Government money for church maintenance

[Steve H]

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.

[Rhiannon]

The hymns of Graham Kendrick don't sound so good on the organ...

[Steve H]

Fuck Kendrick. We need to return to proper hymns, which doesn't necessarily mean old ones: there are plenty of good modern hymns.

[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.

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.


 

[Anchorman]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Steve H]

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).

[Anchorman]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[Anchorman]

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!

[Steve H]

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.

[Roses]

I remember that daft hymn, 'Jesus wants me for a sunbeam'. I even thought it silly when I was a child.

[Anchorman]

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.)

[Steve H]

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.

[Steve H]

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.

[Anchorman]

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....)

[Anchorman]

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.....

[Steve H]

"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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.