Musician's church bans music

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sassy]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sassy]

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.

[Robbie]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.