Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Rhiannon on August 23, 2017, 08:03:04 PM
-
HTB have their grasping grubby little hands all over this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/23/uks-leading-musicians-fight-church-ban-on-secular-bookings-aled-jones-judith-weir
-
HTB have their grasping grubby little hands all over this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/23/uks-leading-musicians-fight-church-ban-on-secular-bookings-aled-jones-judith-weir
This is terrible and frankly bonkers, given that churches need all the income they can get, and trust me they charge a fortune to be used as a venue for a concert.
I've been linked to by many of my musical friends to get me to sign the petition. And that includes plenty who are professional musicians, active Christians and some of the people in the UK actually keeping church music alive - actually composing new high quality sacred music - rather than the nursery rhyme-type lowest common denominator 'folk' music for worship.
-
I find it intensely depressing. HTB can't just live and let live, they have to 'church plant' and fuck things up for others. They are poisonous - I had a close friend forced from his church by them.
-
HTB/Alpha are so wealthy they can probably take the hit from cancelling the concerts.
-
I find it intensely depressing. HTB can't just live and let live, they have to 'church plant' and fuck things up for others. They are poisonous - I had a close friend forced from his church by them.
I know very little about HTB, but this seems so totally counterproductive.
No idea how much this church charges for the venue to be used for a concert - but round here my choral society are charged between £500 for one of the local small churches to touching £4000 for the cathedral. So these types of event significantly swell the coffers.
But also these events mean than non church goers actually go into a church and spend time there (something they might never otherwise do), and that might, of course, be a trigger for that person to think about perhaps going along for a service and maybe becoming a regular active christian.
And then there is the traditional aspect to it - the sacred music cannon was written to be performed in the acoustic of a church. If churches refuse to allow them to be performed as a part of a non religion concert (i.e. without worship) then we will no longer be able to hear Handel's Messiah as intended, or the Bach Matthew Passion or the Faure requiem. Because they aren't going to be performed as part of worship any time soon anywhere near you.
-
Tbh I don't even know where to start. This is the horrible, arrogant face of Christianity that I find very hard to deal with.
-
Tbh I don't even know where to start. This is the horrible, arrogant face of Christianity that I find very hard to deal with.
I hadn't got around to signing the petition a few days ago when I had it linked to me via various composer friends on Facebook. I have now.The notion that these muppets want to prevent people listening to the sublime Faure requiem (for example) - a sacred piece of music - in their church because it might be being performed as a concert rather than as worship is frankly beyond me.
And you'll never hear it (or at least hear it in full) in a worship setting any more.
-
It's ok, they are going to pray about it. ::)
-
I heard about this on a Church music group on Facebook. Yet another reason to hate bastard charismatic bastard Christian bastards, as if there weren't enough already.
-
HTB have their grasping grubby little hands all over this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/23/uks-leading-musicians-fight-church-ban-on-secular-bookings-aled-jones-judith-weir
I seem to recall Dawkins similarly calling for a ban on a Templeton foundation gig in a " place of science" thus once more belying the plea that New Atheism Does not equate itself with science.
-
I seem to recall Dawkins similarly calling for a ban on a Templeton foundation gig in a " place of science" thus once more belying the plea that New Atheism Does not equate itself with science.
Link please.
And besides if this were to be the case it is hardly comparable.
These guys are actually banning, not just calling for a ban. Secondly they are banning the performance of the most sublime, famous and importance sacred music when it isn't being performed during religious worship (which it never is). And this church has been known for decades as The National Musicians' Church - so this is what it is know for, what its heritage is.
-
Link please.
And besides if this were to be the case it is hardly comparable.
These guys are actually banning, not just calling for a ban. Secondly they are banning the performance of the most sublime, famous and importance sacred music when it isn't being performed during religious worship (which it never is). And this church has been known for decades as The National Musicians' Church - so this is what it is know for, what its heritage is.
It's worse since a church is a sacred space. Dawkins tried to imbue a place with ''sacredness'' for the beliefs of NEW atheism (note not plain atheism.
I would rightly be criticised for suggesting that Songs of Praise should come from BHA towers or the HQ of the NSS.
-
It's worse since a church is a sacred space. Dawkins tried to imbue a place with ''sacredness'' for the beliefs of NEW atheism (note not plain atheism.
I would rightly be criticised for suggesting that Songs of Praise should come from BHA towers or the HQ of the NSS.
So do you agree with the tactic from HTB of 'church planting' by moving in their own congregation, and then their own priest, and the HTB style of worship (a mix of strong evangelicalism and speaking in tongues in the manner of the Toronto Blessing)?
-
It's worse since a church is a sacred space. Dawkins tried to imbue a place with ''sacredness'' for the beliefs of NEW atheism (note not plain atheism.
I notice you ignored the Prof's request for a link.
What's "plain atheism? Atheism with no added sugar? Low fat atheism? What is it?
-
This is terrible and frankly bonkers, given that churches need all the income they can get, and trust me they charge a fortune to be used as a venue for a concert.
I've been linked to by many of my musical friends to get me to sign the petition. And that includes plenty who are professional musicians, active Christians and some of the people in the UK actually keeping church music alive - actually composing new high quality sacred music - rather than the nursery rhyme-type lowest common denominator 'folk' music for worship.
Whoa!
What's wrong with 'folk music for worship'?
I resent that!
Some of the most profound hymns of today were written to folk tunes - just as the original metrical Psalms were.
Sometimes, the organ is no aid to worship, nor, for that matter, are high falluting strings and brass which are sometimes incomprehensible.
There are contexts for such things - I'd suggest that Sunday worship is not one of them.
It's a Presbyterian thing.
-
I know very little about HTB, but this seems so totally counterproductive.
No idea how much this church charges for the venue to be used for a concert - but round here my choral society are charged between £500 for one of the local small churches to touching £4000 for the cathedral. So these types of event significantly swell the coffers.
But also these events mean than non church goers actually go into a church and spend time there (something they might never otherwise do), and that might, of course, be a trigger for that person to think about perhaps going along for a service and maybe becoming a regular active christian.
And then there is the traditional aspect to it - the sacred music cannon was written to be performed in the acoustic of a church. If churches refuse to allow them to be performed as a part of a non religion concert (i.e. without worship) then we will no longer be able to hear Handel's Messiah as intended, or the Bach Matthew Passion or the Faure requiem. Because they aren't going to be performed as part of worship any time soon anywhere near you.
Handel's Messiah was intended to be performed in a theatrical setting - as it was in Dublin on its' first outing.
Many Church traditions don't 'do' classical music,and find that there is no demand for it.
There are plenty of auditoria available for such performances - last year I heard Bach performed in a former bingo hall - the acoustics were fantastic.
-
Well all I can say is that if I were ever tempted to go to church to attend a service the thought of church folk music would be the nail in the coffin that stops me.
You'll be asking me to get happy clappy next.
Ugh!
-
Well all I can say is that if I were ever tempted to go to church to attend a service the thought of church folk music would be the nail in the coffin that stops me.
You'll be asking me to get happy clappy next.
Ugh!
Have you never heard the stuff John Bell and Graham Maule write, TV?
The words are profound, thought provoking, stirring and sometimes uncomfortable.
In other words, hymns that take you out of your comfort zone.
Hyms such as "Touching Place", or "Will you come and follow Me" would make many tories run in horror!
-
Have you never heard the stuff John Bell and Graham Maule write, TV?
The words are profound, thought provoking, stirring and sometimes uncomfortable.
In other words, hymns that take you out of your comfort zone.
Hyms such as "Touching Place", or "Will you come and follow Me" would make many tories run in horror!
I can't say I have - but if it makes Tories run in horror I am all for that. However on the occasions when I have witnessed folk music in Church and admittedly this (except for one occasion) is when I have inadvertently put SofP on TV, it has been the most dispiriting display of soporific, asinine music I have ever had the misfortune to witness.
-
You've never spent time with the Wild Goose Worship group, or with the Iona Community, then!
-
You've never spent time with the Wild Goose Worship group, or with the Iona Community, then!
They are the exception though.
-
I heard about this on a Church music group on Facebook. Yet another reason to hate bastard charismatic bastard Christian bastards, as if there weren't enough already.
Sorry you hate me.
-
So do you agree with the tactic from HTB of 'church planting' by moving in their own congregation, and then their own priest, and the HTB style of worship (a mix of strong evangelicalism and speaking in tongues in the manner of the Toronto Blessing)?
Have they done that on the premises of the BHA and NSS? If not if there is a space why not promote your religion from it....after all atheism crops up on the sides of buses.
-
They are the exception though.
Not really.
A fwew years back, the CofS decided to create a new hymnbook.
The result was, and is, CH4, an amalgum of traditional hymns, metrical psalms, paraphrases, plus some modern stuff by Kendrick, Townend, Carter, etc, as well as Iona community hymns and world music.
The whole clamjamfrey is quite a good selection.
(Clamjamfrey = kit and kaboodle, obviously....)
-
Have they done that on the premises of the BHA and NSS? If not if there is a space why not promote your religion from it....after all atheism crops up on the sides of buses.
Stop evading. So it's ok in your eyes for HTB to supplant one lot of worshippers and a tradition going on for decades, uninvited?
-
Stop evading. So it's ok in your eyes for HTB to supplant one lot of worshippers and a tradition going on for decades, uninvited?
I'm not getting it. What is the connection with HTB are the parishes linked in the formal Cof E set up or is the Vicar just formerly of HTB?
In any case I believe the matter to be how evangelism is best served is the most important consideration not that of people who want to enjoy nice secular music in a quaint architectural environment which after all is merely the same as sort of thing as secular boozers enjoying a cheap pint in an ex Baptist church now Witherspoons.
-
I'll hazard a guess that making the church look like aggressive, smug, intolerant dicks isn't the best way to evangelise.
-
............................aggressive, smug, intolerant dicks isn't the best way to evangelise.
As the New Atheists demonstrate.
One bit did trouble me though was reference to bringing in a ''core group'' of worshippers. That smacked of being superior corporate shit I grant you. I find no ''bringing in'' of ''core worshippers'' from one church into another in the New Testament .
-
As the New Atheists demonstrate.
One bit did trouble me though was reference to bringing in a ''core group'' of worshippers. That smacked of being superior corporate shit I grant you. I find no ''bringing in'' of ''core worshippers'' from one church into another in the New Testament .
Classic HTB, sadly.
-
Still no word on the link Prof. Davey asked for, Vlad?
-
Hmmm. Not really in a position to comment on the specifics of this particular incident as I am not in possession of sufficient details to draw firm conclusions. But set against the broader canvas of the state of the Church in the UK, it is yet another straw in the wind indicating that Samson's hair is beginning to grow again, and this is starting to cause some discomfort amongst the Philistines.
-
Sorry you hate me.
I don't hate you, or any individual charismatic Christian, personally; I hate the charismatic movement for its right-wing attitudes, its dim-witted, happy-clappy style of worship, its love of repetitive, illiterate, glutinously sentimental and often theologically dubious "worship songs" at the expense of proper hymns, and its narrow-mindedness, assuming that their way of worship is the best, if not the only, way, and their insensitivity to others. I was a charismatic myself from the late 70s to the early 90s, to my undying shame, until I came to my senses.
-
Hmmm. Not really in a position to comment on the specifics of this particular incident as I am not in possession of sufficient details to draw firm conclusions. But set against the broader canvas of the state of the Church in the UK, it is yet another straw in the wind indicating that Samson's hair is beginning to grow again, and this is starting to cause some discomfort amongst the Philistines.
I think it's a CofE thing, Dave.
That and some people's attachment to nice buildings and traditional forms of worship which don't seem to attract many new worshippers.
Personally, one of the (many) problems with 'mainstream' churches in these isles is the baggage of 'historic' and 'beautiful' buildings which cost a bomb to maintain.
As John Bell (yes, Iona again) said;
"You can be in the presence of God at the local landfill in as meaningful a way as in St Giles' Cathedral".
He's not wrong!
(And this comes from someone who took part in a great open-air service in a rather mucky field last Sunday afternoon. It might not have been a landfill, but the presence of the late bovine occupants of the said field were rather evident....)
-
Still no word on the link Prof. Davey asked for, Vlad?
I have it here Shaker or shall let the foetid odour of antitheist suggestion that absence of evidence of the link is evidence of absence???????????
Hmm OK, here's the link, i'm sure there are many more.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/03/23/what-on-earth-has-got-into-the-us-national-academy-of-sciences/
May I express surprise at your ignorance of this?......amnesia?
-
I think it's a CofE thing, Dave.
That and some people's attachment to nice buildings and traditional forms of worship which don't seem to attract many new worshippers.
Personally, one of the (many) problems with 'mainstream' churches in these isles is the baggage of 'historic' and 'beautiful' buildings which cost a bomb to maintain.
As John Bell (yes, Iona again) said;
"You can be in the presence of God at the local landfill in as meaningful a way as in St Giles' Cathedral".
He's not wrong!
(And this comes from someone who took part in a great open-air service in a rather mucky field last Sunday afternoon. It might not have been a landfill, but the presence of the late bovine occupants of the said field were rather evident....)
I'd rather Christianity died in the UK, if the only way of saving it was to go happy-clappy.
-
I have it here Shaker or shall let the foetid odour of antitheist suggestion that absence of evidence of the link is evidence of absence???????????
Hmm OK, here's the link, i'm sure there are many more.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/03/23/what-on-earth-has-got-into-the-us-national-academy-of-sciences/
May I express surprise at your ignorance of this?......amnesia?
You can't forget something you never heard of in the first place. What of it?
-
Best advice I can give you then is 'don't hold your breath'. The fact of the matter is that neither will happen to the exclusion of the other,
-
I don't hate you, or any individual charismatic Christian, personally; I hate the charismatic movement for its right-wing attitudes, its dim-witted, happy-clappy style of worship, its love of repetitive, illiterate, glutinously sentimental and often theologically dubious "worship songs" at the expense of proper hymns, and its narrow-mindedness, assuming that their way of worship is the best, if not the only, way, and their insensitivity to others. I was a charismatic myself from the late 70s to the early 90s, to my undying shame, until I came to my senses.
The charismatic movement goes way beyond Pentecostalism, and 'happy clappy' music - though some of this written by modern worship leaders can be every bit as profound as the hymnody of Watts, Wesley or the rest)
I became a charismatic through the friendship of a Church of Scotland minister - and anyone who knows the Kirk will no how 'un-Pentecostal-like' the Kirk can be.
There are a few of us in the CofS, well able to control ourselves in public worship.....have ypou ever tried getting worked up singing "The auld hundreth"?
I'm sorry your view of all charismatics has been soured by your personal experience; however I find the discipline - yes, discipline; there's a presbyterian term for you - both satisfying and non-intrusive in worship, and deeply moving in personal devotions.
-
I'd rather Christianity died in the UK, if the only way of saving it was to go happy-clappy.
Whatever the Kirk is, happy clappy it most certainly is not!
-
You can't forget something you never heard of in the first place. What of it?
Yes, but why did you guys ask me for a link anyway?
-
Yes, but why did you guys ask me for a link anyway?
To see if you're capable of providing evidence that substantiates your assertions.
-
To see if you're capable of providing evidence that substantiates your assertions.
The assertion?
Oh yes......... That Dawkins in wanting to ban the Templeton foundation from gigging at the American NAS was claiming that building for New Atheism and perpetuating the equation of new atheism and science.
-
The assertion?
Oh yes......... That Dawkins in wanting to ban the Templeton foundation from gigging at the American NAS was claiming that building for New Atheism and perpetuating the equation of new atheism and science.
And yet your link never once mentioned the word ban. Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.
-
Ridiculous banning, grrr. I don't know the church but have in past been to various things at St Martin's in the Fields which is also CofE, did lot of social work locally & was glad of the money from hiring out premises. My parish church does same, a 'famous person' will be performing there on Monday (never heard of them but who cares?). Nothing disrespectful from what I've seen or heard, quite the contrary.
Don't know much about HTB but from what I've read they seem more sinister by the minute. Spoilsports too.
I'd rather Christianity died in the UK, if the only way of saving it was to go happy-clappy.
;D d'you mean that? Happy clappy is fine as long as the Happy Clappies don't insist theres is the 'one true way' & we should all be the same.How boring would that be.
-
And yet your link never once mentioned the word ban. Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.
Secondary to Dawkins wishing to turn a space(The NAS) into one dedicated to New atheist sensibilities and a discipline(science) into a subset of New Atheism.
-
And yet your link never once mentioned the word ban. Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.
And Dawkins has no jurisdiction over what goes on in the American National Academy of Sciences. All he was doing was expressing an opinion. That is a world away from actually banning the performance of music (including sacred music from the huge cannon of traditional sacred choral music) from a church that is known as the National Musicians' Church unless it is being played as part of worship.
Worth noting too that the CofE and its individual churches get massive tax breaks due to their charitable status, plus also huge grants to support upkeep of historic churches (of which this is one) - effectively tax payer funding - and will justify this on the basis of community engagement. How does banning the community of musicians (don't forget it is the National Musicians' Church) from using the church fit with that remit. Let's hope the Charity commission and other public bodies look at their funding and tax breaks.
-
Whatever the Kirk is, happy clappy it most certainly is not!
We must be thankful for small mercies. I certainly prefer Scottish dour to the above.
But you mentioned Bach in a bingo hall - now that is progress.
-
I'm not bothered by the thought of churches echoing to the strains of Graham Kendrick. The toxic Alpha/HTB mix of forced charismatic experience and ultra Evangelical dogma terrifies me.
Incidentally, churches are meant to serve their communities. This doesn't.
-
Incidentally, churches are meant to serve their communities. This doesn't.
Particularly as they are the National Musicians' Church, so you'd expect them to consider musicians as key members of their community.
-
Particularly as they are the National Musicians' Church, so you'd expect them to consider musicians as key members of their community.
There's something reminiscent of the Taliban here.
-
There's something reminiscent of the Taliban here.
I think this letter is excellent:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/aug/23/reverse-this-concert-ban-at-our-musicians-church
You should also note the list of signatories, which is effectively a whose, who of musicians who are keeping traditional sacred music alive in this country. And that includes the standard canon of pieces written over the past 400 years, but also new pieces being written now by the likes of John Rutter, Will Todd and James MacMillan (all of who have signed the letter). Frankly without these 50-odd people who have signed the letter traditional sacred choral music would be pretty well moribund in this country.
-
I have no dog in this fight, but it all seems a bit weird to me.
Firstly, why would you do this? Here is an opportunity to get people into your church so you can spread your message. Not only that, but they'll pay you for the privilege.
Not only that but bringing people in from another parish seems really odd, like a corporate takeover. What's wrong with the existing congregation?
-
I'm not bothered by the thought of churches echoing to the strains of Graham Kendrick. The toxic Alpha/HTB mix of forced charismatic experience and ultra Evangelical dogma terrifies me.
Incidentally, churches are meant to serve their communities. This doesn't.
Having lead several Alpha courses in my area, there's nothing to be terrified about.
Worship styles can be adapted to suit local circumstances.
-
Having lead several Alpha courses in my area, there's nothing to be terrified about.
Worship styles can be adapted to suit local circumstances.
It's what Alpha stands for, how it works and what it teaches that scares me. Not its worship style.
I used to get the Church Times and Alpha News came quarterly, full of testimony as to its powers.Want to be cured of being gay? Try Alpha. Want to be cured of that nasty paganism ? Alpha will sort it.
One of the best people I've ever known was drummed out of his parish thanks to HTB. When the congregation of his church didnt start speaking in tongues to order the HTB facilitators went all Witchsmeller and said it was him blocking the Holy Spirit. He was forced to resign.
HTB and all it stands for disgust me.
-
Must be different up here. Yes, Alpha takes a firm stand on commitment to Christ - but there are, as far as I am aware, no 'enforcers' to drum anyone who doesn't conform to the stereotype. As I've stated, I've run several Alpha courses within the local CofS presbytery, and taken part in two Alpha plus terms as well. The charisma are, of course, discussed -sometimes at length. However, I have known of courses where the relevent section is not used, or simply relegated to a series of notes given out before coffee, leaving the option for those interested to initiate discussion or not.
-
;D d'you mean that? [That I'd rather Christianity died in the UK than go happy-clappy] Happy clappy is fine as long as the Happy Clappies don't insist theres is the 'one true way' & we should all be the same.How boring would that be.
No, not really - somewhat of an exaggeration. However, I don't think happy-clappy is fine - it's hyper-emotional (and much of the emotion is fake and whipped-up), anti-intellectual, and thoroughly third-rate. It is also very harmful in holding out false promises of healing to vulnerable people, which is downright cruel in effect, if not in intention, because healing never happens, except through medical intervention or because the condition was self-limiting in the first place. Mind you, my experience of the movement is 25 years out if date, so it may have matured in some ways. It's still singing the same, unbelievably awful worship-songs, though.
-
It's what Alpha stands for, how it works and what it teaches that scares me. Not its worship style.
I used to get the Church Times and Alpha News came quarterly, full of testimony as to its powers.Want to be cured of being gay? Try Alpha. Want to be cured of that nasty paganism ? Alpha will sort it.
I've never seen alpha advertised as that.
-
I've never seen alpha advertised as that.
It wasn't an advert. It was testimony from people who had done the course.
-
No, not really - somewhat of an exaggeration. However, I don't think happy-clappy is fine - it's hyper-emotional (and much of the emotion is fake and whipped-up), anti-intellectual, and thoroughly third-rate. It is also very harmful in holding out false promises of healing to vulnerable people, which is downright cruel in effect, if not in intention, because healing never happens, except through medical intervention or because the condition was self-limiting in the first place. Mind you, my experience of the movement is 25 years out if date, so it may have matured in some ways. It's still singing the same, unbelievably awful worship-songs, though.
Ah yes, promised healing that doesn't happen that then gets blamed on the sick person for not repenting of their sin.
-
Ah yes, promised healing that doesn't happen that then gets blamed on the sick person for not repenting of their sin.
Well, to be fair, blaming the sick person for not being healed didn't happen in my charismatic church, which was anglican. I think charismatics in mainstream denominations behave better than those in independent fellowships, because their vicars or ministers are better educated, and because the denominations have proper oversight of individual churches. Some independent fellowships are appalling, though - some ill-educated, fanatical control-freak sets himself up (it's usually a him) as the "pastor" (and I automatically distrust any group whose head is called a pastor) and does untold damage.
-
I've never seen alpha advertised as that.
Strangely I agree with everyone and perhaps also disagree with all.
So for context Rhiannon posted:
'I used to get the Church Times and Alpha News came quarterly, full of testimony as to its powers.Want to be cured of being gay? Try Alpha. Want to be cured of that nasty paganism ? Alpha will sort it.'
While Anchorman posted:
'Must be different up here. Yes, Alpha takes a firm stand on commitment to Christ'Now my big issue with Alpha is that it is disingenuous bordering on dishonest.
As a layperson Alpha is 'marketed' as come and find out about the 'meaning of life/explore the big questions' - no mention of christianity, evangelism - even less gay cures. In other words that it is a broad philosophy programme when in fact it is anything but. That to me is deeply disingenuous or dishonest.
If their posters said - 'hey ex-christians - feeling guilty - want a way back into your church' then all well and good and the vast majority of people would simply ignore. but the whole notion that it markets itself on being a broad exploration of 'life's big questions' while actually being an uber narrow evangelical christian initiative really irks m
That said I think we've gone beyond 'peak Alpha' - the market (i.e. ex-christians) is small and has been ruthlessly exploited, so I suspect we will be seeing less and less of Alpha over coming years as anyone actually interested has already done it.
-
No, not really - somewhat of an exaggeration. However, I don't think happy-clappy is fine - it's hyper-emotional (and much of the emotion is fake and whipped-up), anti-intellectual, and thoroughly third-rate. It is also very harmful in holding out false promises of healing to vulnerable people, which is downright cruel in effect, if not in intention, because healing never happens, except through medical intervention or because the condition was self-limiting in the first place. Mind you, my experience of the movement is 25 years out if date, so it may have matured in some ways. It's still singing the same, unbelievably awful worship-songs, though.
I didn't know it was that serious, thought it was just a different worship style. It's not something with which I'm familiar but going on whatyou say, I can only agree with you, it's harmful. Also seems rather elitist.
-
Strangely I agree with everyone and perhaps also disagree with all.
So for context Rhiannon posted:
'I used to get the Church Times and Alpha News came quarterly, full of testimony as to its powers.Want to be cured of being gay? Try Alpha. Want to be cured of that nasty paganism ? Alpha will sort it.'
While Anchorman posted:
'Must be different up here. Yes, Alpha takes a firm stand on commitment to Christ'Now my big issue with Alpha is that it is disingenuous bordering on dishonest.
As a layperson Alpha is 'marketed' as come and find out about the 'meaning of life/explore the big questions' - no mention of christianity, evangelism - even less gay cures. In other words that it is a broad philosophy programme when in fact it is anything but. That to me is deeply disingenuous or dishonest.
If their posters said - 'hey ex-christians - feeling guilty - want a way back into your church' then all well and good and the vast majority of people would simply ignore. but the whole notion that it markets itself on being a broad exploration of 'life's big questions' while actually being an uber narrow evangelical christian initiative really irks m
That said I think we've gone beyond 'peak Alpha' - the market (i.e. ex-christians) is small and has been ruthlessly exploited, so I suspect we will be seeing less and less of Alpha over coming years as anyone actually interested has already done it.
Where do you get the idea from that Alpha is specifically for ex-Christians? It's for enquirers generally.
-
No Alpha course on which I've attended was tailored for any group. Most who attended heard through word of mouth, or by invitation; few bothered with any advertising. The only posters we used were those we made ourselves and placed in various churches, and a few public venues. Since they showed a Cross pretty prominanytly, there would be little doubt of the content of the course.
-
Where do you get the idea from that Alpha is specifically for ex-Christians? It's for enquirers generally.
I had a look at the Alpha website and a few sites where it's talked about, before going to sleep and this morning before getting up (yeah I really know how to live!).
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=alpha+course&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB717GB727&oq=alpha+course&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.3832j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
From my reading ti seems that Alpha is for anyone who is interested so that means completely new to Christianity - but lot of people who would consider themselves Christian & feel their knowledge over the years has become dimmed, do it as refresher course. So basically it's for anyone & can be adapted to suit specific groups.
Would be interesting for someone on here to attend a course and tell us about it first hand - if they want to of course. Must say I'm curious but would rather go to one, if at all, not in my area where I'm not known. I presume you don't have to attend every session. Food might be nice :-).
Alnchorman could tell us more as he's done courses.
We've moved somewhat from thread title but Holy Trinity Brompton figures prominently in the reasons for banning.
-
Strangely I agree with everyone and perhaps also disagree with all.
So for context Rhiannon posted:
'I used to get the Church Times and Alpha News came quarterly, full of testimony as to its powers.Want to be cured of being gay? Try Alpha. Want to be cured of that nasty paganism ? Alpha will sort it.'
While Anchorman posted:
'Must be different up here. Yes, Alpha takes a firm stand on commitment to Christ'Now my big issue with Alpha is that it is disingenuous bordering on dishonest.
As a layperson Alpha is 'marketed' as come and find out about the 'meaning of life/explore the big questions' - no mention of christianity, evangelism - even less gay cures. In other words that it is a broad philosophy programme when in fact it is anything but. That to me is deeply disingenuous or dishonest.
If their posters said - 'hey ex-christians - feeling guilty - want a way back into your church' then all well and good and the vast majority of people would simply ignore. but the whole notion that it markets itself on being a broad exploration of 'life's big questions' while actually being an uber narrow evangelical christian initiative really irks m
That said I think we've gone beyond 'peak Alpha' - the market (i.e. ex-christians) is small and has been ruthlessly exploited, so I suspect we will be seeing less and less of Alpha over coming years as anyone actually interested has already done it.
Can a broad philosophy programme get anywhere near any meaning in life.
I don't know whether there would be any recourse in complaining that something to set up as an exploration of meaning and answers didn't do the Biz because it had the temerity to offer some.
Perhaps there is a market for a Dogmatically agnostic alternative........a title?.........How about ''You never know!''
-
Can a broad philosophy programme get anywhere near any meaning in life.
Nor more nor less than a narrow one focussing on just one religion.
My point is that Alpha is a course about christianity yet it is typically not marketed as such - indeed most marketing I've seen (mainly posters) has no mention of Christianity, Jesus, God or symbols that might infer this is what it is about.
Why is an evangelical Christian organisation so reluctant to tell everyone that their flagship course is about Christianity. Frankly I find it rather dishonest although I think Alpha is so well embedded and known now that few people will be fooled, but I suspect that wouldn't have been the case years ago with people pitching up to find the course was not what they were expecting at all.
-
Where do you get the idea from that Alpha is specifically for ex-Christians? It's for enquirers generally.
Of course anyone can attend, but not everyone does attend.
There have been surveys on Alpha attendance and the vast, vast majority who attend are either current active church-goers (often termed 'churched') or people who had been active churchgoers at some point in the past but for some reason had drifted away but are open to return (termed open de-churched). That second group is really what I meant by 'hey ex-christians - feeling guilty - want a way back into your church'. That is exactly the group that the course attracts apart from current churchgoers.
This from discussion of one of the studies:
'Of those attending the course in his survey, 86% were either already regular churchgoers or were from the 'open de-churched' category; that is, they had been baptised, had generally grown up with some church involvement, had left at some point and were open to the possibility of returning. Significantly under-represented were the non-churched and closed de-churched.'
Broadly speaking about 10% of the population are 'churched' another 20% are 'open de-churched' with the remainder non-churched and closed de-churched. So in effect 86% of Alpha attendance come from 30% of the population, while the remaining 14% is from 70% of the population.
So while Alpha may claim to be open to everyone, the people who attend are overwhelmingly active church-goers or lapsed churchgoers who are thinking of returning.
-
I've attended two Alpha courses at two different churches, one with my wife and one alone. In both the Alpha courses we/I were the only non Christians present.
Both my wife and I found them quite appalling, with a heady mixture of parochialism, utter discomfort when we asked awkward questions and attempts at separating my wife and I in order to attempt to indoctrinate my wife, because. I assume, they thought that she was the weaker vessel(how wrong they were), and a huge emphasis on how we are all sinful beings who need the Christian God to lead fulfilling lives.
Anyone who would like to see an account of one skeptic who attended an Alpha course might like to follow this
https://alphacoursereview.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/week-1a-introduction/
-
I had a look at the Alpha website and a few sites where it's talked about, before going to sleep and this morning before getting up (yeah I really know how to live!).
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=alpha+course&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB717GB727&oq=alpha+course&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.3832j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
From my reading ti seems that Alpha is for anyone who is interested so that means completely new to Christianity - but lot of people who would consider themselves Christian & feel their knowledge over the years has become dimmed, do it as refresher course. So basically it's for anyone & can be adapted to suit specific groups.
Would be interesting for someone on here to attend a course and tell us about it first hand - if they want to of course. Must say I'm curious but would rather go to one, if at all, not in my area where I'm not known. I presume you don't have to attend every session. Food might be nice :-).
Alnchorman could tell us more as he's done courses.
We've moved somewhat from thread title but Holy Trinity Brompton figures prominently in the reasons for banning.
IIRC Susan Doris went on an alpha course and wrote about it. Otherwise the best blog I know of it, and it is from an atheist perspective is Stephen Butterfield's - link below
https://alphacoursereview.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/week-1a-introduction/
-
I've attended two Alpha courses at two different churches, one with my wife and one alone. In both the Alpha courses we/I were the only non Christians present.
Both my wife and I found them quite appalling, with a heady mixture of parochialism, utter discomfort when we asked awkward questions and attempts at separating my wife and I in order to attempt to indoctrinate my wife, because. I assume, they thought that she was the weaker vessel(how wrong they were), and a huge emphasis on how we are all sinful beings who need the Christian God to lead fulfilling lives.
Anyone who would like to see an account of one skeptic who attended an Alpha course might like to follow this
https://alphacoursereview.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/week-1a-introduction/
Ah - I see we posted the same link at the same time! Why did you attend the second course?
-
Ah - I see we posted the same link at the same time! Why did you attend the second course?
Fair question. Because my wife wanted to know what it was all about, and being a person of some discerning(after all she married me), she wanted to find out for herself, so I went along with her.
-
Thank you v much NS & Enki, I'll read the link you both posted. Can't find Susan's blog which I'd like to read, i'm open minded. Probably looking in the wrong place.
Well, to be fair, blaming the sick person for not being healed didn't happen in my charismatic church, which was anglican. I think charismatics in mainstream denominations behave better than those in independent fellowships, because their vicars or ministers are better educated, and because the denominations have proper oversight of individual churches. Some independent fellowships are appalling, though - some ill-educated, fanatical control-freak sets himself up (it's usually a him) as the "pastor" (and I automatically distrust any group whose head is called a pastor) and does untold damage.
Holy Trinity Brompton is Anglican & Mr Gumble is very well educated!
PS: Should be 'Gumbel'.
My Anglican church run Alpha sometimes but we don't hear much about it, maybe people come from outside and run it.
I found this church not far away - where I know no-one (tho' might bump into someone I know if I go there), seems to fit your description quite well steve :-). Does healing & deliverance.
http://www.bromleycommonbaptist.org.uk/alpha.htm
Just thinking about it really. I can spare one evening a week for a while especially as their course starts after my holiday.
-
I do not have wide experience with Alpha, but have had some minor involvement in the running of a couple of courses. In my view much of the vitriol directed at Alpha on this thread is largely a case of shooting the messenger. The content of Alpha, with the possible exception of the section on the role of the Holy Spirit, is pretty much standard Christianity 101. On all the courses that I have had some exposure to the section on the Holy Spirit has been adapted to reflect the theological position of the host church.
But, as with any presentation of the basic gospel message, it is not so much in the 'what' but rather in the 'how' that offence can be given. Does one simply adopt an essentially 'low key' approach and rely on the Holy Spirit to convict where the message falls on good soil? Or do you 'dangle the tootsies' of your audience over the fires of hell in order to scare the hell out of them? I know the approach we adopted here and would be pretty convinced that Anchorman would confirm that the courses he was involved with took essentially a similar approach. I can only assume that those on this forum who have related such negative experiences on Alpha courses were unfortunate enough to have been at a course which took the latter approach.
-
Wot Dave said. Indeed, in the notes for those leading Alpha (and indeed Alpha plus) courses, the course is shown to be flexible. That's the whole point of it - to meet the needs of those who wish to communicate the Gospel in an environment and in a way which is non-threatening, which engenders discussion in a friendly atmosphere, and encourages everyone - both those who lead Alpha groups and those who attend them - to explore the issues raised. The main core values of evangelical thought (with a small 'e') are, of course, the mainstay of the course - after all, that's the whole point of the thing in the first place. As for the controversial bits? I've never yet seen Alpha material which omits the Holy Spirit - specifically the charisma. However, the notes make it abundantly clear that this can be treated in whatever fashion accords with the theological position of the church. I know of some CofS churches which have glossed over the section; others which have jumped in at the deep end. Similarly, I know of Baptist and Congregationalist churches which have done much the same thing. For those who find the section awkward, I know of groups of churches hich set up hubs where that very specific section could be debated and dissected in a more intense seminar or discussion, allowing those who were taking the Alpha course but did not wish to take part to give the seminar a miss.
-
I've never attended an Alpha course. Can anyone tell me if they teach Futurism, Preterism or Historicism.
-
My understandng is that the course is adapted to the church in which it takes place (tho' whilst researching courses within easy reach of me I did see one advertised that was held in a coffee shop!). I'd imagine Catholic Alpha would have a futurist & preterist emphasis, could be wrong.
It's fairly basic/ fundamentals of Christianity teaching.
PS -see Dave M & Anchor have said on previous page it is adapted to suit host church.
(I am tempted to join one next month but need to be sure I have the right motives.)
-
I have no dog in this fight, but it all seems a bit weird to me.
Firstly, why would you do this? Here is an opportunity to get people into your church so you can spread your message. Not only that, but they'll pay you for the privilege.
Not only that but bringing people in from another parish seems really odd, like a corporate takeover. What's wrong with the existing congregation?
I'd think a few nearby churches get together and produce one Alpha course between them.
I thought the course was free. No doubt a contribution is requested towards the dinner, a little box on the table for example so people can give discreetly (or not give), but no-one who can't pay will be turned away surely? Maybe those who can afford it support the course financially so that the less well off can still attend.
Later - Alpha course is free to all.
A contribution is requested towards the food. I suppose there are books on sale and there's a weekend away at the end which costs but not everyone goes.
-
I'd think a few nearby churches get together and produce one Alpha course between them.
I thought the course was free. No doubt a contribution is requested towards the dinner, a little box on the table for example so people can give discreetly (or not give), but no-one who can't pay will be turned away surely? Maybe those who can afford it support the course financially so that the less well off can still attend.
Later - Alpha course is free to all.
A contribution is requested towards the food. I suppose there are books on sale and there's a weekend away at the end which costs but not everyone goes.
Jeremyp was talking about the topic of the banning of the music concerts.
-
:-[That's what comes of having a cursory look back to see if I've missed anything! :-[ :-[
Still at least now no-one will wonder if an Alpha course will cost them much.
(Susan, if you are still logged in I would love to read your blog on Alpha, couldn't find it.)
-
I have no dog in this fight, but it all seems a bit weird to me.
Firstly, why would you do this? Here is an opportunity to get people into your church so you can spread your message. Not only that, but they'll pay you for the privilege.
Not only that but bringing people in from another parish seems really odd, like a corporate takeover. What's wrong with the existing congregation?
Corporate takeover is about it. There's the belief in their rightness of course, but also HTB/Alpha are incredibly powerful.
-
Corporate takeover is about it. There's the belief in their rightness of course, but also HTB/Alpha are incredibly powerful.
I must be missing something here, perhaps because I am following things from too much of a distance. But my understanding is that the initial involvement of HTB was a consequence of a strategy of 'church planting' initiated by the Diocese of London and that the decision to involve HTB as the Church of choice to implement this policy was that of the then Bishop of London. As such I do not understand how HTB could be accused of a corporate takeover. Surely the Bishop would have known only too well that strategy adopted by HTB in their invited new outreach would be a mirror image of the successful (at least in their view) approach of their home church?
So rather than a corporate takeover by HTB this looks much more like them merely implementing only too successfully the mandate given them by the Bishop (C of E). So why did the Bishop select a church, already mired, in the view of many in so many controversial practices, as his choice for the task?
-
I must be missing something here, perhaps because I am following things from too much of a distance. But my understanding is that the initial involvement of HTB was a consequence of a strategy of 'church planting' initiated by the Diocese of London and that the decision to involve HTB as the Church of choice to implement this policy was that of the then Bishop of London. As such I do not understand how HTB could be accused of a corporate takeover. Surely the Bishop would have known only too well that strategy adopted by HTB in their invited new outreach would be a mirror image of the successful (at least in their view) approach of their home church?
So rather than a corporate takeover by HTB this looks much more like them merely implementing only too successfully the mandate given them by the Bishop (C of E). So why did the Bishop select a church, already mired, in the view of many in so many controversial practices, as his choice for the task?
Money, power and influence. Chartres felt that it was worth pissing off existing congregations because HTB is good at growing congregations. The fact that it also appeals to the vulnerable doesn't matter because it relieves part of the financial headache the Church faces. And HTB has the ear of Welby and others. Evangelicals are the largest wing of the church and they want to see Anglo-Catholicism die.
Chartres is a hypocrite btw.
-
Money, power and influence. Chartres felt that it was worth pissing off existing congregations because HTB is good at growing congregations. The fact that it also appeals to the vulnerable doesn't matter because it relieves part of the financial headache the Church faces. And HTB has the ear of Welby and others. Evangelicals are the largest wing of the church and they want to see Anglo-Catholicism die.
Chartres is a hypocrite btw.
OK. So a corporate takeover initiated by the Bishop of London with the support of the Ab of C using HTB as the battering ram and, if necessary the cannon fodder if things get too hot. All aimed at returning the Church to it Biblical foundations. :P :P
For what it is worth my perspective on the C of E from this distance is that in its present state it is neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. If developments like this assist in accelerating the process of the eventual split of the church into its component parts (and hopefully disestablishment) it will have served a useful purpose.
-
Where I agree with you is that schism is long overdue, not just in the CofE but the Anglican Communion as a whole. Won't happen though, or not until the Communion is on its knees. If it splits it loses power and influence. Canterbury likes its power.
-
Money, power and influence. Chartres felt that it was worth pissing off existing congregations because HTB is good at growing congregations. The fact that it also appeals to the vulnerable doesn't matter because it relieves part of the financial headache the Church faces. And HTB has the ear of Welby and others. Evangelicals are the largest wing of the church and they want to see Anglo-Catholicism die.
Chartres is a hypocrite btw.
Back on topic - some of the communication I've been receiving about the ban on music has implied that the current vacancy as Bishop of London, since Chartres retired earlier this year, has played a part. Effectively that a power vacuum at the top has enabled the evangelicals to make a move that otherwise would have been much more difficult.
No idea whether this is the case, but many involved in the campaign are also intimately involved in CofE high politics so may be well placed to know.
-
And rumour has it Gunbel himself is a candidate. Gordon Brown did something to make this appalljngly possible.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/the-slow-strange-race-to-be-the-next-bishop-of-london/
-
And rumour has it Gunbel himself is a candidate. Gordon Brown did something to make this appalljngly possible.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/the-slow-strange-race-to-be-the-next-bishop-of-london/
What does Brown, a rather liberal CofS member, have to do with the selection of an evangelical member of the CofE?
As far as I'm aware, he is not even a representative elder in his local presbytery!
-
What does Brown, a rather liberal CofS member, have to do with the selection of an evangelical member of the CofE?
As far as I'm aware, he is not even a representative elder in his local presbytery!
He changed the selection process for bishops when he was PM so that the PM no longer has a say, even though it was a process that had worked well. I think he thought it would make it more democratic. It didn't. Just the opposite.
-
He changed the selection process for bishops when he was PM so that the PM no longer has a say, even though it was a process that had worked well. I think he thought it would make it more democratic. It didn't. Just the opposite.
I'm no fan of Gordie "where's the vow?" Broon, but I see his logic.
Why should a member of another denomination have any right to choose a leader of the CofE?
After all, the Kirk, in a landmark case, admitted that no-one who is a member of another denomination can be a full member of the CofS.
This excludes the monarch from influencing or interfering in the Kirk, and limits her role to purely ceremonial, when she or her representatives attend the General Assembly and speak, allowing the commissioners to have a ten minute kip.
No-one, of course, is excluded from worship, or partaking of communion (as long as the Kirk Session know of any issue regarding membership of another denomination)
-
And rumour has it Gumbel himself is a candidate. Gordon Brown did something to make this appalljngly possible.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/the-slow-strange-race-to-be-the-next-bishop-of-london/
Heaven preserve us from Gumboil.
-
And rumour has it Gunbel himself is a candidate. Gordon Brown did something to make this appalljngly possible.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/the-slow-strange-race-to-be-the-next-bishop-of-london/
What a ghastly thought - Gumbel in a more influential position than whatever he has at present. I'd like to have a large group of atheists with the task of asking rational questions on every Alpha course.
I have not been following this thread at all, but just dropped in on this page in an idle moment.
-
Heaven preserve us from Gumboil.
No heaven to do the preserving, so we'll have to rely on the BHA and NSS!!-
-
What a ghastly thought - Gumbel in a more influential position than whatever he has at present. I'd like to have a large group of atheists with the task of asking rational questions on every Alpha course.
I've posted this before - it's hugely lengthy and a lot to read, but quite brilliant. Enjoy: http://tinyurl.com/ybox9vx4
-
He changed the selection process for bishops when he was PM so that the PM no longer has a say, even though it was a process that had worked well. I think he thought it would make it more democratic. It didn't. Just the opposite.
Here is an interesting scenario should the selection process revert. Sadiq Kahn returns to national politics, is elected next Labour leader and wins the next general election. (And he might well make a better PM than some of the present potential hopefuls). We now have an adherent to Islam, who makes no pretense at even being a nominal Christian, having an important influence over who become the spiritual leaders of the largest (??) Christian denomination in the UK. All very democratic and logical. :( :(
-
What a ghastly thought - Gumbel in a more influential position than whatever he has at present. I'd like to have a large group of atheists with the task of asking rational questions on every Alpha course.
I'm sure Stalin would have applauded your desire to commissar the church.
-
Here is an interesting scenario should the selection process revert. Sadiq Kahn returns to national politics, is elected next Labour leader and wins the next general election. (And he might well make a better PM than some of the present potential hopefuls). We now have an adherent to Islam, who makes no pretense at even being a nominal Christian, having an important influence over who become the spiritual leaders of the largest (??) Christian denomination in the UK. All very democratic and logical. :( :(
Yes this is, of course, non-sense.
But the problem goes further than that. While the CofE is the established church and 26 Bishops have an automatic seat in the Lords then the appointment of a Bishop is, in many cases, also the appointment of a new peer. It doesn't seem unreasonable therefore that there is some official process involving the Prime Minister, which is the case for the appointment of all other peers.
Of course the most sensible way to resolve this is to remove the automatic right of Bishops to also be members of the Lords - that would decouple the appointment of a Bishop (which would be an internal matter for the CofE) and the potential appointment of a Bishop to the Lords, which would follow the normal procedure for Peers.
-
Here is an interesting scenario should the selection process revert. Sadiq Kahn returns to national politics, is elected next Labour leader and wins the next general election. (And he might well make a better PM than some of the present potential hopefuls). We now have an adherent to Islam, who makes no pretense at even being a nominal Christian, having an important influence over who become the spiritual leaders of the largest (??) Christian denomination in the UK. All very democratic and logical. :( :(
Which highlights the anachronistic nonsense of the CofE having the privilege of having some reserved seats in the UK political governance process and having elected politicians exerting influence over the CofE via their political office (as opposed to being a CofE member on a personal basis). The only solution is to remove this special status so that the CofE functions politically on the same basis as any other religious organisation, by lobbying or seeking election.
While we're at it we should revise political governance so as to remove the unelected from political office by removing the HoL (whether they are are replaced, and if so in what form, is another matter), and we should dispose of the monarchy at the same time.
-
Wot Gordon said...
And I'd add that the insane Act of Settlrment which ensures that the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic is symptomatic of a moribund, chocolate box of a farce which is no democracy by any logical, civilised standards.
-
I can't see Mr Gumboil becoming Bishop of London even if,theoretically, he can be appointed. Isn't it usual for someone to be a bishop already before taking on such a senior office? He's hardly stepped out of HTB.
Imagine his grinning face......
-
Oh dear, oh dear oh dear. I am in agreement with both ProfD #96 and Gordon #97. Where did I go wrong?
-
Oh dear, oh dear oh dear. I am in agreement with both ProfD #96 and Gordon #97. Where did I go wrong?
Lie down for a while you might get over the shock! ;D
-
Wot Gordon said...
And I'd add that the insane Act of Settlrment which ensures that the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic is symptomatic of a moribund, chocolate box of a farce which is no democracy by any logical, civilised standards.
Agreed.
Frankly the notion of the Head of State also being head of a church is nonsense too. Surely we would all agree that an individual has the right to choose to be a member of a religion or not - basic human right I would have thought. And further you cannot 'make' someone believe if they don't. So Prince George could easily grow up not believing in God - yet were he to become monarch he would become head of the CofE - that is totally wrong. If we must have a monarch (I'd prefer not) that monarch must be able to chose their own religion or chose not to follow a religion and that is incompatible with being head of CofE.
-
Oh dear, oh dear oh dear. I am in agreement with both ProfD #96 and Gordon #97. Where did I go wrong?
Everyone sees the light eventually ;)
-
The charismatic movement goes way beyond Pentecostalism, and 'happy clappy' music - though some of this written by modern worship leaders can be every bit as profound as the hymnody of Watts, Wesley or the rest)
I became a charismatic through the friendship of a Church of Scotland minister - and anyone who knows the Kirk will no how 'un-Pentecostal-like' the Kirk can be.
There are a few of us in the CofS, well able to control ourselves in public worship.....have ypou ever tried getting worked up singing "The auld hundreth"?
I'm sorry your view of all charismatics has been soured by your personal experience; however I find the discipline - yes, discipline; there's a presbyterian term for you - both satisfying and non-intrusive in worship, and deeply moving in personal devotions.
I v. much like Anchor's post above
-
Another example of cultural vandalism by the happy clappy evangelical brigade - this time much closer to home for me.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/parishioners-pipe-up-to-save-organ-at-st-paul-s-church-in-st-albans-justin-welby-holy-trinity-brompton-evangelical-jonathan-humbert-jr52r7zh8
Apologies that it is behind the paywall - but effectively the church wants to scrap a 110 organ that is in working order as it doesn't fit with their current evangelical agenda (which has only really taken root over the past 10 years). But once gone it can never be reinstalled even if the church moves back in a more traditional direction. And of course the lack of a proper organ severely limits the use of the church for choral concerts etc.
Lots of mention of HTB, not in a positive manner.
-
Another example of cultural vandalism by the happy clappy evangelical brigade - this time much closer to home for me.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/parishioners-pipe-up-to-save-organ-at-st-paul-s-church-in-st-albans-justin-welby-holy-trinity-brompton-evangelical-jonathan-humbert-jr52r7zh8
Apologies that it is behind the paywall - but effectively the church wants to scrap a 110 organ that is in working order as it doesn't fit with their current evangelical agenda (which has only really taken root over the past 10 years). But once gone it can never be reinstalled even if the church moves back in a more traditional direction. And of course the lack of a proper organ severely limits the use of the church for choral concerts etc.
Lots of mention of HTB, not in a positive manner.
Are you going to be stumping up for the cost of maintenance and repairs? Pipe organs are extremely expensive to run and many of them really aren't that good.
-
Are you going to be stumping up for the cost of maintenance and repairs? Pipe organs are extremely expensive to run and many of them really aren't that good.
According to the guy running the campaign who is himself an organist and knows the organ very well, having regularly played it, the organ is in perfect working order. The only issue is that is it a quarter tone off from concert pitch which is no real issue as it has no effect on other instruments tuning to it, and of course the organ will normally be used only with voices. The level of ignorance on the part of the vicar is remarkable - he claims that the quarter tone issue is a deal breaker - he claims:
'It is really not possible to retune instruments like a violin, cello or clarinet to the extent required without causing harm to them - and then they then still do revert to their previous tuning'
That will be news to all those violin, cello and clarinet players out there.
Worth noting too that just this year the church spent over £20k on AV equipment for a room in their church hall, with an expected lifetime of 3 years (according to their accounts).
But the broader point is about destroying the organ - even were is mothballed i.e. kept pending a decision to repair (not that it needs it) then at some point in the future if trends change the organ can be brought back into use. Get rid of it and it is gone for ever.
Three further points - first some part of the organ are of real historical value having been produced in the early 1800s by a pupil of Mozart. Secondly St Albans is the proud venue of the International Organ festival (albeit won't be using St Paul's as a venue if the cultural vandals get their way). Finally this (and many other churches) get huge tax breaks from Government and one of the reasons is that they are custodians of huge amounts of our heritage, in the form of historic buildings and their contents (including their organs).
-
Are you going to be stumping up for the cost of maintenance and repairs? Pipe organs are extremely expensive to run and many of them really aren't that good.
Hang on.
The "Kist o whustles" has its' place.....but sometimes that place isn't public worship.
When I conduct, I try to limit it to the first and last hymns - though if the first is a metrical Psalm or Paraphrase, this is usually sung the way it was meant to be sung - unaccompanied.
As for ;happy clappy' stuff - by which I take it you mean modern hymnody - well, much of it is true to Psalm 150 - which mentions trumpets, psaltery, harp, stringed instruments, voice and dance!
It doesn't mention instruments which are the devil to tune, maintain, preserve, insure and teach people to play!
The organ in my own Kirk is insured for a near six-figure sum, and it's not really that old.
Every single manual organ is different, requiring individual care and, if a part fails, as they often do, vastly expensive repair.
The cheaper option would mean more money to spend on the important stuff.
-
Hang on.
The "Kist o whustles" has its' place.....but sometimes that place isn't public worship.
When I conduct, I try to limit it to the first and last hymns - though if the first is a metrical Psalm or Paraphrase, this is usually sung the way it was meant to be sung - unaccompanied.
As for ;happy clappy' stuff - by which I take it you mean modern hymnody - well, much of it is true to Psalm 150 - which mentions trumpets, psaltery, harp, stringed instruments, voice and dance!
It doesn't mention instruments which are the devil to tune, maintain, preserve, insure and teach people to play!
The organ in my own Kirk is insured for a near six-figure sum, and it's not really that old.
Every single manual organ is different, requiring individual care and, if a part fails, as they often do, vastly expensive repair.
The cheaper option would mean more money to spend on the important stuff.
While I'm here, here's an example of the General Assembly singing Psalm 24 (in 2013( I managed to stay awake long enough ti join in.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDDWcBSr1Hs
-
Finally this (and many other churches) get huge tax breaks from Government and one of the reasons is that they are custodians of huge amounts of our heritage, in the form of historic buildings and their contents (including their organs).
So give some detail - firstly there are the massive tax breaks to churches due to charitable status which they can get simply by being churches regardless of any community work they might, or might not do.
But there is specific funding from the tax payer exactly for this purpose - the The Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme with an annual budget of £42 million to cover "repairs to the fabric of the building, along with associated professional fees, plus repairs to turret clocks, pews, bells and pipe organs."
The reason why this funding is available is that the Government expects the CofE (and other churches) to protect the heritage in their care.
-
Back on topic:
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2017/1-september/comment/opinion/a-dream-that-is-dying-in-holborn
This is the bit I love (my emphasis):
'Gradually, PCC members left and were replaced with those from the new ministries. The Henry Wood meeting- and rehearsal-room was restyled the 24/7 prayer room. And the church was used for a whole host of new activities, including a notable youth event with caged football in the church nave.'
So playing football in the National Musicians' Church is fine but performing Bach's St John Passion in a concert isn't :o
-
Depends on the "youth event" - which suggests some form of Christian activity, rather than a foorball tournament.
And if it achieves the aim of helpung them find Christ in their lives, then, yes - go for it!
-
Depends on the "youth event" - which suggests some form of Christian activity, rather than a foorball tournament.
And if it achieves the aim of helpung them find Christ in their lives, then, yes - go for it!
My point wasn't that they shouldn't have a football tournament - regardless of whether it helps people 'find Christ' or not - that's up to them.
My point is about their banning music concerts unless specifically associated with worship. Do you not think that someone might just 'find Christ' while listening to Bach's St John passion in a concert? Strangely I would have thought is rather more likely to 'find Christ' while listening to some of the most sublime music, written specifically about the most important event in Christianity, than by playing football. So why not 'go for it' with the concert too.
-
Depends on the "youth event" - which suggests some form of Christian activity, rather than a foorball tournament.
And if it achieves the aim of helpung them find Christ in their lives, then, yes - go for it!
There is also the point about funding from the public purse, which the CofE receives in millions, both through direct grant funding for building maintenance and also via tax breaks. In circumstances where significant income comes from public sources to maintain a public building I don't think it is reasonable to refuse to use that building for anything other than worship. The building should be opened up for appropriate community purposes too - and what more appropriate community purpose for the National Musicians' Church than to allow fantastic musicians to rehearse and perform.
If they want to ban broader community activities then perhaps they should be required to cover all maintenance costs themselves, and as this is a listed building they have a statutory obligation to maintain the building.
-
Fairy nuff - but the building is a church buiding;
the clue being in the word 'church'. As such the primary imperative is to spread the church's message.
If that means Bach, so be it - but I somehow suspect those who go to listen already know the story.
If it means a heavey metal, Gospel rap combo which, to my ears sounds like a cat being dragged through a mangle, but nevertheless conveys the Christian message to its' target audience in a way Bach, sadly does not (more's the pity), then so be it,
The Gospel message has to take priority.
-
Fairy nuff - but the building is a church buiding;
the clue being in the word 'church'. As such the primary imperative is to spread the church's message.
If that means Bach, so be it - but I somehow suspect those who go to listen already know the story.
If it means a heavey metal, Gospel rap combo which, to my ears sounds like a cat being dragged through a mangle, but nevertheless conveys the Christian message to its' target audience in a way Bach, sadly does not (more's the pity), then so be it,
The Gospel message has to take priority.
Bach conveys the gospel message to some people. There are more than enough churches where you can hear rock, (c)rap and worship songs.
-
Fairy nuff - but the building is a church buiding;
the clue being in the word 'church'. As such the primary imperative is to spread the church's message.
If that means Bach, so be it - but I somehow suspect those who go to listen already know the story.
If it means a heavey metal, Gospel rap combo which, to my ears sounds like a cat being dragged through a mangle, but nevertheless conveys the Christian message to its' target audience in a way Bach, sadly does not (more's the pity), then so be it,
The Gospel message has to take priority.
But we are talking about prioritisation or 'primary' imperative (which implies there are secondary etc imperatives) we are talking about exclusivity - that activities not associated with worship are banned, not that they aren't top priority.
Of course the primary purpose for a church is to be a venue for worship (no-one is arguing with that), but that doesn't mean that all non-worship activities should be banned. There is plenty of time in a week to share the building for other uses. And when significant money is coming from the tax payer to support maintenance of that building I think it should be an expectation (actually a requirement) that the building be made available, as appropriate, for broader shared community activities - and in this case the most obvious given the heritage of the church would be rehearsal and performance of music.
There is a further point - I don't think it is unreasonable for an organisation that is the custodian of a listed building (by definition of national importance) to look to a variety of ways to raise its own income to support building maintenance rather than relying on the tax payer. And venue hire for rehearsal and concerts seems an excellent example. If they are banning public hire for rehearsals/concerts and only allowing activities that are part of their organisation (which presumably don't involve hire fees) then an income stream is lost.
-
Don't start me on 'heritage' or 'listed' buildings!
Sometimes, I hankwer for a massive load of dynamite.
If eople want holy museums, let them fund them.
Meanwhile, if the court, governing body or whatever, after due prayer and reflection, feel that the best thing to do is to move with the times, then that's the way it has to be.
And, no, I'm not comfortable with some modern worship tecniques....neither was the CofE when the Wesley brothers were on the go - as I recall, they tried to ban those nasty, modern hymns of theirs from churches up and down the land.
My own denomination is a prime example.
A few years back, we were reviewing Presbytery records (sorry about the lanfuage....) with a view to writing a history of our 400 years.
We found one, of a minister and Presbytery elder, both of whom appeared in front of the presbytery which sat as a court.
The minister was deprived of one month's stipend, and both were denied the chance to be commissioners at the next General Assembly (which, IMHO, was blessing, not punishment...)
Their crime?
In 1849, they committed the terrible sin of having instrumental music - namely a portable organ - and hymns, rather than psalms and paraphrases, in Church for a special evening praise session!
Times change.
Maybe Handel, Bach, Vivaldi - all of whom I love - will be relegated to the concert hall, replaced by Hillsong, Muywa, etc.
-
But we are talking about prioritisation or 'primary' imperative (which implies there are secondary etc imperatives) we are talking about exclusivity - that activities not associated with worship are banned, not that they aren't top priority.
Of course the primary purpose for a church is to be a venue for worship (no-one is arguing with that), but that doesn't mean that all non-worship activities should be banned. There is plenty of time in a week to share the building for other uses. And when significant money is coming from the tax payer to support maintenance of that building I think it should be an expectation (actually a requirement) that the building be made available, as appropriate, for broader shared community activities - and in this case the most obvious given the heritage of the church would be rehearsal and performance of music.
There is a further point - I don't think it is unreasonable for an organisation that is the custodian of a listed building (by definition of national importance) to look to a variety of ways to raise its own income to support building maintenance rather than relying on the tax payer. And venue hire for rehearsal and concerts seems an excellent example. If they are banning public hire for rehearsals/concerts and only allowing activities that are part of their organisation (which presumably don't involve hire fees) then an income stream is lost.
Tell me professor. Do you think a New Atheist musician playing at such a venue would feel like having to have a long shower with liberal application of Ajax after performing at such a venue?
-
HTB have their grasping grubby little hands all over this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/23/uks-leading-musicians-fight-church-ban-on-secular-bookings-aled-jones-judith-weir
If THE building is mostly used as a church, then I can see why some music would not be welcome at the Church.
You cannot demand a Church open their doors to bookings which could have music contrary to the purpose of the building for worship.
I believe the people who run the building have the right to be protected from the music they feel not fitting. But I still believe bookings as they have had in the past should still be allowed.
-
If THE building is mostly used as a church, then I can see why some music would not be welcome at the Church.
You cannot demand a Church open their doors to bookings which could have music contrary to the purpose of the building for worship.
We aren't talking about music that is 'contrary to the purpose of the building' - we are talking about some of the most famous and sublime sacred music ever written - Bach, St John Passion, for example. How is this piece not suited to be played in a church?
If this were a satanic death metal band, perhaps. But they are banning all music unless performed part of worship, including sacred choral music.
I believe the people who run the building have the right to be protected from the music they feel not fitting. But I still believe bookings as they have had in the past should still be allowed.
If the organisation running the building were able to maintain the building entirely from their own resources then you'd have a point. But they aren't - the CofE receives millions to support maintenance of such buildings from the tax payer via various sources. Moreover the building is listed, therefore is recognised to have national importance to the public. As such I think it is perfectly reasonable for the public to expect the building to be made available for appropriate public use, trader than just worship and related activities. That shouldn't prevent the church also being used for its primary purpose - worship - but there is no reason why the two cannot co-exist.
There is a further point - if the tax payer is supporting maintenance then it is also reasonable for the tax payer to expect the organisation to look to maximise the income potential of the building to minimise burden on the tax payer. Allowing concerts is an excellent way of achieving this, and indeed revenue from church hire for concerts has been a very significant part of the church's income over recent years. That will disappear if the cultural vandals get their way.
-
A building is just a building, even if it is a church. There is nothing Biblical about churches being set aside for worship purposes only - in fact the early church met in peoples' homes. Having been involved in the decision making process for maintaining four medieval churches at one point, I know first hand that the obsession with them - and the money spent - borders on the idolatrous, and this attitude that only one kind of music is acceptable in church and only during worship seems to have echoes of that to me.
-
A building is just a building, even if it is a church. There is nothing Biblical about churches being set aside for worship purposes only - in fact the early church met in peoples' homes. Having been involved in the decision making process for maintaining four medieval churches at one point, I know first hand that the obsession with them - and the money spent - borders on the idolatrous, and this attitude that only one kind of music is acceptable in church and only during worship seems to have echoes of that to me.
Rhi you beat me to it. :)
-
Just reflecting to myself that I think this is far more about control. The new people from HTB have come in and are making sure that the established congregation know exactly who is in charge and how things are going to be.
-
Just reflecting to myself that I think this is far more about control. The new people from HTB have come in and are making sure that the established congregation know exactly who is in charge and how things are going to be.
Indeed - that seems to be a general view. Their claim as to the reason why the church can no longer be used for non worship music events seems deeply disingenuous - to quote:
'An increasingly busy programme of worship and church activities has led to ever higher demands on the church space'
The 'church space' that any rehearsal and concert would use will, of course, be the main church itself - not ancillary rooms. Yet their own website makes it clear that they have only 3 services a week (Sunday at 10:30, Tuesdays at 1pm and again at 6:30). So that is perhaps 3 hours a week. It is laughable to think that they cannot accommodate a music event once a month because the church is being used for other activities.
Many of my local churches manage lunchtime and/or evening concerts weekly or fortnightly, while maintaining rather more 'worship' activity (services etc) than St Sepulchre.
This has nothing to do with lack capacity and everything to do with a 'political' decision not to allow non worship events in the church.
-
Latest, apparently is that the campaign has received an update on Twitter from the Acting Bishop of London, Pete Broadbent saying 'We're still talking. This is complex.'
Two points - clearly the Acting Bishop is only talking to the Church rather than the musicians - the latter only being informed of what is going on between the Bishop and the church. Secondly 'This is complicated'?!? Really, I'm struggling to see why this is complex - either the church is open for musicians to perform outside of worship, or it isn't. I suspect 'complex' actually means that he is only acting in the role and doesn't feel he has sufficient authority to act.
-
An argument against bishops, then.
It should be up to the leaders of the local congregation to use the building - set apart for the glory and worship of God and no other purpose - as they, after prayer and due consideration, see fit.
I never thought Id actually praise presbyterianism! At least they will not interfere in the running of a local congregation unless it affects "the doctrine or substance of the Faith".
In this instance, were it Scotland, the Presbytery wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
-
It should be up to the leaders of the local congregation to use the building - set apart for the glory and worship of God and no other purpose - as they, after prayer and due consideration, see fit.
Fine if that congregation alone is able to raise sufficient income to support the maintenance of the building and all its running costs.
But if not, as is the case here, then other stakeholders (including the tax payer) also have a perfect right to be involved in decisions about how that building is used, as they are paying for it.
It isn't reasonable to expect lots of money to support maintaining a resource and then demand that you alone make the decisions about how that resource is then used.
-
So we get back to whose needs get priority?
I know all too many congregations lumbered with piles of stone that look fantastic, and are 'historic', but cost gazillions to maintain.
And I use 'lumbered' deliberately.
I know treaseurers within those congregations who secretly - and sometimes not so secretly - widh that vandals would incinerate the buildings, leaving the congregation free to build what it thinks fit for purpise.
Yes, we get grants to maintain the blasted things....but they are often millstones round our necks.
I know one nearby congregation which meets in its' church hall - mainly because the fantastically beautiful building the numpties built and gifted to the Kirk two centuries and more ago is on top of a hill, with nearly a hundred steps to get to it, and no parking facilities - because the artistic committee of the local authority maintains that, since the building is 'listed', car parking and disabled facilities would destroy the aesthetics of the area.
Meanwhile, since no-oe wants the blasted thing, thecongregation is legally forced to maintain it wind and watertight, and the woodwork intact - which means putting heat into a building no-one wants, or can use.
Come on, vandals, bring on the flame throwers....
-
PM me, Anchorman, I know some people, no names no drack pill, a nod's as good as a bit of how's your father to a partially sighted rhinoceros ;)
-
Unfortunately, some twits tried to set the thing on fire two years ago, NS....they did manage to damage the vestibule....the fire went out before the local fire brigade could get a hise on it. Historic Scotland gave the congregation a grant to restore the damage.
Now it's lookin' great! Pity no-one uses it, innit?
-
So we get back to whose needs get priority?
Not really, because there is no evidence, on a pragmatic basis, that both cannot be accommodated.
Currently the church runs just 3 services a week - that's 3 hours of use. Sure there will be a range of other activities, but very few will need the main church for more than a couple of hours. It is beyond credibility that the church is unable to accommodate a concert perhaps one Saturday evening a month or a Thursday lunchtime concert every few weeks.
I see no evidence that this church is more vibrant (in terms of planned worship-related activity) than the churches near me - indeed it looks rather less so. Yet all of those are comfortably able to accommodate concerts every few weeks. Indeed our Abbey, which has more things going on than the others, has concerts most Saturday evenings - and raises a tidy sum from them too.
The issue isn't one logistical and therefore one of prioritisation - none it is dogmatic.
-
I know all too many congregations lumbered with piles of stone that look fantastic, and are 'historic', but cost gazillions to maintain.
And I use 'lumbered' deliberately.
I know treaseurers within those congregations who secretly - and sometimes not so secretly - widh that vandals would incinerate the buildings, leaving the congregation free to build what it thinks fit for purpise.
Yes, we get grants to maintain the blasted things....but they are often millstones round our necks.
I know one nearby congregation which meets in its' church hall - mainly because the fantastically beautiful building the numpties built and gifted to the Kirk two centuries and more ago is on top of a hill, with nearly a hundred steps to get to it, and no parking facilities - because the artistic committee of the local authority maintains that, since the building is 'listed', car parking and disabled facilities would destroy the aesthetics of the area.
Meanwhile, since no-oe wants the blasted thing, thecongregation is legally forced to maintain it wind and watertight, and the woodwork intact - which means putting heat into a building no-one wants, or can use.
Come on, vandals, bring on the flame throwers....
No-one forces the CofE (or CinS) to retain all these churches - it is their choice to retain a number of churches way beyond their needs in terms of congregation numbers. For example, from my home I can walk to any of 9 different CofE churches in less than 30 mins.
But if the CofE chooses to retain public listed buildings they have an obligation, firstly maintain the building as required under listing. But also to make the building available to the public, as appropriate, in a manner broader than simply for worship.
-
I know all too many congregations lumbered with piles of stone that look fantastic, and are 'historic', but cost gazillions to maintain.
And I use 'lumbered' deliberately.
But this, surely, is where the CofE and CinS need to be more strategic.
They had custodianship of some of the most fantastic buildings of huge significance to our history and heritage. There are also plenty of other "me-too" churches with no unique or interesting features. And in many areas (including my own) each church is just a short 10 minute (or less) walk to the next one.
Surely the CofE needs to rationalise - keep those that are the most significant, sell off those that are of no historic value which can be redeveloped, in many cases providing hugely needed brown field sites for housing etc. The huge amounts of money raised can then be used to support the upkeep of those really valuable buildings.
So in my area there is one 1000 year old abbey (of massive significance), 3 other CofE churches of historic importance and hundreds of years old. There are 2 other churches which are interesting Victorian examples (although one has been massively spoiled inside already), plus 3 further 20thC churches built at a time through the 1930s to 1960s when a new development on the outside of town needed a church. None are the remotest bit interesting as buildings and none are listed. Those three should be earmarked for redevelopment.
-
None are the remotest bit interesting?
Isn't that subjective?
I'd take a living congregation any day before a half dead historic pile which looks good, attracts tourists, but serves no useful purpose, no matter who's buried in it, who built it, or whatever so-called artest doodled in it.
-
I'd take a living congregation any day before a half dead historic pile which looks good, attracts tourists, but serves no useful purpose, no matter who's buried in it, who built it, or whatever so-called artest doodled in it.
Now who's being subjective.
It is of course possible to have both (and also neither).
And you can also have a fantastic and vibrant space used brilliantly to support all sorts of activities in the community - but no longer used for worship. I can think of one ex-church near me that is now a theatre hub and community centre. And I cycle past LSO St Luke's in London every day. No longer used as a church but as vibrant a location as you can get. Much better than being used for 3 hours a week, locked for the rest of the time and with a few dozen congregation ever seeing the inside of the church as its historic importance crumbles away through neglect.
-
Now who's being subjective.
It is of course possible to have both (and also neither).
And you can also have a fantastic and vibrant space used brilliantly to support all sorts of activities in the community - but no longer used for worship. I can think of one ex-church near me that is now a theatre hub and community centre. And I cycle past LSO St Luke's in London every day. No longer used as a church but as vibrant a location as you can get. Much better than being used for 3 hours a week, locked for the rest of the time and with a few dozen congregation ever seeing the inside of the church as its historic importance crumbles away through neglect.
You seem to be arguing against something Anchorman isn't saying.
-
You seem to be arguing against something Anchorman isn't saying.
Beyond commenting that AM is being subjective having challenged me on being subjective I merely making some points. I trust AM will accept them as they don't seem controversial to me. However if AM wishes to argue against those points (and that's for him to do rather than his minder) then I'll happily engage in that argument at that stage, but for now my points are simply there for others to agree or disagree with.
-
Problem, though, Prof, is that, sometimes, rural churches were put there, not by the Church, but by some well meaning local nabob.
That's the situation I described.
The local congregation can't sell the thing - and believe me, they've tried - several times, over the past decade.
Since it's 'important', they even offered it to a few charities and recognised quangos such as Historic Scotland - who quite rightly took a look at it, saw the insane location, and ran a mile.
Since as I pointed out, they are the legal owners, and the building is a grade one listed pile, they must maintain it wind and watertight, with the woodwork, stained glass, etc, in good nick - which means heating the blasted place in winter - even though no-one goes there.
Believe me, the legal bods at the gulag in 121 George Steet, Edinburgh (Church of Scotland HQ) have torn what's left of their hair out in an effort to get shot of the place, but no dice.
-
Problem, though, Prof, is that, sometimes, rural churches were put there, not by the Church, but by some well meaning local nabob.
That's the situation I described.
The local congregation can't sell the thing - and believe me, they've tried - several times, over the past decade.
Since it's 'important', they even offered it to a few charities and recognised quangos such as Historic Scotland - who quite rightly took a look at it, saw the insane location, and ran a mile.
Since as I pointed out, they are the legal owners, and the building is a grade one listed pile, they must maintain it wind and watertight, with the woodwork, stained glass, etc, in good nick - which means heating the blasted place in winter - even though no-one goes there.
Believe me, the legal bods at the gulag in 121 George Steet, Edinburgh (Church of Scotland HQ) have torn what's left of their hair out in an effort to get shot of the place, but no dice.
There are certainly different issues in rural areas, but the CofE or CinS should consider its whole portfolio of property. If is sells additional capacity in towns and cities it can reinvest in maintaining rural churches that cannot easily be sold and/or the most historically important churches.
And there is another point - I imagine in rural areas most parishioners attend their most local church. This is certainly not my experience of CofE churches locally. Indeed I can barely think of a single CofE church-goer (and I know quite a lot) that attend their nearest church. No they routinely select a more distant one as it better fits their 'flavour' of worship - so some ignore the local 'happy clap' church in favour of a more distant and traditional one. Others prefer the one that focusses on the quality of its music. Other, still, prefer the 'big' experience of worship in the Abbey.
My point being that by closing and selling off perhaps 3 churches in the city you wouldn't be disenfranshising three geographical parts of the city as I suspect the people who attend those 3 churches are already coming from all sorts of parts of the city already. Indeed if their preferred church were no longer there many would actually start attending a church nearer to where they live.
So by sorting out the over-supply of churches in our towns and cities rural communities can be supported - even if this is only to buy time to allow a moribund rural church to find a new owner.
-
Since as I pointed out, they are the legal owners, and the building is a grade one listed pile, they must maintain it wind and watertight, with the woodwork, stained glass, etc, in good nick - which means heating the blasted place in winter - even though no-one goes there.
And yes, you are right. While you continue to own the property you have a responsibility to maintain it in the national interest. But don't forget that the CinS receives huge amounts of money from the tax payer, either via tax rebates/gift aid or through direct grants specifically for the purpose of maintaining such properties. So the CinS and its parishioners aren't solely paying for the cost of fulfilling the CinS's responsibilities. All UK tax payers (including me) are contributing too.
-
In France - a secular country - churches are owned by the commune. They are thus public property and the state, at its lowest levels, is responsible for their upkeep.
-
And yes, you are right. While you continue to own the property you have a responsibility to maintain it in the national interest. But don't forget that the CinS receives huge amounts of money from the tax payer, either via tax rebates/gift aid or through direct grants specifically for the purpose of maintaining such properties. So the CinS and its parishioners aren't solely paying for the cost of fulfilling the CinS's responsibilities. All UK tax payers (including me) are contributing too.
Do you think the publics' attitude to the upkeep of churches is a bit like The Green Goddess fire engines? These were hardly used but maintained just in case they were needed.
I suggest though that churches in a secular age will not end up as community spaces but like pubs as expensive residences and chintzy offices for architects, accountants and the like.
-
And yes, you are right. While you continue to own the property you have a responsibility to maintain it in the national interest. But don't forget that the CinS receives huge amounts of money from the tax payer, either via tax rebates/gift aid or through direct grants specifically for the purpose of maintaining such properties. So the CinS and its parishioners aren't solely paying for the cost of fulfilling the CinS's responsibilities. All UK tax payers (including me) are contributing too.
Eh?
Prof, I've been on the congregational board of my church since 1979 - that's the bunch responsible for 'fabric and finance' - first as an elected member, then, since 1992, as an elder - and I've yet to see this governmental largesse of which you speak.
Admittedly, only the exterior of the building is listed - with a grade two and star because some famous chap is buried i a nearby vault in a privately owned pile.
We tried to access this mythical treasure of which you speak to repair the belfry...and, after three years form filling, part of it collapsed. We did a sort of repair ourseves (receiving expertise from archetects - it cost us nearly£50, 000. A year later - FOUR YEARS after the original application, we were told to repair it again - to THEIR specifications. We lost our own money, but got a grant - for a further £40,000, to do the job - which matched their ideas perfectly.
The repairs, by the way, lasted about fifteen years before the tower became unsafe again.
Don't talk to me about grants for listed buildings, please; my blood pressure is important to me!
-
Prof, I've been on the congregational board of my church since 1979 - that's the bunch responsible for 'fabric and finance' - first as an elected member, then, since 1992, as an elder - and I've yet to see this governmental largesse of which you speak.
So you don't benefit from Gift Aid?
Effectively this means that 20% of your donated income comes from the Government via a tax break.
Plus of course you benefit further from exemption from business rates, another tax break from the Government. Now I have no idea how big your church is, but round my way that amounts to a tax break from Government of about £80 for every m2 of your property per year. So if your church has a total floor area of 1000m2 (including all offices and other rooms etc) that is a tax break from Government of about £80,000 per year.
And churches are able to benefit from streamlined Gift Aid arrangements whereby there is an assumption that Gift Aid is eligible for small donations, even if it might not be due to low income levels of the person donating. This is different to most organisations where Gift Aid can only be claimed if the donor has specifically signed a form.
-
We tried to access this mythical treasure of which you speak to repair the belfry...and, after three years form filling, part of it collapsed. We did a sort of repair ourseves (receiving expertise from archetects - it cost us nearly£50, 000. A year later - FOUR YEARS after the original application, we were told to repair it again - to THEIR specifications. We lost our own money, but got a grant - for a further £40,000, to do the job - which matched their ideas perfectly.
The repairs, by the way, lasted about fifteen years before the tower became unsafe again.
Don't talk to me about grants for listed buildings, please; my blood pressure is important to me!
I am involved in research so trust me I am fully aware of the amount of time and uncertain outcome from grant proposals (had a rejection yesterday, have another grant being submitted for a deadline next week). But just because it takes effort and isn't always successful doesn't mean that funds aren't available and it would appear that you have been successful to the tune of £40k, so well done.
I'm sure you are aware of this, but the CinS provides a list of available sources for repair of listed churches:
http://www.scotland.anglican.org/vestry-resources/buildings/sources-of-funding-for-repairs-and-improvements-to-church-buildings/
Worth noting that virtually all of these either are charitable, so will include a substantial proportion of Government support, via Gift Aid, or is quasi-public funding, e.g. the Lottery.
-
So you don't benefit from Gift Aid?
Effectively this means that 20% of your donated income comes from the Government via a tax break.
Plus of course you benefit further from exemption from business rates, another tax break from the Government.
And churches are able to benefit from streamlined Gift Aid arrangements whereby there is an assumption that Gift Aid is eligible for small donations, even if it might not be due to low income levels of the person donating. This is different to most organisations where Gift Aid can only be claimed if the donor has specifically signed a form.
Yep, we have benefited from gift aid...From the figures of last year's accounts, that gave us the princely sum of £3100.
That just about covers 25% of our electricity bill.
I know many complain about the gift aid thing, but were we not there, not only would the local community lose a valuable set of halls which we let them use - on a non-profit making agreement -, but they'd be left trying to maintain a historic building in the middle of a graveyard...which would be unsuitable for housing, let alone anything else.
By the way, since the thread started with music, the fees charged by the professionals to maintain the blasted organ (which I'd happly blow up) - apparently one of only three survivorse of its' type - are around £6000 every two years - and, no, we don't get a grant to maintain it, though, apparently, we are not allowed to get rid of it or upgrade it in a way which would be cheaper to maintain.
-
Yep, we have benefited from gift aid...From the figures of last year's accounts, that gave us the princely sum of £3100.
That just about covers 25% of our electricity bill.
I know many complain about the gift aid thing, but were we not there, not only would the local community lose a valuable set of halls which we let them use - on a non-profit making agreement -, but they'd be left trying to maintain a historic building in the middle of a graveyard...which would be unsuitable for housing, let alone anything else.
By the way, since the thread started with music, the fees charged by the professionals to maintain the blasted organ (which I'd happly blow up) - apparently one of only three survivorse of its' type - are around £6000 every two years - and, no, we don't get a grant to maintain it, though, apparently, we are not allowed to get rid of it or upgrade it in a way which would be cheaper to maintain.
I'm not necessarily complaining about Gift Aid, merely pointing out that it is a benefit from Government via a tax break. Much more significant than the £3000 you get from that will be the tax exemption from business rates which is pretty well unique to church buildings - even other charities only get 80% relief, so for example the school where I am a governor, which is eligible for the relief, still pays about £24k a year in business rates. You will pay nothing.
Now I fully understand that it may still be difficult to balance the books and maintain the building, but I suspect you may be benefiting to the tune of touching £100k a year from direct and indirect tax relief from Government.
There are, of course, sources of funds to support maintaining church organs of historic interest.
Plus support to improve building efficiency and therefore reduce electricity costs.
-
We tried to access this mythical treasure of which you speak to repair the belfry...and, after three years form filling, part of it collapsed. We did a sort of repair ourseves (receiving expertise from archetects - it cost us nearly£50, 000. A year later - FOUR YEARS after the original application, we were told to repair it again - to THEIR specifications. We lost our own money, but got a grant - for a further £40,000, to do the job - which matched their ideas perfectly.
Of course many funding bodies will only expect to part fund from their grant - it is a common expectation that the organisation applying for funds will also put in some of their own money.
But I have encountered this 'we can't do anything until someone gives us a grant to do it' attitude before in relation to churches.
My choir regularly performs concerts in our Abbey - an iconic venue which helps to ensure a large audience, although not actually the best for listening and seeing.
But I digress. The Abbey charges heavily for its hire - over £3000 to hire for an evening concert and also a daytime final rehearsal (which is held with the Abbey still open to the public). However their toilets (particularly for women) are woefully inadequate. It is typical for women to spend an entire 25 minute interval queuing. Clearly if they want the Abbey to be a useable venue (which they do as it is a great source of income) the toilets needed to be substantially improved. I was talking to a couple of choir members who are also high up in the organisational structures of the Abbey and their response was effectively we will do it if we get Lottery funding, if not no chance. The notion that they might invest some of their own money, including the £3000k hire fees coming in every 2 weeks or so, into improving the toilets was simply unthinkable from their perspective.
Very odd.
-
We tried to access this mythical treasure of which you speak to repair the belfry...and, after three years form filling, part of it collapsed. We did a sort of repair ourseves (receiving expertise from archetects - it cost us nearly£50, 000. A year later - FOUR YEARS after the original application, we were told to repair it again - to THEIR specifications. We lost our own money, but got a grant - for a further £40,000, to do the job - which matched their ideas perfectly.
It is great to get grant funding etc to help with repairs, but the bottom line is that if you own a listed building it is your leal responsibility to fulfil the obligations of that listed status and if there isn't an external source of money you will have to fund it yourself. And when I mean 'yourself' I don't think it is reasonable to lay that responsibility on individual parishes - the burden should be shared across the organisation, in this case the CinS.
Now I don't know much about the finances of the ConS, but the CofE is an astonishingly rich organisation - it has investments of some £5.5 billion (yup that's right billion, not million). If they rationalise their property portfolio by selling some churches where there is over supply and they can be sold (which is in many places) plus liberate funding from that £5.5 billion, then they would be perfectly able to afford the odd £40k repair to a listed church or £3k a year for an organ.
-
If they rationalise their property portfolio by selling some churches where there is over supply and they can be sold (which is in many places) ...
The oversupply of CofE churches is staggering.
At the time of the last English Church Census in 2005 there were 16,247 CofE churches in England and the average congregation size was just 54. Fast forward 12 years and the CofE is still claiming to have over 16,000 churches, yet attendance has dropped about 15% since then. So we are dealing with an average of perhaps just 45 today.
And remember this is a mean, not a media - so most churches will have average attendance well below this to account for the very large congregations at a small number of churches, notably the cathedrals.
This level is simply untenable to sustain all these buildings. They need to sell, where they can and rationalise by sharing across denominations and with other users (to bring us back on topic). Only in that way can we hope that the heritage in our churches can be in safe hands with the CofE.
-
We aren't talking about music that is 'contrary to the purpose of the building' - we are talking about some of the most famous and sublime sacred music ever written - Bach, St John Passion, for example. How is this piece not suited to be played in a church?
If this were a satanic death metal band, perhaps. But they are banning all music unless performed part of worship, including sacred choral music.
If the organisation running the building were able to maintain the building entirely from their own resources then you'd have a point. But they aren't - the CofE receives millions to support maintenance of such buildings from the tax payer via various sources. Moreover the building is listed, therefore is recognised to have national importance to the public. As such I think it is perfectly reasonable for the public to expect the building to be made available for appropriate public use, trader than just worship and related activities. That shouldn't prevent the church also being used for its primary purpose - worship - but there is no reason why the two cannot co-exist.
There is a further point - if the tax payer is supporting maintenance then it is also reasonable for the tax payer to expect the organisation to look to maximise the income potential of the building to minimise burden on the tax payer. Allowing concerts is an excellent way of achieving this, and indeed revenue from church hire for concerts has been a very significant part of the church's income over recent years. That will disappear if the cultural vandals get their way.
Tax payers whether Christians or Atheists are not really a reason or answer to the use of the music.
Since being a tax payer will and should apply to everyone. But as most of the church music today as in the past include the greats like Bach, Beethoven and Mozart to name a few. Then this music has always been in the Churches Music repertoire.
Church is always about people and the music should be part of the main repertoire. We have had modern input even since the 70's. It should be about the people attending and the repertoire of the Churches Music.
-
Tax payers whether Christians or Atheists are not really a reason or answer to the use of the music.
Since being a tax payer will and should apply to everyone. But as most of the church music today as in the past include the greats like Bach, Beethoven and Mozart to name a few. Then this music has always been in the Churches Music repertoire.
Church is always about people and the music should be part of the main repertoire. We have had modern input even since the 70's. It should be about the people attending and the repertoire of the Churches Music.
I think you are missing the point - the church building (not the church as in the people) has been designated as listed meaning it is a public building of national importance. Those who are responsible for maintaining that building get significant contributions from the tax payer, much of which is specifically due to its listed status. I think it is reasonable, therefore, that the building is made available for public use, wider than the narrow purposes of worship. Of course that wider use needs to be appropriate - but how anyone could consider a performance of the Back St Matthew Passion not to be appropriate is beyond me. Also it is reasonable to expect a balance of use, such that the public use does not completely preclude the use of the building for worship - but given that there are precious few services or other worship activities taking place in the church and the concerts are perhaps only once a month, I cannot see how this is a problem.
This is about the church, as in building, rather than the church as in the people.
-
I think you are missing the point - the church building (not the church as in the people) has been designated as listed meaning it is a public building of national importance. Those who are responsible for maintaining that building get significant contributions from the tax payer, much of which is specifically due to its listed status.
It is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of the building and the owners.
Pubs can be listed as can any building used for any purpose in the country. It does not give any real credence to the owners stipulating what they use their building purpose for.
I think it is reasonable, therefore, that the building is made available for public use, wider than the narrow purposes of worship.
No! Like telling the owners of a pub whose building is listed and receives the same funding they have to use it for whatever purpose the general tax payer suggests it should be used for. Illogical to believe receiving funding to maintain a listed building which cannot be changed without permission should also carry the illegal and unfair removal of the owners right to use it for any purpose they choose. The building whether listed or not, still remains the property of the present day owner. Your thinking is unfair and also illogical.
Of course that wider use needs to be appropriate - but how anyone could consider a performance of the Back St Matthew Passion not to be appropriate is beyond me. Also it is reasonable to expect a balance of use, such that the public use does not completely preclude the use of the building for worship - but given that there are precious few services or other worship activities taking place in the church and the concerts are perhaps only once a month, I cannot see how this is a problem.
What an owner uses their building for is their right and their right alone. No amount of arguments will change that and would be unfair to actually believe assisting maintaining a listed building somehow gives the public any right of say in it's running. The funding of tax payers to protect a listed building has no moral precedence regarding the building belonging to the owner and does not give anyone any right to tell them what to do with it.
This is about the church, as in building, rather than the church as in the people.
A building which belongs to the Church. A building which cannot be changed by the owner without permission because it is a listed building. It belongs to the Church and they alone say who and what happens within the running of the building they own.
-
ProfDavey-
Quote
I think it is reasonable, therefore, that the building is made available for public use, wider than the narrow purposes of worship.
Is that not usually the case anyway? I realise this thread is about one particular church btut from what I've seen, church buildings are used for various events - music, meetings, exhibitions, charity promotion.
-
ProfDavey-
Quote
I think it is reasonable, therefore, that the building is made available for public use, wider than the narrow purposes of worship.
Is that not usually the case anyway? I realise this thread is about one particular church btut from what I've seen, church buildings are used for various events - music, meetings, exhibitions, charity promotion.
Yes - I think most churches do make their buildings available for wider activities than those associated with worship. Indeed this is a win/win as the outside organisations are able to access space for their activities, while the church earns useful rental income.
But we aren't talking about most churches, but this one specifically. Despite being the National Musicians' Church since the HTB people have taken over the church they are now banning all external hiring of the church - reserving it exclusively for their own worship-related activities. So despite having a century of tradition of being welcoming to musicians who want to rehearse and perform at the church (hence the name) they have now banned them - and that includes the performance of sacred music (e.g. Mozart Requiem, Bach St Matthew Passion and countless others) if they aren't played as part of worship - which of course they never are any more.