Jan

Jesus – in his full gory – was scaring kids and had to go

A GORY depiction of Christ on the cross – hung in the sixties outside St John’s Church in Horsham, West Sussex – has been removed by the vicar because it was frightening children and scaring off worshippers.

The Jesus sculpture: scary enough to frighten off crows

The Rev Ewen Souter yesterday told the Daily Mail:

The crucifix expressed suffering, torment, pain and anguish. It was a scary image, particularly for children. Parents didn’t want to walk past it with their kids, because they found it so horrifying. It wasn’t a suitable image for the outside of a church wanting to welcome worshippers. In fact, it was a real put-off.

He added:

We’re all about hope, encouragement and the joy of the Christian faith. We want to communicate good news, not bad news, so we need a more uplifting and inspiring symbol than execution on a cross.

The vicar said it would be replaced with a modern, stainless steel cross.

Rev Souter, who has been vicar at St John’s since 2001, believes the modern new cross – designed by artist Angela Godfrey – will present “a positive message of hope”.

“Scary” Jesus – a sculpture by Edward Bainbridge Copnall MBE, a former president of the Royal Society of British Sculptors – has now been moved to nearby Horsham Museum.

A museum spokesperson said:

Thanks to the generosity of St John’s, we have been given the remarkable sculpture of Jesus … The museum was keen to have the figure because it is a stunning example of Edward’s ability and skill as a sculptor.

But some of the congregation have reacted angrily to the decision, saying it is another blow to Christian tradition. One long-standing member of the church, who asked not to be named, wailed:

The crucifix is the oldest and most famous symbol of the Christian church. Pulling it down and putting up something that would look more at home on the side of a flashy modern shopping centre is not the way to get more bums on seats.

Next they’ll be ripping out the pews and putting sofas in their place, or throwing out all the Bibles and replacing them with laptops. It’s just not right.

Posted by Barry Duke Anglican Church, General barminess, Religion and the arts, The Freethinker Subscribe to RSS feed

‹‹ C of E leaps onto the recession bandwagon with a ‘prayer for the redundant’

Let’s have your vote for Jesus & Mo ››

Comments to “Jesus – in his full gory – was scaring kids and had to go”

Rozi
January 7th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

Replacing pews with sofas and bibles with laptops? Sounds good to me!

Is it wrong that I want that statue in my living room? It has a certain gothic appeal about it.

chrsbol
January 7th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

That particular Jesus looks like the victim of a great white attack.

Angela K
January 7th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

“The crucifix expressed suffering, torment, pain and anguish. It was a scary image, particularly for children.” – just like the book of fairy tales upon which it is based. What is that old satellite dish doing on the head of the sculpture anyway?

valdemar
January 7th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

Christians, as one of their number remarked, cannot bear too much reality.

Stuart H.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

Can we take it that from the way his hands are chained, Jesus was definitely NOT a happy clappy?

tom sheepandgoats
January 8th, 2009 at 1:51 am

If, for example, Christ had been killed by hanging, would believers wear a noose around their neck? Or a tiny gun, if he had been shot? That the crucifix should be symbol of the Church always seemed strange to me. It’s downright morbid, even ones tamer than that of St John’s church.

Similarly, that Mel Gibson Passion movie was almost required viewing for the evangelical churches. I can’t imagine it. By all accounts, it’s two hours of non-stop torture. I’m not sure why anyone would revel in it.

Darren
January 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

Don’t want to scare the kids..? It’s only when they get inside the church the real scary stuff begins, being mentally abused by the threat of eternal damnation and graphic descriptions of burning forever in hell.

Bubblecar
January 8th, 2009 at 4:15 pm

In some ways this sculpture seems a powerful image, but it suffers from the same essential hollowness as all the Jesus on the Crosses – its inability to answer (or even articulate) the question, “What does it really mean?” This is a question that Christianity has never come to terms with, despite the crucifixion being such a central image & concept in the religion.

The usual “he died for our sins” stuff would be pretty cryptic even if Jesus was just a man, but when he casually resurrects himself afterwards, then wanders off into obscurity, it all becomes doubly farcical. But how often do you hear Christians admitting that they don’t really have a clue what the significance of Jesus on the Cross is supposed to be? I’d suggest that the removal of this sculpture is itself as close as you’ll get to a frank confession of the ugly foolishness of it all.

tom sheepandgoats
January 8th, 2009 at 5:24 pm

but it suffers from the same essential hollowness as all the Jesus on the Crosses – its inability to answer (or even articulate) the question, “What does it really mean?”

Well, I suppose that is true, Bubblecar, but does any insignia of any organization accomplish that purpose? It’s just a symbol (though, as previously stated, I think it’s inappropriate).

Yes, I agree, the “died for our sins” is syrupy in its meaningnessless. It this explanation more consistent?

http://tinyurl.com/a5ge9q

Of course, you won’t believe it, I understand, but is it at least consistent?

I run the risk of being thought of as an interloper. Hope no one minds. Still, Dave has not told me to shut up, and all others have been reasonably polite to me…..except for one comment a few posts ago, but that does not seem to have been contributed by a regular. So until that happens, I may add my two cents from time to time, as I like the quality of this blog, and I represent a viewpoint I haven’t seen anyone else express.