Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ippy on October 01, 2018, 12:28:58 PM
-
I have mixed feelings about this and wondered about the views of others?
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2018/28-september/news/uk/baldry-calls-for-30m-a-year-for-church-maintenance
ippy
-
If we want these magnificent buildings to remain a part of our hetitage then he’s right, dwindling congregations means the state will have to intervene financially.
However, the church should play its part. Shedding redundant churches is only a partial solution; it’s fine to lose an uninteresting Victorian one, not so good to lose access to a historic rural church. And rural churches are very hard to find an alternative use for; there’s a limit to how many community cafes and arts centres are actually sustainable.
If the state steps in then it has to retain the right to say what is and isn’t economic. The next question then is, does the state have the right to say how the buildings are actually used? Can it demand that a publicly funded building abides by equality law for example?
The cynic in me says that the CofE will find its membership is a whole lot more accommoding on issues like marriage equality if it is given a huge pot of cash. Anglicans love their church buildings to the point of idolatry at times.
-
I have mixed feelings about this and wondered about the views of others?
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2018/28-september/news/uk/baldry-calls-for-30m-a-year-for-church-maintenance
ippy
I think it is important that we maintain our heritage buildings, but I don't necessarily see why churches should be provided with a specific ring-fenced pot, which kind of implies that they are more important than other key listed buildings. So I'd prefer to see this as a fund to support all key listed buildings, with churches of course being a key component of those buildings.
But I do think this needs to be linked to the CofE getting its estate house in order so to speak. I completely get the issue of unique rural churches, but in our towns and cities the Code has a massive surfeit of churches, many of which aren't of any historical importance. If the church is to receive millions to support its historically important churches from the tax payer, then I don't think it is unreasonable to expect them to off load buildings and land that are part of that over-capacity of churches where they aren't historically interesting. We are desperate for brown field sites for more affordable housing and just in my local area I can think of two churches (one very non-descript 1930s, the other hideous 1960s) that would be ideal sits for redevelopment. The same will be true in towns and cities up and down the country.
-
By all means give government money to help preserve them, on condition that they become subject to planning permission like all other buildings. At the moment, churches are exempt, whci leads to the most appalling vandalism, such as, local to me, the ruination of St John's, Boxmoor, a lovely Victorian Gothic-revival church, with an unsympathetic church hall tacked on to the East end, and a hideous recangular door, completely jarring with the original gothic-arched doors and windows and which would disgrace a Lidl supermarket, at the West end, and another St John's, at Bourne End, designed by no less an architect than Sir George Gilbert Scott, with an ugly church hall tacked on to the West end. St John's, Bourne End (http://www.stjohns-bourne-end.org.uk/sites/default/files/completion.JPG) - see what I mean? At least this one could be (and hopefully one day will be) demolished, leaving the church as it was built, unlike the excrecence on the end of St John's, Boxmoor (https://www.helifix.co.uk/uploads/images/case-studies/st_johns_boxmoor1.jpg) - and as for the hideous supermarket-style door (https://churchtourismstudy.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/dscn0751.jpg) they've punched through the West end...! Aposeopesis is the only adequate response.
St John's, Boxmoor (http://www.hertfordshire-genealogy.co.uk/images/!/b/boxmoor/boxmoor-church-charles-vaughan-1903.jpg), and St John's, Bourne End (https://facultyonline.churchofengland.org/CHR/Handlers/GetImage.ashx?fileid=141675) before the philistines got to them.
-
The churches which are heritage sites should have some help from the Government for their upkeep, imo.
-
The churches which are heritage sites should have some help from the Government for their upkeep, imo.
But the CofE needs to do all it can too to support their upkeep. And it isn't doing that if it is retaining far more churches than it needs, many of which are held empty at best. If the CofE is pouring resource into the upkeep of 9 churches (as is the case in my small city) when they probably only have the congregation to need 6, then they can hardly claim poverty.
And there is a further point - if public funds are being used to support the upkeep of important public buildings, then I don't think it is unreasonable for the CofE to be expected to make those buildings available for use by the wider public and not just restrict use to church-goers for worship-type activities. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to 'veto' perfectly appropriate broader public use as St Sepulchres (the so called musicians church) did recently by banning concerts and other 'non religious' hirings.
-
By all means give government money to help preserve them, on condition that they become subject to planning permission like all other buildings. At the moment, churches are exempt, whci leads to the most appalling vandalism, such as, local to me, the ruination of St John's, Boxmoor, a lovely Victorian Gothic-revival church, with an unsympathetic church hall tacked on to the East end, and a hideous recangular door, completely jarring with the original gothic-arched doors and windows and which would disgrace a Lidl supermarket, at the West end, and another St John's, at Bourne End, designed by no less an architect than Sir George Gilbert Scott, with an ugly church hall tacked on to the West end. St John's, Bourne End (http://www.stjohns-bourne-end.org.uk/sites/default/files/completion.JPG) - see what I mean? At least this one could be (and hopefully one day will be) demolished, leaving the church as it was built, unlike the excrecence on the end of St John's, Boxmoor (https://www.helifix.co.uk/uploads/images/case-studies/st_johns_boxmoor1.jpg) - and as for the hideous supermarket-style door (https://churchtourismstudy.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/dscn0751.jpg) they've punched through the West end...! Aposeopesis is the only adequate response.
St John's, Boxmoor (http://www.hertfordshire-genealogy.co.uk/images/!/b/boxmoor/boxmoor-church-charles-vaughan-1903.jpg), and St John's, Bourne End (https://facultyonline.churchofengland.org/CHR/Handlers/GetImage.ashx?fileid=141675) before the philistines got to them.
I used to serve on my local PCC and we could t get so much as a light fitting changed without the permission of English Heritage. Presumably this church wasn’t listed as not of sufficient interest? If not it would have needed listed buildings consent, which is more stringent than standard planning permission,
-
I'm about there with all of you on this one.
ippy
-
And there is a further point - if public funds are being used to support the upkeep of important public buildings, then I don't think it is unreasonable for the CofE to be expected to make those buildings available for use by the wider public and not just restrict use to church-goers for worship-type activities. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to 'veto' perfectly appropriate broader public use as St Sepulchres (the so called musicians church) did recently by banning concerts and other 'non religious' hirings.
Church-goers ARE the wider public - anyone can go. Most churches already have other activities during the week.
-
Church-goers ARE the wider public - anyone can go. Most churches already have other activities during the week.
CofE church-goers represent about 2% of the population - I am talking about the other 98% - that is the 'wider public'.
And yes churches don't prevent people from attending worship or worship related activities, but if a church is being maintained with significant public funding then I don't think it is unreasonable that the church should be required to open up its building to other activities that have nothing to do with worship. The caveat being that the space (i.e. the church and its church hall etc) should be suitable for the activity.
Now I'm well aware that many, if not most, churches do make their space available, but this is often on a purely commercial basis (i.e. charging the market lent for hiring the space, regardless of the nature of the activity) and also many place restrictions - in other words have hiring policies which will prevent hire from organisations or for activities that they don't approve of. That's fine if you are paying 100% for the upkeep of your building, but once you rely on public funding then I think (within reason) you forfeit that discretion and should not be allowed unreasonably to ban groups or types of activity from hiring your space.
-
Yes, at present individual churches refuse to allow certain activities (eg yoga) to take place on their premises if they believe them to be 'unchristian'. So a church may well refuse to have an event for young people if its policy is inclusive on grounds of sexuality, for example.
I've lived in this village for two years and have set foot in the church once, to attend a meeting about the local broadband service. Other than that it is open solely for Sunday worship once a month. As it happens it isn't listed so I doubt it will ever receive state funding, but I fail to se what it offers the local community outside of hosting the broadband mast - for which of course it gets paid.
-
Yes, at present individual churches refuse to allow certain activities (eg yoga) to take place on their premises if they believe them to be 'unchristian'. So a church may well refuse to have an event for young people if its policy is inclusive on grounds of sexuality, for example.
That's correct and I don't think it is right when the upkeep fo the building is funding, in part, from the public purse. There is also a further issue, in that many churches have been successful at attracting lottery funding to develop themselves as quasi community centres. Now that in itself (and particularly in rural areas) isn't a bad thing at all. However if they are to act in this way (and benefit from significant external capital funding to develop their facilities) then I think they have forfeited the right to ban organisations they deem to be 'un christian' - if you are marketing yourself as a community centre and attracting significant funding on that basis you need to act as just that, a community centre, for all the community, not just the bits you approve of.
I've lived in this village for two years and have set foot in the church once, to attend a meeting about the local broadband service. Other than that it is open solely for Sunday worship once a month. As it happens it isn't listed so I doubt it will ever receive state funding, but I fail to se what it offers the local community outside of hosting the broadband mast - for which of course it gets paid.
Regardless of whether it is listed there will still be tax breaks - most notably the fact that church buildings aren't even listed for business rates, while all other non-residential buildings are and therefore need to pay business rates to some extent.
The issue of hiring facilities for commercial rates is also an interesting one. I know your church seems to be different, but many churches are extremely busy throughout the week with anything from local nurseries, weight watchers, through to societies and choirs using their facilities. Now I suspect that the uninformed think this is some kind of benevolent act by the church - making their facilities available free or at very cheap rents. But of course in most cases these organisations are paying standard commercial hire charges.
In fact many hotels are much more 'benevolent' in that respect - often providing rooms to charitable organisations free of charge, albeit knowing that they may benefit through the purchase of the odd cup of coffee.
-
A church may well refuse to have an event for young people if its policy is inclusive on grounds of sexuality, for example.
Idon't see how sexuality would be an issue in the sort of young people's activities likely to be hosted by a church, e.g. Scouts, Guides, youth club.
-
Idon't see how sexuality would be an issue in the sort of young people's activities likely to be hosted by a church, e.g. Scouts, Guides, youth club.
Really?
https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/running-your-unit/including-all/lgbt-members/
There are plenty of churches who would find this objectionable. And that is without hiring facilities to other organisations who may also have inclusion policies.
-
I think it is important that we maintain our heritage buildings, but I don't necessarily see why churches should be provided with a specific ring-fenced pot, which kind of implies that they are more important than other key listed buildings. So I'd prefer to see this as a fund to support all key listed buildings, with churches of course being a key component of those buildings.
France - constitutionally - is a secular state. But the historic churches in France are actually owned by the state. The upkeep of churches is a responsibility entrusted to the communes in which they stand. Communes are usually proud of their heritage. My French commune contains three churches and the one in the village is used for both RC and Anglican worship.
-
France - constitutionally - is a secular state. But the historic churches in France are actually owned by the state. The upkeep of churches is a responsibility entrusted to the communes in which they stand. Communes are usually proud of their heritage. My French commune contains three churches and the one in the village is used for both RC and Anglican worship.
My experience is that in rural areas people are very attached to their churches. The one that I used to attend would regularly receive gifts and legacies from non-churchgoers solely for the upkeep of the buildings.
I don't know how long that will continue though, especially as the communities are more fluid now - old families are replaced by commuters with money who stay for a while and then move on.
-
By "commune" I really mean the political authority which manages the community - town or parish council if you like. The maintenance is done using money collected by taxation.
-
My experience is that in rural areas people are very attached to their churches. The one that I used to attend would regularly receive gifts and legacies from non-churchgoers solely for the upkeep of the buildings.
I don't know how long that will continue though, especially as the communities are more fluid now - old families are replaced by commuters with money who stay for a while and then move on.
That may be true in rural villages where there is one church which is clearly a central point of the community, like the pub, village shop and post office.
However that really isn't the case in our towns and cities, where, lets face it, the vast majority of the population live. Individual church-goers necessarily feel an affiliation to and community with the church they attend. But that is very little to do with geography and affiliation to the nearest CofE church.
In my small city (about 80,000 people) I think there are 9 CofE churches, including the Abbey. I know lots of regular CofE churchgoers, but I'm struggling to think of any that attend their nearest church. There affiliation is all to do with the type of worship, not the proximity. So there are people who travel across the city because they like the big Abbey experience. Others I know live at one end of a short street with a CofE church at the other end. Yet they attend a CofE church half way across town as that one is more traditional rather than happy-clappy etc etc.
-
People travel to church in rural areas too, PD. Some to find a style or worship they like, some because they want a man officiating, but a lot of the time it’s because do many parishes share a priest and there will be a rota as to which church gets the service that week.
Attendance by the young is through the floor. In the twenty years I’ve lived here I’ve seen the church dwindle in influence as people become too old to run committees and events and aren’t replaced. It isn’t the centre of village life any more. But I like to go in my local churches outside of services because I’m interested in the history and the ties to the present. I think that is a part of their enduring appeal. A sense of place and past.
-
I think that is a part of their enduring appeal. A sense of place and past.
Church Going, by Philip Larkin.
Once i am sure there's nothing going on
I step inside letting the door thud shut.
Another church: matting seats and stone
and little books; sprawlings of flowers cut
For Sunday brownish now; some brass and stuff
Up at the holy end; the small neat organ;
And a tense musty unignorable silence
Brewed God knows how long. Hatless I take off
My cylce-clips in awkward reverence
Move forward run my hand around the font.
From where i stand the roof looks almost new--
Cleaned or restored? someone would know: I don't.
Mounting the lectern I peruse a few
hectoring large-scale verses and pronouce
Here endeth much more loudly than I'd meant
The echoes snigger briefly. Back at the door
I sign the book, donate an Irish sixpence
Reflect the place was not worth stopping for.
Yet stop I did: in fact I often do
And always end much at a loss like this
Wondering what to look for; wondering too
When churches fall completely out of use
What we shall turn them into? If we shall keep
A few cathedrals chronically on show
Their parchment plate and pyx in locked cases
And let the rest rent-free to rain and sheep.
Shall we avoid them as unlucky places?
Or after dark will dubious women come
To make their children touch a particular stone;
Pick simples for a cancer; or on some
Advised night see walking a dead one?
Power of some sort or other will go on
In games, in riddles, seemingly at random;
But superstition like belief must die
And what remains when disbelief has gone?
Grass weedy pavement brambles buttress sky.
A shape less recognisable each week
A purpose more obscure. I wonder who
Will be the last, the very last, to seek
This place for what it was; one of the crew
That tap and jot and know what rood-lofts were?
Some ruin-bibber randy for antique
Or Christmas-addict counting on a whiff
Of grown-and-bands and organ-pipes and myrrh?
Or will he be my representative
Bored, uninformed, knowing the ghostly silt
Dispersed yet tending to this cross of ground
Through suburb scrub because it held unspilt
So long and equably what since is found
Only in separation--marriage and birth
And death and thoughts of these--for which was built
This special shell? For though I've no idea
What this accoutred frowsty barn is worth
It pleases me to stand in silence here;
A serious house on serious earth it is
In whose blent air all our compulsions meet
Are recognisd and robed as destinies.
And that much never can be obsolete
Since someone will forever be surprising
A hunger in himself to be more serious
And gravitating with it to this ground
Which he once heard was proper to grow wise in
If only that so many dead lie round.
1955
-
People travel to church in rural areas too, PD. Some to find a style or worship they like, some because they want a man officiating, but a lot of the time it’s because do many parishes share a priest and there will be a rota as to which church gets the service that week.
In which case this is similar to urban areas - so a loss of the notion that the church is the hub of a geographical community, rather than a community determined by other characteristics.
Attendance by the young is through the floor. In the twenty years I’ve lived here I’ve seen the church dwindle in influence as people become too old to run committees and events and aren’t replaced. It isn’t the centre of village life any more. But I like to go in my local churches outside of services because I’m interested in the history and the ties to the present. I think that is a part of their enduring appeal. A sense of place and past.
I agree - I too enjoy looking at the architecture and history associated with historic churches. But of course not all CofE churches are in any manner historic and that is particularly true in urban areas where through the years a new development of housing was linked to a new church. So although there are historic churches in my City (indeed one associated with the first christian martyr in Britain) there are others that aren't. Including one that is 1930s, basically the same design as hundreds of identical 3-bed semis (many now extended) and another from the 1960s that is an eyesore. There is a further church that is late victorian, but those running the church seem to have taken a conscious decision to remove any historic or interesting architectural feature from inside it.
-
The argument runs both ways. Sometimes in Scotland, historicchurchesare maintained virtually empty - at the denomination'sexpense - because the denomination can't get rid of the thing. Oh, for an accomodating vandal! They are only buildings, after all. The place I have in mind is a fantastic building dating from the lare sixteenth century, one of the first truly presbyterian kirks built. The problemis that the rural area it was built to serve no longer has a population, nor has done for nearly eighty years. The CofS has rented local halls and schools in the arwea to provide worship space for a thriving congregation which grew up around four miles away...but has to maintain the old building wind andd watertight, since it is grade 1 listed, and cannot be altered internally or externally. They can't even install central heating and use it as part of a retreat centre! To capit all, they've owned land for the building of a new church in the area for decades, but s glitch in planning laws prevents them from using it! Sometimes these 'historic churches' are a waste of space.
-
My wife does a lot of gospel singing, she likes the singing not the church stuff, I was at one of her shows with her group at our local church, while there I was having a word with the organist and I asked him how about a bit of of Widor's 5 and unexpectedly he gave it a go, I was presently surprised the organ was definitely up for it, how lovely it was too.
Love the buildings and the sounds of their old musical organs, no not the singers musical organs, It'd be a great loss if these places were to disappear.
Regards ippy.
-
Back in the day when I was involved with the upkeep of two medieval churches I felt that it was immoral for the church to shell out the insane kinds of money that it did on them, partly because of the weird way in which devotion to the buildings skewed peoples' priorities. One of my kids was in a NICU following her birth; I approached one churchwarden to ask if we could host a coffee morning to raise funds for it and she said 'yes, I'll take the ticket money for the fabric fund and you can have the raffle money for the intensive care unit'. A building was more important to her then supporting sick babies. And she also lacked the empathy to understand how that sounds to a mother whose baby has just come been through that process.
But I'd hate for the buildings to be destroyed. There has to be another way.
-
My wife does a lot of gospel singing, she likes the singing not the church stuff, I was at one of her shows with her group at our local church, while there I was having a word with the organist and I asked him how about a bit of of Widor's 5 and unexpectedly he gave it a go, I was presently surprised the organ was definitely up for it, how lovely it was too.
Love the buildings and the sounds of their old musical organs, no not the singers musical organs, It'd be a great loss if these places were to disappear.
Regards ippy.
!@": organ.....
I'm not a fan of the 'kist o Whustles'; OK, thy're good classical instruments, but sometimes on a Sunday morning, I wish they'd blow up - I prefer the piano.
Besides, they're murder to ,maintain.
Ours is relatively modern, being installed after a disasterous fire in 1937 which all but destroyed the building (I wish it had been, though that's anotherr story... )
Anyhoo, a new instrument was installed, created by a a well known organ builder, and costs hundreds to maintain and service, and is insured for cough cough splutter pounds.
They're more trouble than they're worth.
Trust me.
Got the paracetamol.
-
My former church, which I left becaiuse it was too happy-clappy, had an organ which the old guard insisted on keeping and using for one "proper" hymn every Sunday. (My sympathies now are entirely with them). I think the vicar and the other happy-clappers were secretly pleased when it was discovered that the organ was full of asbestos, and had to be removed.
-
The hymns of Graham Kendrick don't sound so good on the organ...
-
Fuck Kendrick. We need to return to proper hymns, which doesn't necessarily mean old ones: there are plenty of good modern hymns.
-
!@": organ.....
I'm not a fan of the 'kist o Whustles'; OK, thy're good classical instruments, but sometimes on a Sunday morning, I wish they'd blow up - I prefer the piano.
Besides, they're murder to ,maintain.
Ours is relatively modern, being installed after a disasterous fire in 1937 which all but destroyed the building (I wish it had been, though that's anotherr story... )
Anyhoo, a new instrument was installed, created by a a well known organ builder, and costs hundreds to maintain and service, and is insured for cough cough splutter pounds.
They're more trouble than they're worth.
Trust me.
Got the paracetamol.
Love organs but I could be tempted to place a bomb under a Wurlitzer, provided it wouldn't hurt any living thing of course.
I'm a dedicated hi-fi fanatic and would like you to have a listen to a vinyl recording of Widor's 5, you can feel the passages of its low note sections vibrating up through the floor, the systems not too bad if it'll play 's 5 without sounding distorted.
If you haven't heard W number 5 on something like the Albert Halls slightly reasonable sized organ, perhaps that's why you're not that keen on pipe organs.
Regards ippy.
-
Love organs but I could be tempted to place a bomb under a Wurlitzer, provided it wouldn't hurt any living thing of course.
I'm a dedicated hi-fi fanatic and would like you to have a listen to a vinyl recording of Widor's 5, you can feel the passages of its low note sections vibrating up through the floor, the systems not too bad if it'll play 's 5 without sounding distorted.
If you haven't heard W number 5 on something like the Albert Halls slightly reasonable sized organ, perhaps that's why you're not that keen on pipe organs.
Regards ippy.
I didn't say I wasn't keen on 'em....as a classical instrument, they are superb, when played well.
As a church bit of furniture, they are murder to maintsin.
We have a pipe organ....I wish we didn't. The annual cost of maintaining and tuning the thing is a burden I could do without.
Apart from that, many hymns sound better with a piano accompaniment - or even with a precentor, such as the metrical psalms.
-
My former church, which I left becaiuse it was too happy-clappy, had an organ which the old guard insisted on keeping and using for one "proper" hymn every Sunday. (My sympathies now are entirely with them). I think the vicar and the other happy-clappers were secretly pleased when it was discovered that the organ was full of asbestos, and had to be removed.
My local church got rid of a perfectly good (and historically interesting) organ last year, simply because it didn't fit in with their version of worship. They massively exaggerated its poor condition and also the costs of maintenance. They former organist (a friend) confirmed just weeks before it was removed that it was in good working order and just needed a tune - in fact it was largely in tune with itself, but a quarter of a tone flat against actual pitch, which is irrelevant in actual use.
So the organ was dumped and it will never be reinstalled regardless of whether the fashion for worship type, or even the use of the church changes. Once you get rid of something of that nature you'll never get it back. You need to think go its heritage and of future generations.
-
My local church got rid of a perfectly good (and historically interesting) organ last year, simply because it didn't fit in with their version of worship. They massively exaggerated its poor condition and also the costs of maintenance. They former organist (a friend) confirmed just weeks before it was removed that it was in good working order and just needed a tune - in fact it was largely in tune with itself, but a quarter of a tone flat against actual pitch, which is irrelevant in actual use.
So the organ was dumped and it will never be reinstalled regardless of whether the fashion for worship type, or even the use of the church changes. Once you get rid of something of that nature you'll never get it back. You need to think go its heritage and of future generations.
The Evangelical wing of the church is hugely powerful. This isn't a surprise.
-
The Evangelical wing of the church is hugely powerful. This isn't a surprise.
Indeed they are - and like to portray themselves as an oppressed minority in the church, valiantly holding out for truth against the forces of liberalism. I despise them, and am ashamed that I was one in the eighties (albeit at the liberal end of the evangelical spectrum).
-
My local church got rid of a perfectly good (and historically interesting) organ last year, simply because it didn't fit in with their version of worship. They massively exaggerated its poor condition and also the costs of maintenance. They former organist (a friend) confirmed just weeks before it was removed that it was in good working order and just needed a tune - in fact it was largely in tune with itself, but a quarter of a tone flat against actual pitch, which is irrelevant in actual use.
So the organ was dumped and it will never be reinstalled regardless of whether the fashion for worship type, or even the use of the church changes. Once you get rid of something of that nature you'll never get it back. You need to think go its heritage and of future generations.
Our kist o whustles requires annualprofessional checks - and frequent repair.
The church five miles from me ha
s spent many thousands of wasted pounds maintaining their two-centuries-old instrument for 'future generations'. They hardly ever use it, ut it looks nice in the chancel with a vase of flowers on it.
Just think how many lives that cash could have changed were it used on Christian Aid charities.
-
The hymns of Graham Kendrick don't sound so good on the organ...
One or two - the pre 'Shine, Jesus Shine' do, as well as a few of the post 'Beauty for Brokeness" ones.
-
Fuck Kendrick. We need to return to proper hymns, which doesn't necessarily mean old ones: there are plenty of good modern hymns.
Eh? Some of his early hymns - from 1978-82 - are beautiful; and a few - very few - of his modern ones are pretty good - and theologicallly accurate, which is more than can be said of much of the 19th and early 20th cenrury hymnody.
-
Indeed they are - and like to portray themselves as an oppressed minority in the church, valiantly holding out for truth against the forces of liberalism. I despise them, and am ashamed that I was one in the eighties (albeit at the liberal end of the evangelical spectrum).
OY!
Some of us are proud to be called evangelicals!
Don't equate us all with fundamentalists!
-
Eh? Some of his early hymns - from 1978-82 - are beautiful; and a few - very few - of his modern ones are pretty good - and theologicallly accurate, which is more than can be said of much of the 19th and early 20th cenrury hymnody.
His stuff is better than "worship songs", I grant you, but his rhymes are sloppy and he is sometimes tritely triumphalist.
-
I remember that daft hymn, 'Jesus wants me for a sunbeam'. I even thought it silly when I was a child.
-
His stuff is better than "worship songs", I grant you, but his rhymes are sloppy and he is sometimes tritely triumphalist.
Triumphalist?
Nothing wrong with that! - look at many of the 19th and 20th century old favourites!
As for "Worship songs"?
A quote comes to mind:
"This dangerously modern style of easy singing with over simplification is a deterrant to the Gospel and will pass in time."
(From George sanders, organist of St Paul's Cathedral, on the hymns of Wesley.)
-
I remember that daft hymn, 'Jesus wants me for a sunbeam'. I even thought it silly when I was a child.
I'm aware of it, of course, but we were spared it in my church when I was a child.
-
Triumphalist?
Nothing wrong with that! - look at many of the 19th and 20th century old favourites!
As for "Worship songs"?
A quote comes to mind:
"This dangerously modern style of easy singing with over simplification is a deterrant to the Gospel and will pass in time."
(From George sanders, organist of St Paul's Cathedral, on the hymns of Wesley.)
The fact that some old hymns are also tritely triumphalist doesn't make trite triumphalism ok; I've never like "Onward, Christian Soldiers", and, as a pacifist, used to refuse to sing it.
George Sanders was wrong about Wesley. An odd quote proves nothing.
-
I remember that daft hymn, 'Jesus wants me for a sunbeam'. I even thought it silly when I was a child.
We were spared that, and other sloppy nonsense. We were also spared a lot of the flowery "Thees" and "Thous" in our hymns at Sunday School - our minister in the 1960's rightly thought it an anachronism. (Didn't stop me ditching Sunday School ASAP, though....)
-
The fact that some old hymns are also tritely triumphalist doesn't make trite triumphalism ok; I've never like "Onward, Christian Soldiers", and, as a pacifist, used to refuse to sing it.
George Sanders was wrong about Wesley. An odd quote proves nothing.
"Onward, Christian Soldiers" is based around Ephesians 6:10-21; it's not meant to be a war song - the original tune to which it was set shows that.
As for modern worship songs?
Yes, some are naff - truly naff. But there are glowing exceptions from Kendrick, Townend, Mark, Green, etc, which stop me in my tracks.
And if they bring folk to a place where they consider Christ, then that's good enough for me, even if I think the tunes are trite.
My own preference is for some of the stuff written by John Bell. Well, I would say that, wouldn't I - not just because many are written to Scots or Irish tunes, but because the words hit the spot and make me think.
Oh, and, probably because I've known John for over forty years counts a wee bit as well.....
-
"Onward, Christian Soldiers" is based around Ephesians 6:10-21; it's not meant to be a war song - the original tune to which it was set shows that.
As for modern worship songs?
Yes, some are naff - truly naff. But there are glowing exceptions from Kendrick, Townend, Mark, Green, etc, which stop me in my tracks.
And if they bring folk to a place where they consider Christ, then that's good enough for me, even if I think the tunes are trite.
My own preference is for some of the stuff written by John Bell. Well, I would say that, wouldn't I - not just because many are written to Scots or Irish tunes, but because the words hit the spot and make me think.
Oh, and, probably because I've known John for over forty years counts a wee bit as well.....
The medium is the message: if you give people trite, repetitive, theologically dubious worship, that's the kind of pseudo-Christianity they'll pick up.
-
The fact that some old hymns are also tritely triumphalist doesn't make trite triumphalism ok; I've never like "Onward, Christian Soldiers", and, as a pacifist, used to refuse to sing it.
George Sanders was wrong about Wesley. An odd quote proves nothing.
I had a friend some years ago who was a pacifist and an atheist as a result of his experiences in WW2, which included seeing a station full of Aussie soldiers waiting to go home get mown down by US friendly fire. He used to sing Onward Christian Sdiers while out walking his golden retrievers as it helped him keep up a rhythm. We sang it at his otherwise humanist memorial service, at which my then parish priest officiated and for which he declined to take a fee, telling me once that as he hadn’t talked about God or salvation he hadn’t done his job properly.
Not really relevant but your post made me remember friends passed and past.
-
The medium is the message: if you give people trite, repetitive, theologically dubious worship, that's the kind of pseudo-Christianity they'll pick up.
"....theologically dubious worship"
Now THAT opens a whole containerload of worms!
Half the hymns in the old hymnal were dubious theologically, filled with Victorian and Edwardian sentimentality and Imperialist pretentions.
When the CofS issued a document for the new hymnal "CH4", there were howls of protest over changes in certain verses of well loved hymns, and ditching old classics to boot.
The classic example of what I'm on about is the old Christmas favourite "Away in a Manger".
Theological trash.
There was an outcry when the hymn was going to be dropped (as, in my view, it should have been); the compilers bowed to the sentimentality of their correspondents....but changed the awful third verse.
The same, to a lesser extent, with "Jesus Loves me, wjich now retains the sentimental bit but is a bit more theologically acceptable without compromising it.
-
Our kist o whustles requires annualprofessional checks - and frequent repair.
The church five miles from me ha
s spent many thousands of wasted pounds maintaining their two-centuries-old instrument for 'future generations'. They hardly ever use it, ut it looks nice in the chancel with a vase of flowers on it.
Just think how many lives that cash could have changed were it used on Christian Aid charities.
False dichotomy.
Firstly because there are a number of trusts and charitable organisation that provide grants to maintain and repair church organs - that money could not be used on Christian Aid charities.
Secondly that argument is one for completely disbanding the church, selling off all its assets etc, reducing costs to zero to allow the maximum amount of money to go to charities.
And in the example I was talking about this isn't a church on its financial knees - quite the reverse. Within the last couple of years they spent over £50k on new audio visual equipment, and they planned to spend nearly £15k on a new keyboard system to 'replace' the organ - far more than the annual cost of maintaining the organ.
But finally this discussion is about heritage and the responsibility for maintaining that heritage. Like it or not churches have in their possession significant amounts of heritage and it is their responsibility to protect that heritage for future generation. Sure it would be cheaper to scrap the organ, strip out the paneling, pull down the historic entrance, demolish the steeple and bell tower etc etc, but that is the heritage.
And trust me churches benefit massively from tax breaks, with one of the arguments in favour of those tax breaks being that they have to maintain ht heritage. One example being exemption from business rates. This church pays not a penny in business rates. If the building was turned into a community art base (Theatre, venue for music, space for drama/dance workshops etc - it would work very well as such and arguably that would provide much more community benefit), then their business rates bill per year would be about £10k. And that is just one of many tax breaks. I don't think it unreasonable, given those tax breaks from the public purse, to expect the church to take responsibility to maintaining its heritage for the people.
-
False dichotomy. Firstly because there are a number of trusts and charitable organisation that provide grants to maintain and repair church organs - that money could not be used on Christian Aid charities. Secondly that argument is one for completely disbanding the church, selling off all its assets etc, reducing costs to zero to allow the maximum amount of money to go to charities. And in the example I was talking about this isn't a church on its financial knees - quite the reverse. Within the last couple of years they spent over £50k on new audio visual equipment, and they planned to spend nearly £15k on a new keyboard system to 'replace' the organ - far more than the annual cost of maintaining the organ. But finally this discussion is about heritage and the responsibility for maintaining that heritage. Like it or not churches have in their possession significant amounts of heritage and it is their responsibility to protect that heritage for future generation. Sure it would be cheaper to scrap the organ, strip out the paneling, pull down the historic entrance, demolish the steeple and bell tower etc etc, but that is the heritage. And trust me churches benefit massively from tax breaks, with one of the arguments in favour of those tax breaks being that they have to maintain ht heritage. One example being exemption from business rates. This church pays not a penny in business rates. If the building was turned into a community art base (Theatre, venue for music, space for drama/dance workshops etc - it would work very well as such and arguably that would provide much more community benefit), then their business rates bill per year would be about £10k. And that is just one of many tax breaks. I don't think it unreasonable, given those tax breaks from the public purse, to expect the church to take responsibility to maintaining its heritage for the people.
False dichotomy? With respect, prof, I've served as a member of my congregational board since 1979 - the last 28 years as an elder. The Congregational board deals with the finance and fabric of the church and its' fittings, including the kist o whustles. Things must be very different here - there may be charitable trusts which help maintain historic organs in cathedrals or music venues - but not in local kirks. I wish there were.....really. Like many other kirks within my presbytery, we have explored every avenue in per suit of funding for repair and maintenance...but the best we can come up with is the National Lottery, and for ethical reasons, we will not choose this route. As for tax breaks? Yes, we get exemption from certain taxes and Gift aid, but pay full council tax, and rates for our minister's house - and full rates for church and hall. We wouldn't have it any other way. In return for the tax rebates, we provide services to the community which far exceed them; hall space for community groups at little or no charge; food bank, lunch club, nursery group at less than a quarter of the rate charged by a private group - with no indoctrination, obviously. Were we to pay full tax, we could not provide those facilities in any form useful and affordable to the community. And as for 'heritage'? I'd contend that church hymnody was as much heritage as church bricks and mortar.
-
Things must be very different here - there may be charitable trusts which help maintain historic organs in cathedrals or music venues - but not in local kirks. I wish there were.....really.
Perhaps you haven't looked hard enough:
https://www.bios.org.uk/downloads/biosgran.pdf
I know this document is largely England focused but I find it hard to believe that things are so different in Scotland. And again I come back to the issue of bespoke tax breaks - compared to a community Arts Base using exactly the same building and with the same obligations on preserving heritage a church is likely to be about £10k better off a year due to being completely exempt from business rates.
-
I'm aware of it, of course, but we were spared it in my church when I was a child.
Lucky you, I assume you weren't unfortunate enough to be forced to attend a Pentecostal church, as I was.
-
and full rates for church and hall.
No you don't - from the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956:
'Exemption of churches, etc. from rates.
(1)No non-domestic rate shall be levied on any premises to the extent that they consist of—
(a)a building occupied by a religious body and used for the purpose of religious worship;
(b)a church hall, chapel hall or similar premises used in connection with a building such as is referred to in paragraph (a) above for the purposes of the religious body which occupies that building; or
(c)any premises occupied by a religious body and used by it—
(i)for carrying out administrative or other activities relating to the organisation of the conduct of religious worship in a building such as is referred to in paragraph (a) above; or
(ii)as an office or for office purposes, or for purposes ancillary to its use as an office or for office purposes.'
Just as in England churches in Scotland are completely exempt from business rates, which applies to other non-domestic premises. Indeed you wont even find churches on the Valuation Agency list of properties with rateable value.
-
In return for the tax rebates, we provide services to the community which far exceed them; hall space for community groups at little or no charge; food bank, lunch club, nursery group at less than a quarter of the rate charged by a private group - with no indoctrination, obviously.
So do all sorts of other charitable and community organisations, and their 'bang per buck' in terms of overall income and its proportion spent on such community activities will be way higher than yours as they are expending the vast majority of their income on supporting the provision of worship, which, lets face it, is the primary purpose of a church - all these other aspects are secondary.
Yet, of course, all these other charitable and community organisations will have to pay business rates on their premises (perhaps with a charitable reduction, but not to zero) yet the church is completely exempt.
If you want to support a food bank, give your money to a charity whose primary purpose is to provide a food bank, as they will put probably 80-90p in the £ toward that (the rest being administrative and fundraising costs) don't give your money to a church where most of that money will be sucked up by expenditure that has nothing to do with those broader community goals, albeit with a few pence of trickle down per £.
-
Perhaps you haven't looked hard enough: https://www.bios.org.uk/downloads/biosgran.pdf I know this document is largely England focused but I find it hard to believe that things are so different in Scotland. And again I come back to the issue of bespoke tax breaks - compared to a community Arts Base using exactly the same building and with the same obligations on preserving heritage a church is likely to be about £10k better off a year due to being completely exempt from business rates.
Trust mer, we have indeed looked 'hard enough' - exhausivly, in fact. "The gulag" - 121 George Street, Edinburgh - CofS HQ - has invwestigated all options north of the Border. As for tax breaks? Again, the situation here is different. Yes, each congregation is registered with OSCR (The Scottish charity bods). Dependant on the local authority tules, churches are subject to full water rates. Like all charities )religious or otherwise) they enjoy exemption from business rates - unless that charity is a profit making set up. Some churches run self-help businesses to get homeless back into work - since they do so in their own premises, and, despite all revernue being ploughed back into the homeless charity (run in conjunction with Shelter Scotland) they have to pay full business rates. The Kirk's law department threw a wobbly over that.
-
Dependant on the local authority tules, churches are subject to full water rates.
I wasn't talking about water rates, I was talking about business rates.
Like all charities )religious or otherwise) they enjoy exemption from business rates - unless that charity is a profit making set up.
Factually incorrect - charities are eligible for business rates relief of up to 80%, and that may not cover parts of the building that may be deemed to be 'commercial' in operation, for example a cafe or shop. By contrast churches are completely exempt from business rates - there isn't even a mechanism to charge them as churches and their ancillary buildings aren't even on the VOAs ratings list. So not only would a church not pay a penny in business rates while other charities may only get up to 80% rebate, a cafe in a church building, or a gift shop in a cathedral, for example would be completely business rates free, while a cafe or a gift shop in a museum run by a charity might incur full business rates.
-
... nursery group at less than a quarter of the rate charged by a private group ...
Really?!?
Given that most most church hall nurseries are only open for a few hours and there is government funding so that parents receive 15 hours a week (16 hour per week I think in Scotland) in nursery free, then I'm struggling to see how that free provision in your nursery can less 'less than a quarter of the rate charged by a private group' which will also, of course, be free.
And how exactly is that linked to your church building. Maybe, as you claim you provide the space free to that group, but seeing as the main costs (about 80-90%) for a nursery is staff costs then the cost of rent makes very little difference to the amount a nursery needs to charges (and see above they have to provide 15-16 hours a week free to parents, with government funding).
Now perhaps that reason the costs are low is because it is run by volunteers (that would certain reduce running costs massively) but if so why has that anything to do with the church - those volunteers could run the nursery anyway (and indeed many do).