Sadly symbols cannot be universal unless everyone's had them explained (or learned them in some other way). Even quite regular church-goers haven't learnt all the symbols whether through lack of teaching, lack of initiative, or something.
Which is a fair point ... I wish I'd thought of it ...
Although I still think that if you have to explain why you're doing something in such detail then something has got lost in translation somewhere.
Interesting post btw CM ... I just can't think of a decent reply 
Tubbs
I am missing something? I thought the elements were basically dropped on the floor... 'Tubbs' suggests they were trampled on too. Is this right? If not, aren't you just exaggerating for effect... which might be a bit unfair on Vaux seeing as you weren't there?
Having read the intro bit, I didn't see that it sought to 'explain' the communion - it didn't mention any dropping/ throwing. I just thought it gave stuff a context.... Which could have been kind of helpful.
That way it lets people who find it to be "too weird" avoid it, and lets those of us who want to know more find out.
Like how do the symbolisms involved in leather relate to the symbolisms at communion? And what are those symbols?
Love
Angel
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
All other things being equal, why is it worse to spill Jesus on an altar than to rip him apart at the fraction?
I once went to a service where the priest had his microphone on too loud. The breaking of the host was horrible - like the snapping of bones. I've never been able to get this out of my mind since.
There are too many images of pain, dirt and desecration in the Vaux service to appeal to me. It would certainly make me think but I would not come away feeling refreshed or spiritually uplifted. Reading the article actually made me feel sad that such shock tactics seem to be necessary for some people. I also felt, on reading the explanation, that it might not have been out of place in the Pseud's Corner section of Private Eye.
If this is to be performed each week for a given period of time the shock value will obviously wear off. What then? How do you keep the impetus going? Use real raw meat for the Body of Christ? Real blood instead of wine?
Frankly, I think the people who dreamed this up need to get out more. This sounds to me like the beginning of something that could become increasingly unhealthy.
quote:
Originally posted by Hostie:
it seems to me that there are two types of people on here...
I think this is far too polemical. I know plenty of people who find a range of liturgies helpful, and enjoy a range of music and artistic expression in worship.
As for myself I have no problem going to mass, and no problem putting on some neo celtic arcane stuff with a downbeat D&B soundtrack. I love it all. It all means something.
[sp.]
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: sacredthree ]
quote:
If this is to be performed each week for a given period of time the shock value will obviously wear off.
actually they knew when they planned it that it could only be done once [unless they do it again at greenbelt....so look out!]
Sieg
quote:
Ariel asserted:
Frankly, I think the people who dreamed this up need to get out more.
Ariel, (May I call you that?) by all means say why you don't like the sound of what went on, but I find this kind of stuff about people who will quite possibly be reading quite unhelpful.
dave
quote:
Originally posted by steve collins:
but that they don't think it communicates well enough anymore in a changed society.
Surely that is a solecism. Why should our society be any more changed than our parents' or grandparent's or Queen Victoria's or Samuel Johnson's?
Ever since the Prayer Book (or Mass, or Resurrection story even, if you like) was written, new generations, in a changed society, had to confront and deal with it.
What makes the changes in our society so special?
quote:
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.
The girl speaks sense!
Posted by Fiddleback
quote:
All this Jesus in the cowshit stuff is the sort of damp-eyed pap we hear from pulpits every Christmas. It entirely ignores the fact that our Lord was a member of the comfortable middle classes.
But even if he was then he was still lowered to the lowest place, mixing with scum and dying a criminals death, that sounds pretty shit to me.
Neil
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hostie:
it seems to me that there are two types of people on here...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is far too polemical. I know plenty of people who find a range of liturgies helpful, and enjoy a range of music and artistic expression in worship.
I think the above will be a mess but... anyway ST, it wasn't meant to be polemical, it was actually meant to stop the degeneration that seemed to be happening... But then maybe that's not my best skill.
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Ever since the Prayer Book (or Mass, or Resurrection story even, if you like) was written, new generations, in a changed society, had to confront and deal with it.
That's not true, and you know it. The form of words may have remained substantially unchanged, but the way it had been enacted, the actual communication has changed significantly.
Does your church has the holy table sideways in the nave, or perhaps has high sided box pews, or perhaps the responses are said by a clerk? The only reason the actual BCP remained unchanged for so long was that the English were so fed up of it changing every other year depending on theological fashion. Even though by the time of QE1 it did not reflect the eucharistic theology of the churches head they stuck with it for utilities sake.
Liturgy, written or otherwise is continuing not static. Perhaps Cranmer is both flattered and disappointed at the exclusive use of the BCP in some churches today, I don't think an everlasting memorial to English compromise was what he intended. Those who know me will remember I am no "Prayer Book Hater", I regularly sing the Evensong Office, and serve at BCP communion, and find it helpful. But the Prayer Book or any other liturgical text or formula is not carved in stone. If I reject scriptural inerrancy I can't then ascribe it to a tradition.
Alt.Worship, New Liturgies, Montessorian Christian Education, Explorative Worship, etc are all part of this evolution and continuation of our liturgy. Vaux are playing an important part in that, not trying to be "cool", "radical" or "trendy" but drawing from their own culture and experience in their worship. I hope I share that goal.
Alt.Worship for me flows out of the way I naturally worship God; when I pray I do the same stuff on my own that I would do with others in a group. If I didn't do group alt.worship I would be being dishonest to my spirituality. If you 'get' it, great, if you don't that's fine. I don't do what I do to shock or impress, I do it to worship God.
[fxd]
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: sacredthree ]
Read also the bit of Julian of Norwich which is usually omitted, where she reflects on the goodness of God in the fact that 'at the right time' our bodies 'open like a purse' to expel our waste products, and 'all this is by the goodness of God' (she must have had regular habits...). All this is why I was excited at reading Steve's report, and would like to discuss it with folks from Vaux. Do they have a website?
Edward is right, worship is never static. Een the Latin Mass, the text of which was largely unchanged for 1500 years, looked very different in 1800 than it did in 700. But it is a peculiarly modern notion that a bunch of people should get together and figure out how it should change in order to mae it "meaningful" or "moving." Nobody ever said, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to rub ashes on people's foreheads. That would shae 'em out of their complacency!"
FCB
wrt shit, i've always been struck by the bit in ezekiel ch 4 v 12 where god tells ezekiel to bake his food over human excrement in public as part of his prophetic performance art. and ezekiel is so appalled that god backs down! so i've never felt it possible to offend god with this kind of art, since he invented it. it's the humans who get shocked.
I personally do not like the Benediction service, because veneration of the host itself, removed from the eating and drinking symbolism of assimilating Christ (for me, symbolically), seems off beam. So I suppose the cut-off point for me would come with consecration - and by the same token I wouldn't want to see the consecrated host thrown around, because from then on, we're acting in response to Jesus's command to 'Eat...Drink...' Up to that point, I suppose using the bread and wine as a visual aid is fair enough.
I was interested that the person leading the service isn't a priest - which I think makes a big difference, but I don't know why, as I disagree that it negates it as a 'real' Eucharist to the high-church eye. It is what it is; do we have to say that it's actually 'a device that symbolises the Eurcharist' ?
Reading back over what I've written, (I'm nervous of breaking the rules!) it all sounds very clinical - I think I may have proved to myself that those sort of challenges are just essential.
quote:
bored with Christianity
no, bored with the available expressions of church. they're very excited by christianity.
quote:
it is a peculiarly modern notion that a bunch of people should get together and figure out how it should change in order to mae it "meaningful" or "moving."
it's a peculiarly modern necessity, since churches ceased to engage adequately with the culture around them.
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Surely that is a solecism.
Fun with isms: Surely it is not a solecism. What it is is a solipsism.
Now that we've got that cleared up, Edward you misunderstand me. I do indeed mean to say that my Holy Table is not sidewise in the nave and we don't have a clerk (although there are a surprising number of churches with high boxed pews in the Diocese of Virginia). Of course we change in response to new conditions and social realities.
What I meant was Archbishop Laud didn't say "you know what guys, we are an increasingly urban, commerical society. We are different. This old-fashioned Christianity doesn't have any relevance to us. Let's move the Holy Table into the chancel. Oh, let's jazz it up with some rails whilst we're at it."
Of course the forms of our ceremonial change. I suppose I am just taking a cynical reaction to "our society is SOO new and SOO special and SOO different that we need to do some one-off experimental rituals to put the punch back in Christianity."
Now, I'm not saying that one doesn't need to put the "punch" back into Christianity. Perhaps we do. I'm merely adding my voice to this discussion, tho what I have to say is probably all too predictable.
HT [prayer book fudnie]
It's most likely to be when it's something of great importance to the individual, and eucharist/communion/bread and wine/etc will be high on the list, but the Vaux community seem to be able to cope with that, and thrive on it.
We got into some trouble for having a messy "crib" that spread hay untidily over the church - and then doubly so for putting into it some of the stuff a teenage mother of today would collect to prepare for the baby. Shit again - they couldn't cope with nappies. Obviously Jesus didn't!
We do need to keep finding ways to incarnate God. Always a shocking thing for God to do........
quote:
Originally posted by steve collins:
it's a peculiarly modern necessity, since churches ceased to engage adequately with the culture around them.
No: the culture has ceased to engage adequately with the churches.
I agree with FCB. To me, the whole thing smacks of over-sophistication and emotional perceptions dulled by too much contact with gritty inner-city life. If you start having visions of a "divine turd" there is something fundamentally wrong somewhere. Do you really place modern society as the benchmark rather than the church? We are routinely used to things these days that would have been unmentionable to people a century ago but I feel this is going too far.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
No: the culture has ceased to engage adequately with the churches.
Sorry, but it is not the responsibility of the culture to change to stay with the church. It is the church's responsibility to be relevant to the culture in which it exists. If they diverge, then it is the responsibility of the church to adapt.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve:
If they diverge, then it is the responsibility of the church to adapt.
There are fashions in popular morality just as there are in anything else. We are currently in a negative phase. Some of the more depressing aspects of modern culture include the acceptability of drugs, divorce, promiscuity, sexual experimentation, the abdication of personal responsibility, and cynicism. I don't want, for example, a church that condones and adapts to these just because they are widespread features of modern life. I am not saying that all change is bad, but for me a church should have firm moral guidance, not blow with the wind to attract its converts. You can adapt so far that you end up eventually espousing principles which are the complete opposite of the ones you started out with. It might be what people want, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it is good for them.
It's about a way of 'doing' Church that engages with cultural idioms using new symbolisms, new signifiers, new semes. The morality that underpins these semes stays the same; only the semes change.
quote:
I am missing something? I thought the elements were basically dropped on the floor... 'Tubbs' suggests they were trampled on too. Is this right? If not, aren't you just exaggerating for effect... which might be a bit unfair on Vaux seeing as you weren't there?
I think one post implied that they were trampled on ... And because I access at work (and often read v quickly) it's highly possible that I assummed that it was from someone who was there, when it wasn't. If I have mis-represented anything in the service then I am sorry.
However, the whole thing still strikes me as way too confrontational and shock tactics for the sake of them ...
But then I'm speaking from the prespective of a particular community with it's own dynamic. It's also possible that if I was a Vaux regular then I would find it easier to get my head around the whole idea. It does sound like a product of a particular group / place / situation. (Worship as a reflection of the community that created it )
Hope this makes sense ...
Tubbs
I would not come away feeling refreshed or spiritually uplifted
This presupposes that this is the only emotional reaction that these particular symbols should cause in us.
the congregation included at least 4 or 5 clergy, loads of lay preachers and plenty good ole traditional methodists. nobody seemed to have a problem with it.
my point? maybe you have to be there.
quote:
my point? maybe you have to be there.
I second that!
Tubbs
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Ariel said:
I would not come away feeling refreshed or spiritually upliftedThis presupposes that this is the only emotional reaction that these particular symbols should cause in us.
This presupposes that you should expect a wider variety of reactions. Can I ask what people actually go to services for, what they expect or want to get out of them?
If you are in the right mood the Mass itself in its normal form can be shocking. It can also be deeply moving, uplifting, boring, frustrating, and deeply unfulfilling. It isn't the Mass that's different, it's my personal reaction to it.
Wood: no, this isn't directly about morality, but to judge by the postings on this thread I'd say it was indirectly a moral issue. I don't know what a "seme" is.
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian:
i'm interested by the 'shock horror!' response to this report. we actually did something similar a couple of years ago - it was a creation/new life/resurrection themed service and after the congregation had washed their hands in sand as a confession ritual, the wine was split onto the 'dirty' sand as symbolic of the spilling of christ's blood that purifies creation.the congregation included at least 4 or 5 clergy, loads of lay preachers and plenty good ole traditional methodists. nobody seemed to have a problem with it.
I don't have a "shock, horror" response; it's more "schlock, boredom" response. And the fact that the clergy have a desire to seem hip should come as no surprise. I imagine the peer pressure not to seem shocked must have been intense.
Regarding to "church must adapt to the times" perspective, all I can say is that it has been tried repeatedly (Constantine, Charlemagne, the German Christians) and the church almost always looks back in regret. Who are the heroes of German Christianity? It is the up-to-date theologians who decided that Christianity must be purged of its jewish elements (following the best modern scholarship of Harnack, et al.); it was the "conservative" like Bonhoeffer and Barth and "antiquarian" communities like the Bruderhof.
FCB
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I don't have a "shock, horror" response; it's more "schlock, boredom" response. And the fact that the clergy have a desire to seem hip should come as no surprise. I imagine the peer pressure not to seem shocked must have been intense.
you couldn't be more wrong. there's a very healthy attitude of discussion and questioning at the ministers/preachers meetings. they wouldn't have hesitated had they felt something was out of order. the fact is, the context of the worship was one of thought and love, not one of staginess or 'schlock'. like i say, you gotta be there.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Can I ask what people actually go to services for, what they expect or want to get out of them?
God.
Who is often neither restful nor spiritually refreshing, but rather terrifying and awe-ful.
Ariel, our last vicar deliberately snapped the wafer close to the mike to remind us every time of the pain of Christ's breaking. It did send shudders, and rightly so.
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Regarding to "church must adapt to the times" perspective, all I can say is that it has been tried repeatedly (Constantine, Charlemagne, the German Christians) and the church almost always looks back in regret.
So, lets go back to services all in Latin, or even better right back to Acts chapter 2, speaking in tongues and the like.
Of course the church has to adapt and change in the way it does things. (The changing it's morals issue is of course entirely separate). It's just that some of us want to enforce the adaptations that we personally like upon everyone else.
dave
Two examples, I think, will suffice:
1. The English prayer book. Totally barmy compared with traditional church order. Only two offices, and a communion service that's the wrong way around. Shape and content determined very much by the theological impulses of Cranmer. Highly idiosyncratic, highly individual - and defended (quite rightly) by the people who recognise its value.
2. The Holy Week and Easter liturgies. Now, this is interesting. They started (natch) in Jerusalem, with "re-enactments" of specific events at the traditional accepted locations - they could do this because they had them to hand and they added something to the worship. But these services only came into existence after the Constantinian peace and developed as something new and different. When visitors, such as the nun Egeria, saw these, they said, "Wow!" and took the ideas back to their own communities throughout Europe.
quote:
Originally posted by Wibblethorpe:
Of course the church has to adapt and change in the way it does things.
Did I say that the Church does change? Sorry if I gave that impression. My point is that "changing with the times" happens inevitably, for good or for ill. I just think that when the church makes changing with the times an explicit item on its agenda it is usually making a mistake. In fact, I think that if you had to err on one side or the other, I'd rather err on the side of resisting the times. Put another way, I find the Amish admirable whereas I generally don't much admire mainline liberal protestantism or evangelical megachurches (two different kinds of cultural accomodation).
Regarding Dyfrig's two example (in reverse order):
2) The Holy Week rites didn't originate because some committee was trying to make the liturgy relate to the culture.
1) I think the BCP is a great example of innovation that is later regretted. The 1549 book was, at least on the surface, fairly traditional. It was in 1552, when Cranmer tried to adapt to the latest in continental protestant thinking, that he produced the miserable eucharistic rite that every subsequent revision of the BCP has sought to reverse.
FCB
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
2) The Holy Week rites didn't originate because some committee was trying to make the liturgy relate to the culture.
But we don't know this. Unless you're imagining that clergy and laity just turned up one morning and the words came out of nowhere, I think we have to concede that at least some innovative thought and planning went into this.
1) I think the BCP is a great example of innovation that is later regretted.
You'd better not let HT and PaulTH hear you say that - or indeed the Church of England which preserved these services in Common Worship.
quote:
Originally posted by Wibblethorpe:
So, lets go back to services all in Latin, or even better right back to Acts chapter 2, speaking in tongues and the like.
I'm not sure that one has to go back terribly far to encounter the latter; as for the former no rear-glancing is necessary, just pop into any of a number of churches which I am sure any members of the MW Tat Demagoguery would be pleased to provide...
I am in agreement with the people saying that change for the sake of change might not always be too constructive, but here we get into a debate about evolution vs. revolution and other well known Fast Company articles.
What's wrong with trying to change ourselves or our outlook rather than everything else being "innovated" to order because we decide we're bored?
S.
quote:
the culture has ceased to engage adequately with the churches.
and later...
quote:
It is the church's responsibility to be relevant to the culture in which it
exists.
I can't get away from the feeling that there is some golden age-ism going on here. The feeling that once, in the mists of our collective memory, the Church and Society were hand-holding partners in a civilisation-wide mission of do-gooding and relevance. But when was this idyllic time?
E'en when church-going was compulsory, I doubt the fit was as neat as this. And even when people's world view was seen through the lense of the Faith of the Church, even when secular and spiritual was a false dichotomy, can we REALLY say that the church and the society it lived in cohabitated in perfect harmony? And are those the days to which we wish to return?
quote:
It's just that some of us want to enforce the adaptations that we personally like upon everyone else.
Surely everyone wants to impose his way on everyone else, if he is honest. Even liberal broad churchmen secretly pine after the fantasy that everyone would instantly recognise "dearly beloved brethren" as the beginning of a service.
And Dyfrig, of course you are quite right about the Prayer Book and innovation. But you've forgotten that all radicals become conservatives once radicalism becomes status quo. Then it all just gets boring and the same and irrelevant...
HT
By the way, what does "relevant" mean? It is one of those words that is oft used and rarely defined.
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.)
It wasn't a specifically Christian event, but I think a similar situation could occur in different ways with groups of Christians. This may be a difficulty which deserves its own thread -- 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? "Let's do X, Y, and Z." "Oh, X is idolatry and I'm not so sure about Z. Y is OK, though, but I think we need W." "W? W? That's why I want Y -- to replace W! And if you think X and Z are wrong, then..."
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?
John Holding
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.
The problem is when we don't offer people the opportunity to explore and understand their own worship, or the worship of the church they have just walked into.
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.
anyhow, if you go to one of these events it doesn't require anything like as much explanation as trying to convey it to someone who wasn't there. in fact, one of the things many alt worship groups do is try to dispense with the usual "now we'll stand and sing hymn number 12 on page 34" explanations by producing something that unfolds in a more organic way.that's the theory anyway
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?)
Tigglet-the-really-going-to-bed-now!!!
Tigglet
ps. Apology for the double post too....
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.
Is mainstream Christianity just downright spiritually lazy I wonder?
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]
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? we certainly encourage this at grace - not that people need much encouraging to finish the wine. vaux do this too, although there was definitely stuff left for me to photograph this time. it seems to depend on mood. if the service is cheerful it feels ok to make free, if the mood has been sombre it doesn't.
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.
And now, back to Cow Shit...
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.
[Host Mode OFF]
I just love the smell of horse shit, even more than cow shit. In fact I am thinking of making a special blend of incense using horse shit as the main ingredient. Do you think it would be okay to use this in a eucharistic setting?
But burning it? I dont think that would work, unless we held a service in a field!
Neil
I think two weeks off are in order. See you in March.
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've always deplored the way the Roman Catholic church persecutes those who wish to continue the latin mass. so in the very remote event of alt worship triumphing in the institutional churches, i envisage people still being able to do 1970s or 1670s worship to their and god's heart's content. they just won't be able to impose it on everybody else.
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,
Emily
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.
I’d like to thank Steve Collins for the article that sparked off all this, and for the introduction to Mindfield magazine.
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?
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!
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.
dave
I went out on a limb - Farnham is too far, and Woking isn't.
Next!
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.
On the communion - couldn't avoid considering the cost to Christ of what I was being offered several times over before receiving it at Vaux that night.
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.
Anyway, it's one that's been chewed over a lot, and I can only advise you check out the archive to get some of the arguments, many of which are far longer and more involved for me to repeat in the one post.
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 still think the 's' word was innappropriate, because the Bible does talk about not using profane language. But an ocassional time to home in on God dealing with the dark parts of our lives is cool. Overall, I think God wants us to spend more time living in the abundant life He has for us, because of Jesus' sacrifice.
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?
No. Regardless of how Vaux did it and the rights and wrongs of that, if we do not explore the interface of our faith and the crap in life, we have an emasculated image of God, and an emasculated faith.
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!
Tubbs
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?
So is there a role for the Devil in this sort of theology?
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.
If he exists.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
Which theology is that?
Doesn't matter. There's room for the Devil (and convincing arguments for and against) in both theologies.
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.
Just personal thoughts.
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.
But I feel a bit of a freak in the church community bearing labels like lesbian, mentally ill, and a slightly more radical political, social and spiritual outlook.
The confrontation of the Vaux service brings home to me what I know in my mind but often lose in my heart: God is present in the shit.
And there are other times when the transcendent, immortal invisible God speak to me.
Surely we need aspects of God and ways of worshipping that meet the different aspects of our lives and and our community lives.
Merely reading about the Vaux eucharist is a wild card too - perhaps my understanding would have been different if I was there.
HT
Is it appropritate for someone to refer to Ultraspike as "that nasty person"?
Greta
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.
Greta
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
Yep. Possibly. One of the things that struck me about the service ( and so many of the ideas that come out here ) is that I could take some of the concepts and use them in my church. I don't know precisely how, or what context I could do it in, but I will store it away for future use.
that's the end of this matter.
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?
For what it`s worth, in groups I`ve been in at Greenbelt we`ve always finished off the elements between us. And, in normal church services, I will generally try and take as big a swig of the wine as I`m allowed. The trouble comes when the server holding the chalice angles it in such a way that I can only get the tiniest sip.
so knocking it back seems like a truer salute imho
[is it his sense of humour that the one thing this 'glutton and drunkard' said to do to remember him by was eat and drink?]
Most of this thread is well worth reading, but your comments hit the nail on the head.
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.
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?
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.
Indeed He did, Karl. But if He hadn't had that lifeline up to the bank of being God as well as man when He jumped in after us, it wouldn't have been quite the same result, I think. He certainly wouldn't have been able to save ALL of us by doing it.
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?
Aparently, given the inability of 90% of churches to do it. The incarnation was ( and is ) primarily about God getting down here in the dirt with us. Don't spiritualise it and clean it up, because it removes the essence of what Jesus did.
quote:
But if He hadn't had that lifeline up to the bank of being God as well as man when He jumped in after us, it wouldn't have been quite the same result, I think. He certainly wouldn't have been able to save ALL of us by doing it.
Say rather that He was pulled back on to the bank clutching us by His Father.
Then Father fished him out and us in him. Amazing isn't it? Jesus is my Hero, but imagine Father seeing the son being swallowed up.
that really IS going too far, even for the Turner Prize! Then I realised you meant another kind of bog and this word is worthy of the double meaning thread elsewhere on the boards - phew!
quote:
Originally posted by Texas Tumbleweed:
There's an condescending implication here that these urbanites are not capable of learning reverence.
i'm intrigued that you're seeing this particular eucharist as the opposite of reverent to god. it certainly wasn't irreverent, it was deadly serious. no-one was taking this lightly. the people who did it have enormous reverence for god. part of this reverence is a feeling that we pass too easily over the crucifixion, and that sometimes it's good to be reminded a little more graphically of what it entailed, before we eat and drink. maybe it's not reverence exactly, in the usual sense, but it's homage.it seems condescending to assume that these urbanites don't already know a lot about reverence, in conventional or other forms, whether or not they showed it on this occasion. they're all very experienced worshippers.
Enough already of this absurd discussion. Enough already of the absurd 'theology' which underpins this farcical piece of performance art. Enough already of people pretending that 'Vaux' and all that it stands for is the only way to engage youf culture when it in fact repels youf who when you explain to them what a High Mass is and how it works never want to have anything else. Enough already of the absurd levels of self-righteousness and sanctimony displayed on this thread by people who clearly have the capability to know better.
Go and sit in Westminster Abbey or Westminster Cathedral or All Saints Margaret St or St Mary's Bourne St for Holy Week and Easter and suddenly this piece of dross will fade away into the land of Betamax videos and Sinclair C5's as you are confronted with real, painful religion.
Nothing is more embarassing than the Church trying to be 'relevant'. As soon as people realise that the better.
Cosmo
Cosmo
Alternative Worship is one of the "traditions" in the church which isn't about being "relevant" or "accessible", but about people expressing their own culture in their worship.
Accessible: No.
Easy: No.
Relevant: Not in the "lets be trendy christian sense"
Does Alt.Worship represent the living tradition of the church in interacting with a changing growing god in the language of the worshipers: Yes
Does Alt.Worship engage the mind, body and senses in an experience of the other: Yes
Is it closer to pre-reformation worship in its breadth, folk religion, and opportunities for personal devotion: Yes
Does it work, and does it plumb greater depths than "charismatic" and "traditional" forms: Hell Yes
I have the utmost respect for Cosmo and the High Church tradition (as Cosmo knows), but perhaps there is some fear here. Where is the ritualistic exploration and innovation coming from today? A lot is coming from the Alt.Worship communities and groups which share the underlying principles. The Oxford Movement is dead, let us say a last requiem and go deeper in.
Do go to Mass, do explore our living tradition, do it in silence with projected images and incense (oops betrayed the fact I have been spending too much time at Westcott) do it with a Down Beat sound track, do it in Latin, but explore your faith, interact with your liturgy, interact with the evolving church.
That is "getting a grip".
quote:
i'm intrigued that you're seeing this particular eucharist as the opposite of reverent to god. it certainly wasn't irreverent, it was deadly serious. no-one was taking this lightly. the people who did it have enormous reverence for god. part of this reverence is a feeling that we pass too easily over the crucifixion, and that sometimes it's good to be reminded a little more graphically of what it entailed, before we eat and drink. maybe it's not reverence exactly, in the usual sense, but it's homage.it seems condescending to assume that these urbanites don't already know a lot about reverence, in conventional or other forms, whether or not they showed it on this occasion. they're all very experienced worshippers.
I wasn't there, and that puts me at a disadvantage. But it was certainly shocking to the observer, and I think that would destroy the close communion with the Lord I try to have when communion occurs. That's why I thought it might work as a video or theatrical piece before the sermon. The celebrant could teach on it, and the shock would have faded so communicants could approach communion in a state that allows each to accept the sacraments in communion with Jesus.
I'm sure many urbanites know a great deal about reverence. But it didn't seem like they were in this service.
One time, a couple of people got to nail turkish breads to a huge lump of wood, and we had to tear bits off them to eat them. The broken remains hanging off the nails, and the crumbs on the floor, were extremely poignant. I think there was spilling of wine, too...
And on that s word, if i remember it right Mark Pierson once did a service where he had a bread machine baking bread while the service began, timed so the bread finished baking just as the communion hymn finished. Timed a little too well, because when he opened the machine and tore the bread in two he got burnt, and instead of "this is my body", he said "shit this is hot."
It's all good.
andrew
quote:
Originally posted by Texas Tumbleweed:
I wasn't there, and that puts me at a disadvantage.
i know, and many of the posts on this thread have caused me to reflect on the shortcomings of my own writing. of course i wanted to stir things up and shock you a bit, but in the process what got left out was the seriousness of intent and atmosphere in the service that made these outrageous things more than just shock tactics.
it's worth reflecting on the fact that none of the things that were done would seem particularly shocking in any other context than a church service. which is a mark of how we separate worship from the rest of our lives. for some that's a good thing, for others that's a bad thing. vaux, obviously, think it's a bad thing.
quote:
the shock would have faded so communicants could approach communion in a state that allows each to accept the sacraments in communion with Jesus.
this didn't seem to be a problem. partly because there was a little time while the bread was being set out on the altar and more wine was poured, to get over some of the shock [assuming one was shocked]. and the communion itself could only be received two by two, so it took a long time. as people came forward and knelt at the altar they seemed very grave and reverent [children excepted of course]. as far as i could tell, the drama had made people more aware of christ - more serious, more prayerful. many took the symbolism further, unbidden, by preferring to dip their bread in the pool of spilt wine rather than drink from the cups. a couple brought their pieces of toilet paper with sins written on and left them in the pool of wine [and i had to remove them to take photos at the end!].
so the people who were there seemed to connect deeply with what was done, rather than being alienated by it, and were prepared to take the symbolism further by themselves. if the purpose is communion with christ, then it seemed to work, for that bunch of people at least. which comes back to what i wrote about team and congregation knowing one another well enough to take risks in worship.
I agree with ChastMaster, it is very difficult for Christians to agree or unite in any effort of worship, and there will always be the loners. Wise, solemn, quiet, and misunderstood by the majority, they will continue for as long as the earth lasts.
As for using "bad" words, who said they were bad? If God did not, we may re-evaluate their values, for that in saying the same thing by uttering different sounds, if it is not sin, then one must wonder why it is considered wrong. It is generally only considered rude by humankind, but as our language evolves this will change, just as many words commonly used now were once thought terribly rude.
What is sin, however, is cursing another human being. The Scripture states clearly, "Bless, and curse not." And again, "'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' saith the Lord."
Yet if one does not tell the truth, hesitating to state that right is right and wrong is wrong for fear of offending another, we are not keeping in mind the Lord's own words to the Pharisees, calling them vipers and hypocrites. His intentions were to warn them and others of impending dangers, and therefore were rooted in and born of love.
quote:
Enough already of the absurd 'theology' which underpins this farcical piece of performance art. Enough already of people pretending that 'Vaux' and all that it stands for is the only way to engage youf culture when it in fact repels youf who when you explain to them what a High Mass is and how it works never want to have anything else.
Cosmo, I have to say that that is the most patronising crock of shite I have read in a while. I honestly don't think you have grasped the edges of the debate if you think people like Vaux, and others doing alt worship are interested in engaging 'youf culture'. It's precisely that dumb attitude - that as soon as you do something different using media and ideas that are foreign to church but not to the rest of the world it means you are fishing for trendy converts - that puts a damper on any sort of change.
David Wells wrote of the established church "Not only has the fat lady sung, but the chairs have been put away, the lights turned out ... and the wrecking ball stands ready to swing the next day... but all these men in purple still huddle in groups talking of the great opera's they are going to stage."
As far as I'm concerned, hats off to Vaux for getting on and doing something. It's not like they insist this is the only way, but at least allow them the respect of doing what works for them, rather than sitting around masturbating from the sidelines - getting all worked up, but doing nothing, creating nothing while the walls are crumbling around. You may not want anything else, but at least have then sense to appreciate that others might.
quote:
As far as I'm concerned, hats off to Vaux for getting on and doing something. It's not like they insist this is the only way, but at least allow them the respect of doing what works for them, rather than sitting around masturbating from the sidelines - getting all worked up, but doing nothing, creating nothing while the walls are crumbling around. You may not want anything else, but at least have then sense to appreciate that others might.
So.... if Vaux finds that sacrificing babies on the altar works for them, hats off to them? I don't mean to be flip - it boils down to where to draw the line, because there is a line. Where the line is is, of course, the point of this whole discussion.
I've been mulling this over at length, and the word "disrespect" keeps coming to mind. As practicing Christians we KNOW better. Yes, Christ climbs down into the deepest foulest ooze to get us, but now that we know better, why should we intentionally foul His sacraments and say it's a good thing? I'm speaking now of throwing them down as part of the eucharist, not in other contexts or parts of the service.
We won't sully Him - nothing can do that. But we sully ourselves when we show such disrespect while knowing better.
And oh, yes - I've been involved in everything from low church to the highest and am now deeply involved in contemporary worship that utilizes art, dance, multi-media, all manner of expression to bring the congregation closer to the Lord in their worship. I'm not exactly opposed to trying new things. But at least in our area, the churches that are growing by leaps and bounds are the ones preaching the Word and reaching out as Christ's desciples to raise souls out of the ooze, not the ones who are trying to get down to the lowest common denominator.
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
youf who when you explain to them what a High Mass is and how it works never want to have anything else.
Yeah right. Not.
quote:
So - Vaux and Cosmo to set up next door to each other. Both to have their style of services. See which one attracts more people to Christ.
Yeah right I think Celebrity DeathMatch between the two would work better But the quote implies that it's either or when surely the Body needs both Cosmo and Vaux.
Tubbs
I would like to welcome all the new visitors to small fire who have come in via this thread. It is clear many of you still have some misconceptions about alt.worship, but you are still very welcome to ask questions and contribute to conversations.
There are a few things that you may need to know about small fire, and the alt.worship community in general.
The regular contributors here generally know what they are talking about: many of them are far better read, educated and experienced in matters of worship, liturgy and educational methods than the average church goer; this is their specialist area.
The regular contributors here are not trying to be relevant for the "yoof". They are expressing their own culture in the way they worship. for example s3 services range in age between teens and sixties.
The regular contributors here use this is as an open creative forum, not just somewhere to argue over "the best way to do something", and certainly not somewhere to ridicule other peoples ideas.
The regular contributors here are from a range of church backgrounds and experiences. For some Alt.Worship is their main expression of church, for others it is just part of it. Do not make any assumptions about the "churchpersonship" of alt.worship. It doesn't have one.
I am posting this here, and also in Adrian's small buckets of water thread. I would prefer discussion of it to go in that thread rather than dragging this one off track.
Also see:
What is Alt.Worship which as part of our guidlines for this board you will have all read of course.
I am posting this as a member of the small fire community not as a host, however I promise that if people "forget" what I have just explained I will gently remind them.
[Added URL]
[ 04 March 2002: Message edited by: sacredthree ]
I can understand the need for shock. The Christian faith's central story is shocking. The imagery is familliar to me even though I have not used it in worship.
What I want to know is that how was the transcendant communicated in the service. I get the most of the write up shows the immanent part of worship which is crucial but I would like to know about the transcendant to.
The background to this was that I was going through a tough time at precisely the point that I read the article it left me not cold.
I did not feel reassured by the fact God was with me in it as I felt he was as helpless as I. This may be a personal response may be because I could not take in the transcendant part or any of a hundred other reasons but I would like some clarification.
The communion service, however managed, ceebrates the fact that Jesus died and rose - we remember Him, what He suffered, and that He is waiting for us to join Him in a place where there is no more suffering, no more tears, where He is the light.
I'm not trying to anticipate Steve's reply, just trying to think about your point, which I do agree is really important. If we don't come away from church having been given some hope, some awareness of God's over-arching ability to deal with and transform the worst scenarios, we have missed something really essential.
Also thank you to Steve for his enlightening comment. Perhaps he could explain to me why the most rapidly expanding bit of my own little conventicle are 20-30 year olds who previously went to places like Vaux? It's a poser isn't it? Why on earth should they want to go to a place which celebrates the traditional (in the proper sense of the word) sacraments of the Church in a way which has light, beauty, reverence and hope along with a recognition of the past, present and future of the Church and are praught the doctrine of the Church Catholic when they could be going to a place that throws Our Lord into the dirt becuase that's obviously the place we want him to belong. 'If I'm in the shit, O Lord, then you ought to be too'. I can't think why. Others, less kind than me, have suggested that these people have begun to grow up. I couldn't possibly make such an unkind suggestion.
The problem with places like Vaux is not their experimentation with liturgy. I can cope with that as long as experimentation doesn't mean just casting off everything that has gone before as so much dross. The main problem with it is that its theology seems so dubious. The service of dirt has a theology of death. It was all about (as far I can see and read from its description) Christ dying and breaking, all about sinfulness and hopelessness. It was as though all that matters is Good Friday and not Easter Day. I know for some people that this is their theology: Christ's atoning death being all that matters and the Resurrection and Ascension being a bit of a side-show later on to show that he was God as well as Man. But the Mass, the Christian Life, is about life not death. It is about hope not despair. And its focus is not on us but to God. All worship is to God and not just about ourselves and trying to force God into the postion that what we want God to be in.
And that's why I get irritated by things like Vaux which seem to play around with ourselves rather than God and glories in the transitory and the Now, that glories and concentrates on us, here, now, because that's all that matters, (and who cares about those before us, they are dead, and let those who follow us look after themselves; it's we who matter) rather than allow ourselves to be under the Eternal God, to worship him with those who have gone before us and glory in his resurrection hope.
Cosmo
quote:
Originally posted by Steve:
Cosmo - playing the numbers game? Surely not.
No. I'm just saying that that part of my own little place which is expanding most are the 20-30 year olds. I'm sorry if that disturbs you unduly.
Cosmo
maybe cosmo would like to get some of his ex-vaux group to comment on their experience of alt.worship?
hmmm.... the post-alt-worship movement. now alt.worship has really arrived.
I actually think that the success of anglo-catholicism and the development of alt.worship with the mid 20's and 30's are related phenomena. Both offer opportunities for the post-modern, the post-conservative and the post-evangelical. If one is going to take the rather arrogant position of "you grow up out of evangelicalism into something else" then both alt.worship and ang.catholic are possible routes. For many I know it is a both rather than an either. Alt.Worship is not about numbers, as Steve has pointed out, but it does have a significant influence on the church for its size as a "movement". I would suggest that the influence of alt.worship over the next 30 years could be compared to say the parish communion movement. alt.worship is helping take the church in a certain direction.
As for the Vaux service I have already stated that I felt a little uncomfortable with the communion part of it, however the them of God meeting us at our lowest level, and us accepting even embracing that "shit happens" is very Lenten and to be encouraged. I'm not sure if Vaux does have a "here and now" theology but I doubt it. I find all this "the christian life is hope not despair" to be rather triumphalist.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie:
I have given this a lot of thought and I hope Steve will give this some consideration in reply.I can understand the need for shock. The Christian faith's central story is shocking. The imagery is familliar to me even though I have not used it in worship.
What I want to know is that how was the transcendant communicated in the service. I get the most of the write up shows the immanent part of worship which is crucial but I would like to know about the transcendant to.
The background to this was that I was going through a tough time at precisely the point that I read the article it left me not cold.
I did not feel reassured by the fact God was with me in it as I felt he was as helpless as I. This may be a personal response may be because I could not take in the transcendant part or any of a hundred other reasons but I would like some clarification.
i think that, for vaux, the fact that god is present in the dirt is the hope - because they don't think that makes god helpless. in time we'll be redeemed from the dirt - but right now we are in it, and need to find god with us in it rather than sitting on a throne a long way away watching.
i'm trying to analyse why i don't feel any need to dwell on transcendence, but am hugely excited by immanence.
most of the people in vaux - most of the people in alt worship i suspect - are from charismatic evangelical backgrounds, where transcendence has often been emphasised to the point where we forget that god was ever fully human, ever struggled with temptation or compromise, ever knew human weakness. we forget that we have "a high priest who can
sympathise with our weakness" because he is only presented to us as triumphant and in heaven. which is a long way from where we are.
so dwelling on the poverty and suffering of god, for a lot of us, is hugely uplifting - it tells us that god does understand, god is present here and now. but it's a redemptive and transforming presence - not necessarily transforming the situation, but us. we often need god's strength to stay where we are, not god's help to escape. this service was trying to speak to that need. if you had been there, it may have been completely unhelpful, or you may have been enabled to discover god in power in your situation.
i mean, the intention of these services is to encounter god. all the fun and games is just there to help with that. and there's no sure way of knowing beforehand if that's going to happen for you, or what the outcome will be. all you can do is come with expectancy and take part.
Have been following the activity from the sidelines up until now. Couldn't ignore this from Cosmo though ...
quote:
The service of dirt has a theology of death. It was all about (as far I can see and read from its description) Christ dying and breaking, all about sinfulness and hopelessness. It was as though all that matters is Good Friday and not Easter Day. I know for some people that this is their theology: Christ's atoning death being all that matters and the Resurrection and Ascension being a bit of a side-show later on to show that he was God as well as Man. But the Mass, the Christian Life, is about life not death. It is about hope not despair.
OK so I find it hard to put my reaction to the fact that Jesus rose from the dead into words, let's just say I'm pretty stoked about it.
However, one of the most amazing things about Jesus is that he is with me in the shit. I don't know about you but I have shit times sometimes and knowing that God is there is the most exciting thing about my faith. I know from my experiences with the charismatic church that this often gets ignored because apparently we should be in a constant state of joy and wonder about the resurrection.
Surely there's a time to dwell on hope as well as a time to dwell on despair.
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
It was as though all that matters is Good Friday and not Easter Day.
but cosmo, good friday and easter day are on
different days. does every act of worship have to cover everything? the church doesn't do the resurrection stuff on good friday, because to do so means not really experiencing good friday. and thereby devaluing both.
and many of the people at vaux - and i myself - come from parts of the church which have overemphasised easter day and new life and resurrection - and have preferred to overlook the cost. we owe it to god to redress the balance. it deepens our appreciation of his love.
quote:
Posted by The One Whom Smart Girls Carry: Perhaps [Steve] could explain to me why the most rapidly expanding bit of my own little conventicle are 20-30 year olds who previously went to places like Vaux? It's a poser isn't it?
Well, yes it is.
Funny that it's 20 and 30-somethings who also seem to be the main constituency of those big EA and Spring Harvest churches, too, your Pioneers and your NFIs and what-have-you.
Maybe it's the need for certainty and cheerfulness.
Sure, they're different certainties presented in different ways - on the one hand you've got the 'doctrine of the Catholic church', the hope of resurrection, its beauties and triumphs and emphatic reverences, on the other the assurance of being in a church 'like the New Testament' with the certainty of salvation, the triumphal songs of the 'saved', the offer of aid in 'spiritual warfare' - but they're certainties, aren't they?
Which is no bad thing.
A lot of alt. worship seems, for good or ill, to want to avoid those certainties.
quote:
The main problem with [Vaux] is that its theology seems so dubious. The service of dirt has a theology of death. It was all about (as far I can see and read from its description) Christ dying and breaking, all about sinfulness and hopelessness.
With this I agree. It did seem - from Steve's article - to be a wee bit of a downer, although the elements were retrieved and offered.
quote:
All worship is to God and not just about ourselves and trying to force God into the postion that what we want God to be in.
While our approaches are about as different as two Christians can be, I unreservedly agree with you here.
I'll be honest. I'm not an alt. type. It ain't me.
I find a fair amount of it a wee bit pretentious, just a tad second-year art student. I find beauty in the simple, the frank, the straightforward. But then, I'm a crusty old reformed minimalist. I'm almost zen, in fact. What do I know?
quote:
Posted by Ed: I find all this "the christian life is hope not despair" to be rather triumphalist.
Why? 'Triumphalist' is 'the Christian life is a victorious ride of health, wealth and squashed demonic forces'. 'Hope' is not a victorious ride. 'Hope' is something that you don't hear much in the really 'triumphalist' places. It's too subtle. 'Hope' is a reason to go on when there's no other reason to do so.
Hope is one of the the three barest things that make us a Christian. If we have no hope, what's the point?
I may have read Fr. Cosmo wrong, but I get the impression that he loathes triumphalism as much as you do (and thus abouthalf as much as I do ) - he wasn't talking about triumph. He was talking about what he perceived as the absence of hope in the Vaux meeting as reported.
quote:
Posted by Steve Collins: i think that, for vaux, the fact that god is present in the dirt is the hope - because they don't think that makes god helpless.
I think I get it. Honest question - how clearly was this idea expressed in the meeting?
quote:
i'm trying to analyse why i don't feel any need to dwell on transcendence, but am hugely excited by immanence.
Immanence is good. Transcendence is good. but isn't it healthiest to see them both as equal attributes of our God?
It's nice to be amongst friends who value your thoughts and the worship that comes from them.
The more I read thoughtless comments like Ultraspike's, the more glad I am that I'm part of such a group in my hometown.
and the less that this place feels like a Christian community.
quote:
When they said repent, repent, repent
I wonder what they meant.
I think they meant if you're going to come back and be obnoxious at least do it on a different thread.
Did you learn nothing?
dave
Can't buy this Cosmo.
Life in abundance is of the bitter-sweet variety (almonds and salt). If Christianity has any validity, it and it's rituals must reflect this. It strikes me, that the vaux dirt service contained both sides of the coin.
Matthew Fox's angle on worship is interesting, as he says it's purely created for man and not God. I often wonder why the creator of the universe needs our puny worship?
quote:
The regular contributors here are not trying to be relevant for the "yoof". They are expressing their own culture in the way they worship. for example s3 services range in age between teens and sixties.
Many people here think that I am up the wall because we have had devotions to our lady in our alt.worship, but the express their reservations politely, because:
quote:
The regular contributors here use this is as an open creative forum, not just somewhere to argue over "the best way to do something", and certainly not somewhere to ridicule other peoples ideas.
Also please remember that:
quote:
The regular contributors here are from a range of church backgrounds and experiences. For some Alt.Worship is their main expression of church, for others it is just part of it. Do not make any assumptions about the "churchpersonship" of alt.worship. It doesn't have one.
If you want to start a "alt.worship is crap thread" it can go next to a "ultra-montainism is a scourge on the church" thread in Hell.
Bless all ya'll's hearts,
Ultra
Your tone is far more appropriate to Hell than Small Fire. This is a creative space where people can wonder aloud without being slammed for it. Ridicule, disrespect and sarcasm belong in the nether regions. If you can't post to this board without resorting to those practices, then by all means hightail it back to the ghetto.
[ 05 March 2002: Message edited by: Erin ]
And it's this middle ground that is not so contencious to talk about - to say that the elements were thrown to the ground is easier than dealing with the fact that they were tenderly reinstated afterwards... To take offence at God being found in the shit - as if this excluded any thought on the part of Vaux that God might be also elsewhere - is much easier. Balance is hard.
Steve - a question, as you initiated this debate - do you think that the service in question existed in a context of balance?
Might be helpful if we are to move on beyond the viscious circles of own navels..
quote:
Originally posted by see-man:
The truth, of course, pretty much always lies somewhere in the middle.
This truth, of course depends on where either end starts off.
The middle is also a place where fences are often to be found. I have to say that this thread is one of the most interesting that has been dragged into existence for AGES; it's got everything, bannings, rude words, pretentious crocks.
Any thread which has Wood agreeing with Cosmo is bound to be a corker.
See-man you should pop over to MW some day... see if you can cope with the uneasy middle ground being churned over there
S.
quote:
Originally posted by Septimus:
Any thread which has Wood agreeing with Cosmo is bound to be a corker.
S.
A sign of the End Times,methinks??
quote:
Originally posted by see-man:
Steve - a question, as you initiated this debate - do you think that the service in question existed in a context of balance?
i do, but that context is wider than a single service. it's balance over a whole year of services, or two years of services. after all, vaux have been doing this monthly for over three years now. they've covered a lot of ground. right now they're doing dirt, by june they may be doing triumphalist escatology for all i know. they probably will now, for spite.
of course, what 'balance' is is another question. it depends how you weight the different elements of your theology. i think balance within a single service is overrated. better to push an idea to its limit, then push a different - even opposing - idea to its limit another time. one great thing about alt worship is that you have the freedom to do this without having to make everything tidy each time.
It seems to me that how far is too far depends on who is coming. Vaux are in the wonderful position of knowing (for most of the time)what sort of people are coming. You know roughly what sort of thing you are in for if you go. If you don't like it, don't go. I don't go to Catholic high mass for the same reason!
The difficulty of doing anything at all like this in a "normal church doing some alt. worship" situation is that you don't know who you are going to get, and most people around probably don't know what they are getting themselves in for either. I wouldn't dream of doing that sort of thing at my Church, but I do the odd alt. service which appears to be appreciated. Am I making sence? Or am I talking through my ********??
Thanks for listening, 'tis good to talk...
Yeah DrSnoop - I was at the Walking Wounded service too I think, and it makes a nice connection... God doesn't have to heal us to use us... God meets us in our woundedness / dirt and still uses us, without having to clean us up totally first...
Nice.
quote:
Originally posted by see-man:
What the hell is MW?!
.
The Mystery Worship Board,sometimes known as the MW ghetto....They let us out occasionally!!!
Some people,who shall remain nameless,call it The Tat Box 
there's been a bit of talk about context, and whether you have to have your immanance and your transcendance together.
and i'm wondering when the next Vaux service will be, and if there are any clues (i guess i could check their website) about the direction they're taking.
i bet by the time the last (of the four?) dirt services has run, some of the issues here will have been resolved.
peace.
ansdrwe
quote:
Originally posted by 'Chorister:
I read 'Jesus in the bog' and thought
And why should he not be 'in the bog'? If you can't pray in there, where can you? (especially when you've got small children - or an intrusive mother...). IMHO, thinking that you leave God behind when you go to the toilet is a sign of a lack of incarnational theology (I suppose it could also be a sign of bad experiences of Greenbelt...
quote:
Originally posted by radagast:
and i'm wondering when the next Vaux service will be, and if there are any clues (i guess i could check their website) about the direction they're taking.
next vaux is on the 17th. of course they've already had one since the 'shit' service. it was much less controversial. and we ate up all of the sacraments together.
their website holds no clues.
quote:
Originally posted by see-man:
Do people really have a problem with Jesus on the bog? I mean, he did have to take a crap didn't he? He was fully human...
Yes, thinking about how Our Lord dealt with those things has helped me, believe it or not. As I've posted elsewhere, I didn't come to Christianity with much liking for bodies (mine or anyone's) -- thought of them as more a vessel to carry one's mind in, at best -- at worst perhaps a frustrating obstacle -- very Gnostic -- it was Christianity which hammered in that bodies were good, that God doesn't make junk ("God likes matter; He invented it, after all" -- C.S. Lewis), etc. and that even those "Yuck, how disgusting" bodily functions are a part of His Divine plan, which even He, incarnate as Jesus, has dealt with. Even silly little things -- Jesus had (and has) toes! Little wiggly silly mostly-useless-for-picking-things-up toes! And a bum! And a penis! Wow! -- have meant a lot to me in accepting being human. Not just Jesus' humanity -- my own. How to approach such matters is a different thing. And how to approach them in a specifically Eucharistic service is also a different thing. But then that's what this board is here to discuss... on the one hand we don't want to present real stumbling blocks for those who might be harmed by them; on the other, we want to be able to reach out to, and help, those who need "special" treatment. Maybe some of us, in our very anti-body (ironically I think we are very anti-body -- we see the apparent nude in advertising but this is not the same as handling our "earthy" side with grace -- handling the idealised and sexualised image of others is not the same as accepting our own, for instance) society, need a Christian approach to our bodies -- but how do we go about it without causing problems for others?
Conclusive proof, I think.
I pondered posting it here in Small Fire but I think, given the possible areas the subject matter could go into, T & T is a more appropriate board; otherwise I'd have put it here.
Posting a tad anxiously and nervously,
David
interestingly it is a high-anglican church with strong community involvement. they recently comissioned a new crucifix for over the altar. it is christ reaching out from the cross - the cross is decorated with the shit of thornbury: a burning car, a mixed race community with deep divisions, poor housing conditions, drug dealers etc.
Although it relates to a specific service at a very, very different church from Vaux, I think Corpus Cani's comments in the MW report on St Mary's Bourne Street's Maundy Thursday service is worth considering here:
"Nobody does Holy Week like the CofE. How can one fully appreciate the joy of the resurrection until one has felt the despair of the passion? Worship such as this puts the faith in perspective – suffering bears the prospect of ultimate joy."
quote:
I find 'God is in the shit' extremely reassuring.
Does Esmeralda's posting not say it all really. Surely that is where we need to find God. Why are we so frightened of what Vaux are saying?
Crucifix sounds interesting.
I wondered why I responded so more positively to that than to the service. Then if occurred to me. Context a reader is in seems to make a huge difference. I know of Vaux but have had real contact. I may however have had some slight contact with the church commissioning the crucifix and I mean slight, though I was impressed by them.
I wonder if supposed contact just gives me that much more willingness to trust. If so accept my apologies for earlier query the fault is in me.
'Oh what a mess
Oh what a mess
Oh what a message from the Lord'.
Maybe we should have a thread for these in Heaven?
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
I was moved to tears, even by the report. Had I been there who knows? Thankyou Vaux you are an oasis in an otherwise mundane church. Keep close to Him and say it like it is!
welcome to the board bonzo and thanks for that
quote:
Originally posted by steve collins:
i think that, for vaux, the fact that god is present in the dirt is the hope - because they don't think that makes god helpless. in time we'll be redeemed from the dirt - but right now we are in it, and need to find god with us in it rather than sitting on a throne a long way away watching.
Hope I'm allowed to respond to a comment made so long ago - apologies if not: I'm only new(ish)!
Does God redeem us from the dirt, or redeem us - and the dirt as well?
If God loves the whole of creation, doesn't s/he want it all redeemed? In which case, the incarnation is more than just the divine presence in Jesus - but somehow the whole of creation assumed into God? (What is not assumed is not redeemed - Gregory Nazianzus)
Or am I way off beam? Or just plain irrelevant to the thread...
When we talk about shit in our lives, I suppose we generally mean ugliness and maybe downright nastiness, rather than just dirt. But does God redeem all that - and in what sense? Or do we just hope to leave it all behind us when we go? I suppose these are questions for purgatory, really.
and so onto dodgy ground about redemption... i figure christ was more about dealing with stuff (and thus showing us how to deal with stuff). the idea that he offers instant redemption seems unnecessary and rather at odds with much of what he said and did.
in short - we have to deal with the shit and god's with us all the way.
and redemption is only going to be partial this side of the 'renewed heavens and earth'. so current limited redemption may be about changed responses to the dirt rather than changed dirt. we usually seek the latter but maybe we're supposed to seek the former.
quote:
Originally posted by steve collins:
i think god wishes to redeem the dirt as well. but it can't be redeemed and still remain dirt.
Excellent Steve. But I think that "dirt" is so often in our minds and perceptions. Is it dirt or soil ( as a prime example )? So it can be redeemed, as part of our redemtion, while remaining what it is, but no longer being seen as dirt ( along the line of CM ). I think.
There is something of the "refiners fire" idea, IMO, that the absolute dross will be disposed off, but what is left will be still a lump of rock, only now we call it gold.
I once saw a woman in India scraping cow shit off the road with her hands. Tenderly. It mad me wretch to watch her, but I realised that what was repulsive to me, was precious to her, was going to be useful material to build and secure.
Shit happens, but God can scrape us off the floor and use that. I'm coming to see that the shit I have been through, that is engrained in me, is part of what God is after, not wants to just burn off. Not that dirt is in itself good - of course not - but it is the down that makes us know up.
'All of us are lying in the gutter. Some of us are looking up at the stars' Wilde
Er, thanks DrSnoop. Do you have anything more substantive to contribute?
>Hostly pebble put down<
quote:
Originally posted by see-man:
Too often the church has taken a 'holier than thou' attitude, and this has turned people off...
anyone watch morse last night? it was the one where the nasty anglo-catholics are murdering the female vicar-wannabes.
lovely bit where lewis, speaking of a feamle deacon said "she always acts a bit holier than thou'.
morse: 'lewis, she *is* holier than thou'.
i'm all in agreement with the last few posts (and isaiah, nice chap that he is), tho also wonder of the church did manage to get across the idea that it's full of sinners, would people see any reason to go?
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
