Musician's church bans music

[DaveM]

Oh dear, oh dear oh dear.  I am in agreement with both ProfD #96 and Gordon #97.  Where did I go wrong?

[floo]

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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[Robbie]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[Anchorman]

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.

[Anchorman]

   


   

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[Anchorman]

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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[SteveH]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Sassy]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[floo]

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. 

[Rhiannon]

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.