Musician's church bans music

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Anchorman]

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....

[Nearly Sane]

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 

[Anchorman]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Anchorman]

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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[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.
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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[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.

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.