Thread: Non-religious music at St Sepulchre's Board: Ecclesiantics / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008513

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
My attention has been brought to this story about a church in central London which is to stop taking bookings from non-religious musicians to use the space for rehearsals and concerts. Church statement here.

St Sepulchre-without-Newgate seems to have a threefold identity: a church community, a concert venue and is the spiritual home of a branch of the military. Reading between the lines, its use as a classical music venue seems to be a way of revenue generation for when the church is otherwise vacant, but that as the congregation puts on more of its own events, this spare capacity is now being utilised.

It raises an interesting question over the use of church buildings and their uses. On the one hand, it's not like the musicians are being kicked out for no good reason. But on the other, it's a church with a rich tradition of musicianship and part of that looks set to be lost.

Incidentally, it had a visitation fairly recently by one of Miss Amanda's minions.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Seems a shame - lots of churches in central London/Oxford etc put on secular classical concerts, and some even stretch to non-classical music (eg Union Chapel Islington). I think overall it's a good thing and doesn't make it less of a church, but is an easy form of outreach to people who otherwise wouldn't step foot into a church.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
We had this discussion at a church I led, and concluded that, when people come into a church building for a "secular" concert, they are most unlikely to see it as more than a "venue" or "performance space". Our conclusion was that it didn't really "do" anything in terms of outreach - although we were of course pleased to be a resource for the community and hosted "charity" concerts (either for free or for nothing) at times.

The question here must be, "Do we take on face value the claim that the church building now hosts so many in-house activities that it sadly can no longer be offered for hire, or (as some think) do we think there is a 'hidden agenda' to both stop the building being used for 'secular'activities and take the church down a non-traditional musical pathway?" Unfortunately some folk will suspect the latter even if the former is the reality.

[ 16. August 2017, 14:13: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The multifarious planned or existing in-house church/congregational activities are, no doubt, the result of this being a Holy Trinity, Brompton, plant. The MW Report refers to a congregation of about 30, so it's early days yet (given the size of HTB plants elsewhere).

This may well explain their desire to keep some space/time for their own activities.

IJ
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I suspect the HTB link is what's worrying the traditionalists.

Some time ago I was part of a URC group discussing how best use might be made of our church buildings. We concluded that, while it was possible to encourage many cultural and/or community groups to use the premises (with the result that the bills easily got paid), it was also possible to end up with a situation in which there was no free space for the church to do its own "stuff".

We in fact went further and wondered if, in the eyes of the community, that the identity of the building as primarily a Christian space could become diluted or compromised. (I can think of at least three churches where this has happened).

[ 16. August 2017, 15:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I'd put the Union Chapel into the category of really a concert venue, not so much a church any more. I have been to concerts at a number of London churches and that one is definitely nearer to the Cadogan Hall* than, say, St John's Bethnal Green.

* over one of the doors at the Cadogan Hall, there's an inscription identifying it as the New Christian Science church that it was when built.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
That's fair enough re Union Chapel.

I do wonder if it couldn't be a real help for churches outside of big cities to offer this kind of cultural space, however - like with churches offering Post Office services, churches offering concert/cinema/gallery space etc would be of huge benefit to areas which struggle to have good access to those things. Not just rural areas - small towns and suburban housing estates are often really lacking in this area. I think outreach happens on top of those things being provided though - providing the space isn't enough.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I would agree with Pomona up to a point, but do bear in mind that older churches - both rural and urban - don't always have adequate WC and/or parking/catering facilities for themselves, let alone for outside bodies whose events might well bring in a lot more people than attend worship on Sundays!

These problems can, of course, often be solved with a bit of ingenuity, but where does the £££ to do so come from?

IJ
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
St Sepulchre's has been known as The Musicians' Church for more than a century. It has a special chapel with many memorials to musicians and stained glass of depictions of St Cecilia and Dame Nellie Melba and Henry Wood's ashes lie under the floor. It is also the resting place of Roger Ascham, tutor to Elizabeth I and latin secretary to Mary I.

When the St Cecilia Festival Service was revived after WWII it was first held at St Sepulchre's before the size of the event meant a switch to an even larger building. And the church has long been the venue of choice for memorial services for distinguished musicians.

The concerts held in the church have been going on since the time of Sir Henry Wood (died 1946) and have been held in the church NOT so it can raise revenue but because of its size and fine acoustic.

When the HTB lot asked to move in on St Sepulchre's they gave an undertaking that they would leave the church's musicial heritage alone: in other words, let the concerts and memorial services continue. However, almost from the beginning they have shamefully reneged on the promises they made and now are trying to force out the Musicians Benevolent Fund (and others); in addition the liturgical musical tradition of the church has been chucked out.

Yet another example of the good faith and probity of HTB and all its ilk.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I appreciate that St. Sepulchre's is a special case, given its history of musical connections, but has anything similar happened at any other HTB plants?

Perhaps the HTB style of plant is rather akin to another plant, to wit, Japanese Knotweed....

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/prevent-japanese-knotweed-from-spreading

IJ
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I would agree with Pomona up to a point, but do bear in mind that older churches - both rural and urban - don't always have adequate WC and/or parking/catering facilities for themselves, let alone for outside bodies whose events might well bring in a lot more people than attend worship on Sundays!

These problems can, of course, often be solved with a bit of ingenuity, but where does the £££ to do so come from?

IJ

I live in a rural area and one of the churches in our benefices has such problems with WC etc provision, so I'm well aware of those issues. Somewhat peversely, it can be much easier to access funding for secular uses for churches from local councils/charitable funding bodies etc - people are much more willing to fund eg making a church suitable for local cinema access than they are simply to fund church repairs for the use of the congregation, for many reasons.

Of course, for suburban churches the issues are totally different and much less to do with infrastructure.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
St Sepulchre's has been known as The Musicians' Church for more than a century. It has a special chapel with many memorials to musicians and stained glass of depictions of St Cecilia and Dame Nellie Melba and Henry Wood's ashes lie under the floor. It is also the resting place of Roger Ascham, tutor to Elizabeth I and latin secretary to Mary I.

When the St Cecilia Festival Service was revived after WWII it was first held at St Sepulchre's before the size of the event meant a switch to an even larger building. And the church has long been the venue of choice for memorial services for distinguished musicians.

The concerts held in the church have been going on since the time of Sir Henry Wood (died 1946) and have been held in the church NOT so it can raise revenue but because of its size and fine acoustic.

When the HTB lot asked to move in on St Sepulchre's they gave an undertaking that they would leave the church's musicial heritage alone: in other words, let the concerts and memorial services continue. However, almost from the beginning they have shamefully reneged on the promises they made and now are trying to force out the Musicians Benevolent Fund (and others); in addition the liturgical musical tradition of the church has been chucked out.

Yet another example of the good faith and probity of HTB and all its ilk.

Sadly nothing about this wrt HTB surprises me. Shameful behaviour.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Pomona, you are, of course, quite right about the possibilities of funding from 'outside' bodies.

Always worth exploring, coz them as doesn't ask, doesn't get!

IJ
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It's easy to demonise HTB in cases like this, especially if one doesn't like their particular brand of evangelicalism.

I do know of a church which, for various reasons, was dying on its feet. With the agreement of the Diocese, HTB people were parachuted in. At first I didn't much like the way they went about things but I must say that, by all accounts, they are now functioning as an excellent parish church with strong roots in the local community.

One thing which did cause a bit of angst in the early days was the fact that a small group of Christians from another denomination held a weekly service in the building on Sunday afternoons. This followed the closure of their own chapel and may have been part of a Local Ecumenical arrangement.

The new management made it clear that they didn't want this to continue as it "blocked" the use of the building at a time they wanted to free up. I can see that; but the nagging doubt remained that this small and elderly group of folk (which, I have to say, was in no way a "viable" congregation) simply didn't present the right "image" that the newcomers wished to foster.

[ 17. August 2017, 07:50: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Which is why I observed earlier that it would be instructive to hear whether similar issues have occurred at other HTB plants, without wishing to denigrate or demonise HTB in any way.

IJ
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
A strong feeling of not having heard the full story yet.

I know we have struggled with turnaround from a big music event on a Saturday night to having the church ready for worship on a Sunday morning. I dare say central London rentals may be different, but we can't charge enough for the venue to pay for people to clear up afterwards, and there are limits to how much one can ask of volunteers. And it has not worked accepting hirers' promises to put everything to rights themselves.

Also our plant constraints mean that the office cannot be fully used if the main body of the church is in use for a service or a performance. We have no other plant available for an office and no resources to do more with it at the moment (acoustic isolation and separate access), even assuming we can overcome issues around being a Grade 1 Listed building.

I don't know how long it will last but here's Google's cache of St. Sepulchre's original hire page
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Bishop's Finger
quote:
I appreciate that St. Sepulchre's is a special case, given its history of musical connections, but has anything similar happened at any other HTB plants?
You could try looking at St Thomas, Heigham (Norwich) where an HTB plant has fundamentally changed the liturgical pattern, alienated a large percentage of the congregation, disbanded the choir, seen off the Director of Music (President of the Norwich Organists' Association) and where the future of the historic organ in the church must now be viewed with grave concern.

The 'plant' people would argue that they have increased congregation size - but they would since they arrived with 60 people. They'd also argue that people now attend who weren't in church before - but that ignores those who were there are who have now left. And while they have attracted some younger people the majority of these are students at the nearby university so unlikely to stay with the parish long-term.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've been to a performance of Orthodox chorale music in St Sepulchre's. Lovely.

Seems a shame to hear what's happening now. However, I'd like to hear both sides. It's not as if there aren't lively evangelical churches in that part of London already, though.

That said, I've heard good accounts from liberals and somewhat High Church people about what happens when an HTB plant takes root, and they've been pleasantly surprised as to how it has complemented rather than crushed what's already been there.

I suspect there are good and bad instances.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Shameful act of ecclesiatical masturbation.

Definition of church planting.

[ 19. August 2017, 15:13: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
We've heard about a couple of 'bad' instances of HTB plants, but, as Gamaliel points out, there are 'good' instances. Let's hear about one or two of them, please.

I'm not a great fan of HTB's style, which ISTM can sometimes be rather shallow, but, if they can reinvigorate a failing local parish church in the backstreets somewhere, bully for them. As long as that church carries on being the local church in its backstreets, IYSWIM.

I speak as one who might actually quite like to see a dozen or so movers-and-shakers coming to ginger up the rather weary faithful few at Our Place!

IJ
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Well, be careful what you wish for, Bishop's Finger.

They'd go back to where they came from soon enough. Rather like bees, they have to have travelled a considerable distance in order to establish a genuinely new colony. Otherwise, the new people will just be coming in from the local such congregation, and will return when the population of new people is insufficient to sustain colonial excitement, and/or the colonists remember that they used to have a life when they went to church half as often.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
That may happen, it may not. In the church I mentioned above, the new arrivals may or may not have stayed; I have no idea. But they did provide enough "oomph" for the church, 15+ years on, to now be a thriving parish church.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
ThunderBunk, as I posted, I had exactly that same thought, and you are, of course, right to counsel wariness.

I'm just getting weary of taking one step forward, and two steps back, and would welcome some help... [Help]

BT, it is indeed 'oomph' that we need.

IJ
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Gosh, I can so identify with your comments.

When the Minister of a small church in London, I grew so tired of (a) new "exciting" churches starting up in our backyard rather than coming to help the less exciting churches that were already there and (b) peoppe who came along and said, "Oh, we were looking for a bigger church" and never came back. So much for sacrificially building the Kingdom of God.

Of course, I don't deny that "old" churches can be cliqueish and very closed to new ideas and people.

[ 19. August 2017, 17:39: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Gosh, I can so identify with your comments.

When the Minister of a small church in London, I grew so tired of (a) new "exciting" churches starting up in our backyard rather than coming to help the less exciting churches that were already there and (b) peoppe who came along and said, "Oh, we were looking for a bigger church" and never came back. So much for sacrificially building the Kingdom of God.

Of course, I don't deny that "old" churches can be cliqueish and very closed to new ideas and people.

This is the dilemma I think we're in. Churches are seen as being branches of a national chain, especially in the C of E, rather than developments (or, if you insist, expressions) of the local community. If they are not the latter, they will always rely on others to keep them going, and will not have the connections to know what their local community needs.

To my mind, "the body of Christ" is far more exact, and more organic, a description of the church than most people want to realise or accept. If you're going to try and build it up, it is rarely advisable to cut it off at the ankles and wait for new shoots to grow: entirely the wrong kind of organism.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I know nothing about the existing congregation at St. Sepulchre's, i.e. whether it was large or small, "thriving" or "barely viable", reaching out or inward-looking, etc. etc.

But, where a congregation is on its last legs, an infusion of outsiders can sometimes give it the "kick start" it needs to become re-established, hopefully (as you so rightly say) developing strong roots in the local community.

On the other hand, the newcomers can give the impression that locals are no longer wanted, especially if they come from a different (i.e. posher and more articulate) social background.

[ 19. August 2017, 19:05: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
On the other hand, the newcomers can give the impression that locals are no longer wanted, especially if they come from a different (i.e. posher and more articulate) social background.

Or the opposite. Many congregations in Arizona are actually having services in Spanish and welcoming Hispanics!
[Eek!]

(Not my reaction -- I was thrilled when my church added a Spanish service, but it has upset some "posher" congregations.)
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The result (so far) of the HTB plant in Norwich has been to give some aid to surrounding parishes in the shape of people who feel 'pushed out' going to other places, however, on the whole these have been the older generation. The younger people who now feel unwelcome it would seem have largely decided that the CofE is not for them on the basis that it is (in their eyes) distinctly un-Christian for an outside governing body - bishop, diocese - to parachute in a new team without reference to the PCC or wider congregation and to change what had first attracted them.

ISTM that this last is the real problem with plants: it says to an existing congregation that they aren't "church". Furthermore, by ignoring an existing congregation, however small, and imposing on them patterns of worship they don't like or want, it tells them that their devotion is worthless and their views don't matter: how can that be called "mission".

One of the latest boasts by HTB in Heigham is that they have reinvigorated the local pub - but is it really the job of the CofE to be livening up a pub? And is that meant to make-up for the hurt and damage caused by ditching services, making it impossible for faithful people to receive communion, etc, etc, etc?

Another plant, the Harbour Church in Portsmouth, is even stranger. There is no mention anywhere of communion and an enquiry about when a eucharist or communion service could be found was greeted with "we're not that kind of church". The website is heavy on Alpha, which they advertise with a fetching photograph of Bear Grylls.

In London, St David's Westbourne Road is now part of "Hope Church Islington" and a church that had an Anglo-Catholic tradition now has one communion a month, tacked onto the end of its "worship" and conducted to the sound of a lot of the "worship" congregation consuming coffee and cake.

A London friend has noticed that the congregation at places like All Saints, Margaret Street can tell you reliably about where HTB plants have been started by noting where new members of their congregation come from.

Above all, am I being too cynical to wonder how many of the new congregation at plant churches will still be there when the plant team are no longer around to staff things like the free holiday play schemes, etc?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
To be fair, I've heard of an Anglo-Catholic priest who has pretty much been left alone by the HTB incomers and who has actually had more people come to his style of service since they got involved - they support and tolerate him and get on and do their happy-clappy stuff and munching cakes at other times.

I suspect this is rare, but it shows it can be done.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
To be fair, I've heard of an Anglo-Catholic priest who has pretty much been left alone by the HTB incomers and who has actually had more people come to his style of service since they got involved - they support and tolerate him and get on and do their happy-clappy stuff and munching cakes at other times.

I suspect this is rare, but it shows it can be done.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Regarding Evangelical incomers, this study may prove to be of interest (if you don't won't to read it all, look at the sections towards the end entitled "Parish life in a working-class locality" and "An evangelical sea-change"). Unfortunately the last few lines seem to be unavailable.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thanks, BT - most interesting. A salutary tale, indeed.

I think what I envision for Our Place is not so much an HTB-style 'evangelical takeover' (or 'makeover'?) as an infusion of new blood to reinvigorate our existing small, but committed, and rather weary, core congregation. For instance, two or three new young families (perhaps transferring themselves from a neighbouring evangelical church) could help us revive our children's work on Sundays and/or our monthly 'Crafty Church' (which means a lot of work for already hard-pressed folk). Young families are a major demographic in our parish. We could also do with some more servers and singers to enhance further our Sunday Eucharist (bells and smells, but not OTT...), as we are the only local church offering 'high church' or 'Anglo-Catholic' services. And, before someone says that that sort of thing is no longer wanted, I would point to the continuing growth of our Cell of Our Lady of Walsingham.

We are conscious of our well-worn church hall (it's the original mission church, somewhat altered over the years) being a community resource, and are presently refurbishing the kitchen to modern standards to help with this. The Hall is used daily by a pre-school Nursery, and is often booked on Saturday or Sunday afternoons for children's parties. I believe we have a Polish dance class starting on a weekday evening soon, as well...

Perhaps YSWIM. No need for a radical change of direction (if folk really, really want a charismatic-evo church, we simply refer them to Next Door Place!), but just some extra 'oomph'to help us do better what we are already doing as our local parish church.

A new priest-in-charge would help, too, so if you're looking for a challenge...

IJ
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
ISTM that this last is the real problem with plants: it says to an existing congregation that they aren't "church". Furthermore, by ignoring an existing congregation, however small, and imposing on them patterns of worship they don't like or want, it tells them that their devotion is worthless and their views don't matter: how can that be called "mission".

Theologically I'm at the HTB end of the spectrum. Practically though, I find their approach to church planting/church very unwise for the reasons you mention. To my mind it's church by numbers.

Bishops too should not escape censure. They have been known to "invite" HTB in to an area with little or no consultation with existing clergy. At the same time I'm told that HTB pick the locations ruthlessly - not all invites fit their brief. I can't see them planting on the deprived estate near me for example - why the nearest coffee shop is miles away!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, I've heard of an Anglo-Catholic priest who has pretty much been left alone by the HTB incomers and who has actually had more people come to his style of service since they got involved - they support and tolerate him and get on and do their happy-clappy stuff and munching cakes at other times.

I suspect this is rare, but it shows it can be done.

The report Love, Sweat and Tears: Church planting in East London by Tim Thorlby suggests this happens but there are also horror stories. We aee about to be in vacancy - if HTB want to come here then I hope our churchwardens will exercise their right of veto.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thanks, leo, for the link to Tim Thorlby's report. Again, most interesting.

IJ
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Regarding Evangelical incomers, this study may prove to be of interest (if you don't won't to read it all, look at the sections towards the end entitled "Parish life in a working-class locality" and "An evangelical sea-change"). Unfortunately the last few lines seem to be unavailable.

Last few lines is a paragraph and a half
quote:


What ever the motives of the leadership it is clear that local people had their own expectations of what their church should be. In this case study, the innate conservatism of the congregation coupled with a strong identity forged over a long period of time frustrated clergy attempts to bring innovation into the life of the church. In the same way, this strong sense of identity, solidaristic but inclusive and quintessentially Anglican held the congregation together during a difficult period and contributed to the subsequent return of local people to the congregation.

Carr et al. (1992) suggest that 'ownership' is not a question of ideology, but a matter of the heart, informed by history and tradition and, above all, a sense of belonging. Traditionally, the style of Anglican ministry is 'interpretative'; that is, it should 'seek to interpret peoples experiences of life in relationship to God' as realised within the parochial context (Carr et al. 1992, pp16-17). In a highly secularised environment where clergy vocations are falling and new ordinands are increasingly also evangelical, this model of parochial ministry is being challenged by very different ministerial models. While these understandings are perfectly appropriate within certain contexts, traditionally, parish ministry is necessarily predicated upon a degree of openness towards the expectations of the congregations and a recognition that it remains for many people in the surrounding population 'an institution towards which they look' (Carr et al. 1992 pp 50-51). This case study graphically illustrates the negative consequences for one traditional parish when this vision was lost.

Carr et all is Say One for Me. Given that in the conclusion he clearly cites a book with a very clear agenda you may wish to ask about the stance of the author.

Jengie
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It all reminds me of the episode in one of the early series of Rev when an HTB style congregation temporarily take over his parish.

Very, very accurate ...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Thanks, BT - most interesting. A salutary tale, indeed.

I think what I envision for Our Place is not so much an HTB-style 'evangelical takeover' (or 'makeover'?) as an infusion of new blood to reinvigorate our existing small, but committed, and rather weary, core congregation. For instance, two or three new young families (perhaps transferring themselves from a neighbouring evangelical church) could help us revive our children's work on Sundays and/or our monthly 'Crafty Church' (which means a lot of work for already hard-pressed folk). Young families are a major demographic in our parish. We could also do with some more servers and singers to enhance further our Sunday Eucharist (bells and smells, but not OTT...), as we are the only local church offering 'high church' or 'Anglo-Catholic' services. And, before someone says that that sort of thing is no longer wanted, I would point to the continuing growth of our Cell of Our Lady of Walsingham.

We are conscious of our well-worn church hall (it's the original mission church, somewhat altered over the years) being a community resource, and are presently refurbishing the kitchen to modern standards to help with this. The Hall is used daily by a pre-school Nursery, and is often booked on Saturday or Sunday afternoons for children's parties. I believe we have a Polish dance class starting on a weekday evening soon, as well...

Perhaps YSWIM. No need for a radical change of direction (if folk really, really want a charismatic-evo church, we simply refer them to Next Door Place!), but just some extra 'oomph'to help us do better what we are already doing as our local parish church.

A new priest-in-charge would help, too, so if you're looking for a challenge...

IJ

Is there such a thing as Anglo-Catholic Church planting? If not, why not?
Good luck with the Pole Dancing sessions, by the way...
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thanks, Albertus - I should have spotted that!

[Killing me]

IJ
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
And you wondered why you were getting all those visitors- who left looking disappointed...
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, I've heard of an Anglo-Catholic priest who has pretty much been left alone by the HTB incomers and who has actually had more people come to his style of service since they got involved - they support and tolerate him and get on and do their happy-clappy stuff and munching cakes at other times.

I suspect this is rare, but it shows it can be done.

The report Love, Sweat and Tears: Church planting in East London by Tim Thorlby suggests this happens but there are also horror stories. We aee about to be in vacancy - if HTB want to come here then I hope our churchwardens will exercise their right of veto.
I rather think that they are already on their way to a church near you, albeit closer to the University, naturally.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And you wondered why you were getting all those visitors- who left looking disappointed...

...tho' not as disappointed as those who misinterpreted the ad about the traditional Sami dance sessions...
 
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :
 
I have to conclude from what I read and hear that HTB is becoming more or less a Church in the Church of England.A very dangerous phenomenon.
I am waiting to hear a critical reaction from sound and traditional bishops.
Like many others I am not so happy with the methods of HTB.
 
Posted by Roman Cataholic (# 18736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, I've heard of an Anglo-Catholic priest who has pretty much been left alone by the HTB incomers and who has actually had more people come to his style of service since they got involved - they support and tolerate him and get on and do their happy-clappy stuff and munching cakes at other times.

I suspect this is rare, but it shows it can be done.

The report Love, Sweat and Tears: Church planting in East London by Tim Thorlby suggests this happens but there are also horror stories. We aee about to be in vacancy - if HTB want to come here then I hope our churchwardens will exercise their right of veto.
I rather think that they are already on their way to a church near you, albeit closer to the University, naturally.
I know for a fact that HTB has been approached by Bishop Mike Hill to look at planting a church in Bristol in the Clifton Area to compete with Woodlands Church.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
But Christ Church is there already. [Confused]

[ 21. August 2017, 13:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sadly, I don't think any tradition, apart, perhaps, from the Roman Catholics (at least here in the West) are exempt from church-planting on someone else's toes.

I've known Baptist church-plants open relatively close to existing Baptist congregations, for instance. The 'restorationist' new churches would regularly plant new churches in one another's patch, with the excuse that 'there was always room for one more ...'

Now it seems the Anglicans are doing the same.

The overlapping jurisdictions within the Orthodox 'diaspora' means that the same thing happens there too - although this is often for linguistic reasons but even so ...

In the Middle East, of course, there are a gazillion competing forms of Catholic - Melkites, Maronites, Greek Catholics, Armenian Catholics, etc etc mirroring the same chaos for the 'Latins' as the jurisdictional messiness in the West does for the Orthodox ... although they're having a few controversies on their home-turf too with Moscow opening a church on Cyprus, for instance ...

So we're all as bad as one another in that respect.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I have to conclude from what I read and hear that HTB is becoming more or less a Church in the Church of England.A very dangerous phenomenon.
I am waiting to hear a critical reaction from sound and traditional bishops.

There won't be because they want the money.

It's an interesting point, though ... at one point does something cease to be Anglican and become something else.

The same charge could be levelled at those at the uber-High end of the spectrum.

I've recently returned from the annual conference of the Fellowship of St Alban & St Sergius, with the realisation that what I'd taken to be 'high church' Anglicanism all this time hadn't been that 'high' at all.

The Anglo-Catholic Mass for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was so stratospheric it made the RC and Orthodox eucharists look like a Plymouth Brethren meeting ...

The Anglo-Catholics / Anglo-Papalists there were great, but thoroughly inconsistent, I thought, in the logic of their position. They want their cake and eat it.

But that's another issue ...
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've known Baptist church-plants open relatively close to existing Baptist congregations, for instance. The 'restorationist' new churches would regularly plant new churches in one another's patch, with the excuse that 'there was always room for one more ...'

All true (sadly) - but these churches don't have parishes and dioceses, the Anglicans do.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've known Baptist church-plants open relatively close to existing Baptist congregations, for instance. The 'restorationist' new churches would regularly plant new churches in one another's patch, with the excuse that 'there was always room for one more ...'

All true (sadly) - but these churches don't have parishes and dioceses, the Anglicans do.
Though even this has been bypassed in the case of a church I know of. Not directly an HTB plant as far as I know, but a similar ethos: the (then) Bishop simply offered them the use of a redundant church and then gave it its own parish of which the boundary is the churchyard wall.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Humph! This Church is not CofE! Don't ask me what Independent Anglican is. This is just one local example.

Getting around parish boundary questions happens far too easily around here for me to believe that is much of a requirement.

Jengie

[ 21. August 2017, 15:48: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes; but I was thinking of Christ Church, Clifton, which is a large charismatic-evangelical Anglican church. I see it's linked to the New Wine Network: could it be that the Bishop wants to promote the HTB network instead?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
To go back to the OP. St. Sepulchre's - which I don't know at all - says that it will fulfil all existing bookings and respect its musical heritage to the extent of having Choral Evensong (albeit on Tuesdays). It also seems genuinely surprised at the rumpus that has been raised.

It strikes me that this all may have a lot to do with (secular) musicians saying, "This is our church" and the PCC etc. saying, "Actually, it's ours!"; and also to a fear of "that awful HTB stuff" being expressed by some folk who may not even be part of the worshipping community.

Surely a PCC (or whatever the relevant governing body of a church may be) has the perfect right to say, "Sorry folks; we believe that the way we need to do things is changing and so we're afraid that hiring the building as you used to simply isn't going to be viable any more"? What's so terrible about that?

[ 21. August 2017, 16:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes; but I was thinking of Christ Church, Clifton, which is a large charismatic-evangelical Anglican church. I see it's linked to the New Wine Network: could it be that the Bishop wants to promote the HTB network instead?

Well, they have lost so many members that they can't pay their quota/parish share.

But they lost members to Woodlands so they are unlikely to woo them back.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, I've heard of an Anglo-Catholic priest who has pretty much been left alone by the HTB incomers and who has actually had more people come to his style of service since they got involved - they support and tolerate him and get on and do their happy-clappy stuff and munching cakes at other times.

I suspect this is rare, but it shows it can be done.

The report Love, Sweat and Tears: Church planting in East London by Tim Thorlby suggests this happens but there are also horror stories. We aee about to be in vacancy - if HTB want to come here then I hope our churchwardens will exercise their right of veto.
I rather think that they are already on their way to a church near you, albeit closer to the University, naturally.
I know for a fact that HTB has been approached by Bishop Mike Hill to look at planting a church in Bristol in the Clifton Area to compete with Woodlands Church.
I wonder how you 'know'.

Mike is due to retire in 3 weeks' time.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Surely, if the C of E in its wisdom (?) wants to 'compete' with Woodlands Church (which I assume is independent, and not part of the C of E), Christ Church, Clifton, is the place to use?

I note what leo has said, but Christ Church seems to be a lively place still, with a vision for renewing and improving the church building.

[Confused]

@Jengie jon - there are 'Independent Anglican' churches elsewhere, including (would you believe it?) Douglas, Isle of Man, which church appears to be led by a disaffected former Anglican priest. Perhaps the one in Sheffield is some form of similar breakaway?

IJ
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes; but I was thinking of Christ Church, Clifton, which is a large charismatic-evangelical Anglican church. I see it's linked to the New Wine Network: could it be that the Bishop wants to promote the HTB network instead?

Well, they have lost so many members that they can't pay their quota/parish share.

Can't or won't?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, I've heard of an Anglo-Catholic priest who has pretty much been left alone by the HTB incomers and who has actually had more people come to his style of service since they got involved - they support and tolerate him and get on and do their happy-clappy stuff and munching cakes at other times.

I suspect this is rare, but it shows it can be done.

The report Love, Sweat and Tears: Church planting in East London by Tim Thorlby suggests this happens but there are also horror stories. We aee about to be in vacancy - if HTB want to come here then I hope our churchwardens will exercise their right of veto.
I rather think that they are already on their way to a church near you, albeit closer to the University, naturally.
I know for a fact that HTB has been approached by Bishop Mike Hill to look at planting a church in Bristol in the Clifton Area to compete with Woodlands Church.
Not Clifton. Elsewhere
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thanks, EM, and well done for being so discreet about churches' internal affairs...

IJ
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Would anyone care to comment on my post above (the one about the OP)?
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
there are 'Independent Anglican' churches elsewhere, including (would you believe it?) Douglas, Isle of Man, which church appears to be led by a disaffected former Anglican priest ...


You mean there's hope for me yet?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well... [Snigger]

@Baptist Trainfan - yes, it's not unreasonable for a PCC to restrict the use of its buildings, and to change hiring arrangements, if they deem such changes necessary to forward the mission of the parish as they see it. It's also not unreasonable for the HTB folk at St. Sepulchre's to be taken at their word on the subject.

Time will tell, and, given the previous lack of a Sunday congregation, one wishes them well. After all, other City churches are being used on Sundays by different denominations.

IJ
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
What's so terrible, Baptist Trainfan is that St Sepulchre's isn't just any old church that has occasional music concerts, but it had almost become a concert venue that happened also to be a church.

So, to that extent what the HTB people are doing is probably correcting an imbalance.

Rightly or wrongly, I suspect the various individuals and music groups who use it came to regard it as 'theirs'.

As with all these things, I suspect there are two sides to it. The HTB lot may not have grasped the sensitivities on the one hand whilst the music buffs may not have shown much sensitivity to the setting as a place of worship rather than a concert venue.
 
Posted by Viola (# 20) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Would anyone care to comment on my post above (the one about the OP)?

OK - I will (if I can still remember how to post here!)

I've been following this all very closely on twitter, where a member of the St Sepulchre's choir has set up a petition (with well over 5000 signatures now) and various bigwigs from the music world have weighed in (look up @trollyrobbins if you're interested.) My personal position is as a musician who regularly books churches for concerts and rehearsals (every town/ village has a church, rather fewer concert halls available) so I see this as a worrying thing to happen in a church which still calls itself The Musicians' Church and still claims to be full of music and concerts.

I have seen the letter sent to the very many groups who regularly use St Sepulchre's for rehearsals, concerts and recordings (and pay handsomely for it - at least £630 for a concert if the archived hiring page linked to earlier is correct), and this paragraph is included:

"I am aware that you do already have a number of bookings in the calendar for 2018 and we would be very grateful if you are able to find an alternative venue. However, if you are not able to rearrange the venue, we would look to honour the booking here at St Sepulchre's as previously agreed"

And then it goes on to express sadness that they've sacked the Bookings Manager (also a musician).

Not exactly firm confirmation that the bookings will be honoured, and musicians' diaries are booked a long way in advance.

I expect they are genuinely surprised. I expect they thought that by sending this out in August, when their professional choir (funded by outside sources) is on holiday, no one would notice for a while and it would slip out quietly. Sadly though - the church's connection with Sir Henry Wood (the room dedicated to him has already stopped being used by musicians as originally intended and now appears to be a prayer room bedecked in fairy lights & bookable online for individuals) in the middle of the Proms season, and the availability of choir members on holiday has meant that there are a lot of musicians hanging around London with time on their hands, ready to sign petitions, do choral flashmobs and appear on BBC Radio 4 to put their point of view.

This church, like many central London churches, has a historic mission to a certain sector. Just as St Brides has a mission to journalists (heaven help it), St Paul's Covent Garden to actors, Temple Church, lawyers, etc etc, St Sepulchre's has a longstanding link with musicians. It takes funding from the Musicians' Company, and the Friends of the Musicians' Chapel, to maintain its building and sponsor the musical director. And it has just mightily pissed off its avowed mission field, with one letter abruptly cancelling a huge part of its outreach/ community service.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What's so terrible, Baptist Trainfan is that St Sepulchre's isn't just any old church that has occasional music concerts, but it had almost become a concert venue that happened also to be a church.

So, to that extent what the HTB people are doing is probably correcting an imbalance.

Rightly or wrongly, I suspect the various individuals and music groups who use it came to regard it as 'theirs'.

As with all these things, I suspect there are two sides to it. The HTB lot may not have grasped the sensitivities on the one hand whilst the music buffs may not have shown much sensitivity to the setting as a place of worship rather than a concert venue.

I agree with you Gamaliel that there is more to this than meets the (public) eye. I think you've hit the nail on the head when you identify the tensions within the PCC and within musicians (or other outside groupings).

I wonder whether there's a deeper issue with the PCC's reserve (and this is borne a little out of experience). Here the church premises are let to all sorts of community groups on a weekly basis - slimming groups, breast feeding support etc etc. We also have 2 other church groups who use the buildings as their "base."

Outside groups use the halls, kitchens and other facilities. Church groups have access to the "sanctuary" as well -- this includes other church groups who use our baptism facilities. Although we are not overly precious about the sanctuary (a very wet Jubilee meant over 600 people ate in the pews with the street entertainment on the platform), we tend to restrict use to church overseen events.

I wonder to what extent concerts are a form of "worship." Music moves the spirit and much classical music is church based in origin. If then you have a particular view on the sanctity of a place, you will want the event in there to be "right." That may then affect who you feel happy to allow to use the building.

I'm not saying that PCC's see classical music as "satanic" or a spiritual problem, they just want the events in that building to follow a certain path. The best way of ensuring that is to either do it yourself, oversee it from the team or only allow those outside events which follow the broad theme to use it.

A previous PCC was open to use the venue for concerts but a new one, with presumably a renewed view of what church should be like, has other ideas. Some of the old ways don't fit.

As a side question, incidentally, I wonder why - with numbers falling - the Bishop didn't look to turn the building into a concert venue per se. What was his motivation for bringing in HTB who have a well known approach to replanting churches? It all seems very strange even at foundation level.

It always amuses me as well that some churches are happy to accept secular concerts but cavil at being part of, shall we say, a more pentecostal celebration.

There will be significant factors at play from the "concert/musicians" side. Posts at the church are funded by outside bodies -- what happens when the aims of those bodies conflict with those of the church? Are they, for example, compatible with the practice of faith? Are there assumptions that if we bankroll, then we have certain expectations which, although unwritten, have assumed the status of holy writ through usage and blind eyes being turned?

Perfectly acceptable use and behaviour to one person, is disrespectful in the eyes of another. Lots of ways you can end up with discord.

IME not all churches have robust letting agreements which detail responsibilities and expectations (leaving it clean, locking the doors).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
As a slight parallel, I recall a rumpus in a church I knew over Remembrance Sunday celebrations. Basically the "old" Vicar had let the British Legion run the morning service in their own way that Sunday; but a new Vicar said, "This is not just a Remembrance Service but is also our congregation's weekly act of worship" and tried to impost some form of Vicar-led order and authority.

Result: a major rumpus in the locality with the Legion saying that the Vicar was trying to chuck them out - which he wasn't! But he didn't think that a group of people who never came to church should be allowed to "take over" that day - he was perfectly willing to work with them.

So, and apart (as Viola says) from potentially alienating the very people to whom you say you have a mission, one might want to ask the question: "To whom does a church building - particularly an Anglican church - building really belong to?" (The question for Nonconformists is a slightly different one even though, as EM says, our view of buildings may well be less sacramentally-oriented).
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Local solution to the Remembrance Day conundrum is that the church has a service in the morning and works with the British Legion for an afternoon service, following laying of wreaths and all. Not at 11am, but there are other villages around that do that, and the big town one with everyone present and marching is 2pm. It works as it allows people to be at both the 11am things and the big local one.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I agree with that, ExclamationMark.

I know that part of London well and it almost empties at weekends. I've walked around that area on a Sunday and been surprised how few people were around.

I also know a clergyman not too far away from there and he tells me there's almost every conceivable expression within a short distance of one another, Pentecostal, Ultra-High Anglican, evangelical Anglican, RC, Free Church ...

So I'm not sure what HTB are playing at.

St Sepulchre's is an enormous building and must be very difficult to maintain.

From what I can see the programme of concerts wouldn't cause an issue to the PCC. It's probably more that they want to recover the space for the many mid-week activities that characterise an HTB style lively Anglican church.

I doubt very much that many of the HTB incomers live on the doorstep or within the parish.

It strikes me that it's an opportunistic thing based on the availability of a large and - in their eyes - under utilised building.

With a bit of imagination I can't see why it can't function as both a renowned concert venue and a place if worship.

However sacramental or otherwise we are it strikes me that shared space makes sense in some circumstances.

For instance, there's a great example in Herefordshire of an historic parish church that has been kept open by having the village Post Office incorporated into the building. Everyone benefits. The Post Office stays open, there's a community space for local groups to use and there's still a 'sanctuary' for worship.

Why more places haven't undertaken similar projects is beyond me.

But there we go ...
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know that part of London well and it almost empties at weekends. I've walked around that area on a Sunday and been surprised how few people were around.

...

I doubt very much that many of the HTB incomers live on the doorstep or within the parish.

So it's quite likely that folk will commute in, possibly depriving other churches in their home areas of the valuable support they could offer, were they so inclined?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
With a bit of imagination I can't see why it can't function as both a renowned concert venue and a place if worship.

Although it might need a lot of tidying-up or re-ordering late on Saturday nights to do so.

quote:
For instance, there's a great example in Herefordshire of an historic parish church that has been kept open by having the village Post Office incorporated into the building. Everyone benefits. The Post Office stays open, there's a community space for local groups to use and there's still a 'sanctuary' for worship.
There's a Baptist Church near Ipswich which does the same. And our own church is used as a Polling Station - not the Hall, as this is in use by a Playgroup which would have to close for the day if the voting was done in there.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
I know nothing of the details of how the HTB plant came to be at St Sepulchre's, so I did a little digging using the diocesan handbook. Rev. David Ingall is listed as Priest-in-Charge in the handbook, although is 'Rector' in the online directory. This might be a recent change of status, as the 2017 handbook is put together before the start of the year.

He is present in the 2015 handbook as well. I don't have any earlier version available. But this does mean that the plant is at least two and a half years old. So, any thoughts that "the HTB crowd arrive and immediately push out the musicians" should be banished.

The church now has a curate, Sophie Bannister (in the 2017 handbook but not the 2015). Both she and David Ingall are listed as 'LSM': Locally Supported Minister. This means that they are not self-supporting (SSM) or paid from normal diocesan funds ('Common Fund' in London). I don't know where their money comes from.

Churches in or near the City of London don't have many actual people living in their geographic parish. I believe that about 8000 people live within the boundary of the City. Probably quite a few of these are clergy of city churches. Unless people travel in to the church, weekend services are difficult. Those churches which are flourishing tend to be those which lay on services etc. during the week, typically at lunchtime or in the evening, aiming to serve the very many people who work in the area.

So, I'm guessing the story for St Sepulchre's might be something like this. Perhaps 3 years ago the Bishop of London, concerned for the fate of St Sepulchre's, approached HTB (normally the initiative for plants comes from the bishop) and a plant team was put together. They have been building the work steadily over the past couple of years or so, to the extent that a curate has things to do. In particular, the weekday evenings are using the church building more and more. Since this is frequently the time when groups would use the building for rehearsals in particular, this is the core problem.

A couple of other items from the diocese's website are that the electoral role is 86. The patron of the parish is St John's College, Oxford. The patron must have been approving of the appointment of David Ingall to the post.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
Rev. David Ingall is listed as Priest-in-Charge in the handbook ...

He is present in the 2015 handbook as well. I don't have any earlier version available. But this does mean that the plant is at least two and a half years old. So, any thoughts that "the HTB crowd arrive and immediately push out the musicians" should be banished.

According to their website: "Most recently, in September 2013, the existing church community was joined by a planting team from Holy Trinity Brompton (HTB) and St. George’s Holborn and a new partnership established. The vision behind this partnership is to bring together the best of the existing ministry at St. Sepulchre’s, with new services, mission and ministries made possible by the injection of new people and resources from the planting team". So, almost four years.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
I don't know where their money comes from.

As they are a registered charity, their accounts are filed with, and publicly available from, the Charity Commission. Their latest accounts, for the year ended 31 December 2016, shows that of their total income of £329k, £98k came from 'other trading activities'. £58k came from the hire of building, while the other £40k came from a flat rental.

Most of the rest came from donations and gifts, though the accounts don't state if anything came from elsewhere within the CofE, though it's noticeable that £67k came from trustees and related parties (note 3). In spite of this, note 28.3 states that there were no related party transactions.

So one thing we can be sure of is that their accounts prep and audit is shoddy, as it contains a contradiction which is material by nature.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes, I see that - although I suspect a genuine misunderstanding about the fact that a donation by a Trustee counts as "related". I certainly didn't know that; in Baptist churches the Managing Trustees are usually members of the church who may well give generously, and I've never heard any mention of this.

More interesting to me are the statements "No member of the PCC has been resident in the parish except the Rev’d David Ingall" (possibly unsurprising for a City of London church) and "Hiring of the church for concerts and rehearsals continues to grow and thrive", equally the comment that the two FMC services during the year "went very well". The church appears to be following a mission plan which continues till 2019: so why, one asks, has there been this apparent change in policy? - unless some practical difficulties in hiring the church (e.g. difficulty in getting volunteers to move chairs, the positioning of nw items of equipment) have arisen.

[ 22. August 2017, 15:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
St George's Holborn is a thriving evangelical Anglican parish as far as I know - and its website says that it is dedicated 'to raising up missional leaders' which presumably implies engaging in church-planting and support ...

So St Sepulchre's is relying on them and HTB to help grow the congregation and have been doing so for some time it would appear.

If it's a 'Come over and help us ...' thing then I'm less concerned about planting on other people's toes.

So far, so good.

I suspect then, that it's a case of a gradual conflict of interests as the church has grown its mid-week and evening activities at times when there are rehearsals and so on ... not an easy problem to resolve.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Without raining on your parade, Baptist Trainfan, using a church building a few times a year as a Polling Station wasn't quite what I had in mind in terms of shared space ...

I was thinking of more permanent arrangements such as Post Office use - or perhaps the current vogue for 'pop-up shops' and so on.

There are all sorts of practical difficulties, of course, but whilst I'm more 'sacramentally inclined' than I used to be, I'd still like to see imaginative uses of ecclesial space for community benefit if this can possibly be achieved in a win-win kind of way where all parties benefit.

Obviously, some spaces lend themselves more effectively to that than others.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes, I realise that my example was not the best ...
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes; but I was thinking of Christ Church, Clifton, which is a large charismatic-evangelical Anglican church. I see it's linked to the New Wine Network: could it be that the Bishop wants to promote the HTB network instead?

Well, they have lost so many members that they can't pay their quota/parish share.

Can't or won't?
Can't - they've lost about 300 people - many have come to us as refugees, seeking something identifiably Anglican.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
I know for a fact that HTB has been approached by Bishop Mike Hill to look at planting a church in Bristol in the Clifton Area to compete with Woodlands Church.

We're not allowed to do 'junior hosting' but methinks you've been here before and are trying to cause trouble again.

If you are right, then the archdeacon and area dean are liars.

If not, then you are.

This diocese has open and transparent governance. The only church planting agreed upon so far is that done by Christ Church, not HTB.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, I've heard of an Anglo-Catholic priest who has pretty much been left alone by the HTB incomers and who has actually had more people come to his style of service since they got involved - they support and tolerate him and get on and do their happy-clappy stuff and munching cakes at other times.

I suspect this is rare, but it shows it can be done.

The report Love, Sweat and Tears: Church planting in East London by Tim Thorlby suggests this happens but there are also horror stories. We aee about to be in vacancy - if HTB want to come here then I hope our churchwardens will exercise their right of veto.
I rather think that they are already on their way to a church near you, albeit closer to the University, naturally.
I know for a fact that HTB has been approached by Bishop Mike Hill to look at planting a church in Bristol in the Clifton Area to compete with Woodlands Church.
Not Clifton. Elsewhere
But Clifton is the uni. area - unless they're thinking of the University of the West of England - but their students are more thinly spread throughout the north of the city.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We're not allowed to do 'junior hosting' but methinks you've been here before and are trying to cause trouble again.

If you are right, then the archdeacon and area dean are liars.

If not, then you are.

This diocese has open and transparent governance. The only church planting agreed upon so far is that done by Christ Church, not HTB.

Others would disagree with you vehemently on the level of openness in the diocese. Like every organisation of its type transparency will be situational.

As regards the specifics here, there's no point in planting in order to spike Woodlands. There's lots of opportunities but I rather think it will be in a choice area (if history is repeated) rather than one which really needs it.

PM me if you want to know more

[ 23. August 2017, 07:14: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
I don't know where their money comes from.

As they are a registered charity, their accounts are filed with, and publicly available from, the Charity Commission. Their latest accounts, for the year ended 31 December 2016, shows that of their total income of £329k, £98k came from 'other trading activities'. £58k came from the hire of building, while the other £40k came from a flat rental.

Most of the rest came from donations and gifts, though the accounts don't state if anything came from elsewhere within the CofE, though it's noticeable that £67k came from trustees and related parties (note 3). In spite of this, note 28.3 states that there were no related party transactions.

So one thing we can be sure of is that their accounts prep and audit is shoddy, as it contains a contradiction which is material by nature.

Yep I saw that too. You get a clearer picture of everything from the previous year' accounts (also available on the Charity Commission website), as these were put together under an older system. That shows £28k from a Parish Rate which most of us don't get. The income of £172k seems massive for the size of the electoral roll.

The big issue is not so much income but expenditure and declining reserves. There's a lot of money going out -- most of it not on Ministry or Mission. That's a very bad thing.

There's also the possibility of friction in this kind of situation where you have restricted funds and restricted income, That can relate to activity and personnel who are not or who are no longer, in full agreement with changing practice and vision. IME such restricted funds can be a force for inertia when the rest of the operation wants to spread its wings.

If you have income as here which much be used for a special type of music which no longer fits the missional brief, then there will clearly fault lines in any operational use of the building.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Interesting note in those earlier accounts: "We are beginning to explore ways of building on the strong relationships we have with many hirers to draw members of our wider community into the life of the church more generally". Omitted from the more recent ones.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
CORRECTION
In my earlier post (page 1) I referred to St David's Westbourne Road as having had an Anglo-Catholic tradition - but it seems my experiences there in the 1970s were not typical and it has formerly been a MOTR parish church. Apologies to anyone who may have been offended.

What I said about current provision for Holy Communion are accurate.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Interesting note in those earlier accounts: "We are beginning to explore ways of building on the strong relationships we have with many hirers to draw members of our wider community into the life of the church more generally".

It does rather point to a number of organisations sharing the use of the building.

Whilst I am not an HTB fan, although I share their churchmanship, I can see that they would be keen to run things in their own way. That may or may not accommodate a group of classical musicians to whom the sacred nature of the building and perhaps even some of the music, is secondary to the art of the music itself.

HTB wouldn't have a non believer leading their worship: why then would they be over happy with a non believers (or those actively opposed to church) running a high profile event in their building? There's the potential for all sorts of mixed messages.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
One of the things that the HTB plant at St Sepulchre's is doing is being very obstructive about memorial services for dead musicians.

In the case of prominent musicians although they may live in one parish, they have a circle of friends, aquaintances and admirers from far and wide: a memorial service at a place within reasonable reach for all is therefore a good thing. However, it would seem that recent attempts to arrange for such things have met with a less than welcoming attitude.

As for suggestions above that the PCC must have views, this assumes that 'plant' parishes run on the same lines as other CofE parishes, but that isn't the case. What often happens is that an EGM is called and a new PCC is elected, stuffed full of people from the 'plant' - that is if those on the PCC at the time of planting haven't already resigned and been replaced by those prepared to put up with the plant.

And, as has been noted above, the actions of bishops in inviting in 'plants' can be questionable, to say the least.But this is what the new 'mission-shaped' CofE is all about, eh?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There speaks the Puritan ...

[Biased] [Razz]

The point is, nobody seems to have had an issue with classical concerts being held at St Sepulchre's in the past. I doubt if the HTB types would have that much of a problem with it either unless it happened to cause practical difficulties in terms of the use of the space.

It so happens that the only concert I've attended at St Sepulchre's was a performance of Rachmaninov's setting of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

Of course, such a performance takes the music completely out of context - it wasn't in the setting of an actual Orthodox Liturgy. It was a performance not a eucharistic service.

One could lay the same charge at performances of Bach's cantatas or works by Byrd or Tallis.

These are performances of 'sacred music' but not actual acts of worship per se. Of course, nobody would object to the use of this music in an actual worship context, but even there some difficulties might arise.

I've teased ExclamationMark on Puritanism, but it is certainly an issue and not one confined to HTB-style churchmanship.

I've known Orthodox folk bemoan the hiring of professional singers who aren't necessarily Christians let alone Orthodox to form the choir in some parishes. In one instance I've heard of a Welsh choir who were called in to sing with the Greek words set out phonetically for them to follow ...

[Roll Eyes]

But in the case of St Sepulchre's, I'd have thought it wasn't beyond the wit of man to come up with some kind of solution that would satisfy all parties involved ... but people being people ... that's easier said than done.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Interesting note in those earlier accounts: "We are beginning to explore ways of building on the strong relationships we have with many hirers to draw members of our wider community into the life of the church more generally".

It does rather point to a number of organisations sharing the use of the building.
Yes - so what led to the apparent change of policy between 2016 and 2017?

[ 23. August 2017, 12:46: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Viola (# 20) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Interesting note in those earlier accounts: "We are beginning to explore ways of building on the strong relationships we have with many hirers to draw members of our wider community into the life of the church more generally".

It does rather point to a number of organisations sharing the use of the building.
Yes - so what led to the apparent change of policy between 2016 and 2017?
John Rutter CBE, composer familiar to any parish which still has a choir, reckons the timing might have had something to do with the resignation of the previous Bishop of London. (Telegraph article)

Two articles in The Guardian today (one a letter signed by an amazing role call of today's top classical musicians - many of them known to be devout Christians) put the musicians' point of view pretty well.

Guardian article

Letter

[ 23. August 2017, 18:06: Message edited by: Viola ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
We have recently signed a deal committing us to host some university concerts for the next 10 years.

We don't see it as misuse of our buiilding but as part of our outreach - we get people turning up to serbices who'd first been to a concert and who now see it as 'their church'.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed. On a much smaller scale, Our Place is hosting a secular 'community concert' later this year, in connection with the nearby Community Centre, as our church is more capacious, and has much better acoustics, than the CC hall.

IJ
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But in the case of St Sepulchre's, I'd have thought it wasn't beyond the wit of man to come up with some kind of solution that would satisfy all parties involved ... but people being people ... that's easier said than done.

Well you could see it from another POV. Lots of other empty churches around who would be happy to accommodate the concerts!

Without knowing any more than has already been made clear, ISTM that it demonstrates the difficulty of expression a church's mission where you have competing priorities. It's made worse in this case by history and by the outside funding of certain activities at the church which may or may not be compatible with the essential aims of the Christian church.

From my own POV, I have no problems with a secular concert in a church building. The real issue comes when the decision has to be made over complicating events or priorities. Of course, I'd probably set the conflict bar in rather a different place from others - as in many things YMMV.

It's not quite the same as "new Vicar kicks Yoga class out of church hall" but it's along that continuum.

As a matter of record, the only groups I've personally had to disinvite fro using church premises were church ones. A couple because they didn't respect the fabric of the building and an internal one who were very unhealthy indeed.

[ 24. August 2017, 06:38: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[It's made worse in this case by history and by the outside funding of certain activities at the church which may or may not be compatible with the essential aims of the Christian church.

I think one of the questions which may have to be asked in these sorts of situation is whether the church is able to interact with the user-groups in any meaningful way from the point of view of mission/evangelism. Sometimes this is possible; often not - especially if this means a change to the way things have always been.

Of course there is also a point of view which say that (virtually) any activity which "brings people into the church [building]" or "makes it a centre for the community" or simply provides income is a Good Thing. It does seem to me here that there is a fundamental change going on in the church from a "traditional Anglican" mindset to one which in many ways is more Nonconformist or even sectarian (in the sociological sense).

[ 24. August 2017, 07:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I think that's the case.

And I broadly agree with what ExclamationMark is saying too ...

However, I think there are particular sensitivities here that wouldn't normally apply. St Sepulchre's has been seen as 'The Musicians' Church' for 70 years. That's more than 2 generations. Simply saying, 'Well, there's another empty barn-like church down the road, why don't you use that?' isn't going to go down very well.

I use one of the parish churches here for music concerts with a summer recital programme and other cultural events I help organise. There are sometimes tensions but I'm working with the current incumbent to resolve those and all the indications are positive so far. Arguably, the previous incumbent was far too free and easy and the current one is the opposite - so a happy medium will be reached somewhere.

But this is on a far smaller scale to what we've been talking about at St Sepulchre's.

Perhaps it wasn't practical given the current programme to scale things back rather than close the options down ... but it does seem rather drastic.

I'm all for intentionality and yes, worship and service should come first. I can well remember an extra-mural lecturer fuming and flustering during an architectural visit to an ancient parish church when I was a teenager (I used to go to his classes because I was interested in medieval stuff) because the vicar asked us all to sit quietly for a moment while he said the Lord's Prayer and reminded us that it was, first and foremost, a place dedicated to the worship of Almighty God ...

So, whilst I have no problems whatsoever with churches of whatever stripe being 'gathered' and intentional communities - in fact, that's what they OUGHT to be - there are ways of integrating/combining that with community use.

I suspect with St Sepulchre's it's been the scale of the concert operation that's been the problem, not the idea of concerts in and of themselves ... but then, I wouldn't at all be surprised if there's a Puritanical element creeping in alongside that too.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Just to say that there are some conversations going on wrt the St Sepulchre's issues. (A bit of a pain that this all broke during my holidays. So much for a quiet August!)
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Exclamation Mark
quote:
Whilst I am not an HTB fan, although I share their churchmanship, I can see that they would be keen to run things in their own way. That may or may not accommodate a group of classical musicians to whom the sacred nature of the building and perhaps even some of the music, is secondary to the art of the music itself.


How very dare you!

No musicians - singly or as a group - are trying to "run" things at St Sepulchre's: all they are seeking to do is (1) have memorial services for colleagues who have spent their lives using their God-given ability to not only entertain and inspire but, frequently, interpret and enhance the scriptures and sacred texts ad maiorem Dei gloriam (to the greater glory of God); and (2) give performances of works either settings of such sacred texts or interpreting events from old and new testaments.

I think you'll find that the sacred nature of the music is very well understood and felt by those performing it. I can also assure you that they are also keenly aware of the "sacred nature of the building" - in fact one of the complaints levelled at plants is that they frequently move into a church and set about a re-ordering with scant regard to the "nature of the building", disposing of furnishings such as traditional lecterns and altars without a care. And their wanton disposal of hymnals, psalters and other items of religious music (up to and including organs) is well documented.

It would seem you don't see there is anything to be celebrated about the musicians' art as being inspired by God? So you won't be singing Craftsman's art and music's measure for thy pleasure all combine any time soon (it comes from the well-known hymn 'Angel voices').

A pity that those of a so-called 'purist' bent seem unaware of the thoughts of Saint Augustine on the matter of music.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I am reluctant to get into a conversation where I lack much of the background knowledge about the players at Saint Sepulchre's, but I have had occasion to point out to clerics that, from the point of view of a pew-dweller, much religious content is conveyed through art (and music) and the gifts which artists (and musicians) can bring to us. Sometimes, much more so than wordiness and text and discussion.
 
Posted by Viola (# 20) on :
 
Another nice article on the subject in the Church Times here., echoing L'organist's (and my) outrage at this view that us classical musicians are all a bunch of heathen, trying to desecrate churches with our Handel oratorios, Bach masses & (heaven forbid) Beethoven symphonies.

A couple of days ago, I made the mistake of reading a comments thread on this story on the Premier Radio website. Luckily, I've now mislaid it, as I got quite cross about being described as a disciple of Lucifer and a hater of God. Singing & playing great music has taken me closer to belief & God than anything else, but unfortunately a lot of evangelical practices & attitudes (a strong 'them & us' mentality) sent me out again.

Some people, astonishingly, get as much spiritual food from rehearsing & performing (or listening to) great classical music, particularly when surrounded by inspiring architecture and a reverent atmosphere, as others do from the kind of service that has me running for the hills. But apparently we're wrong and shouldn't be allowed to pay for the privilege of having our groups in your churches.

Or that's how it feels, anyway.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I am a Baptist minister of fairly Evangelical bent; I am also someone who loves classical music, both sacred and secular (for example I found last week's Proms performance of Bach's St. John's Passion or the Rachmaninov concert with interpolations of Russian sacred music both glorious). I have sung in choirs and, on Sunday's "off", love nothing more than Choral Evensong in a Great Church or cathedral.

The churches I have served have, from time to time, hosted concerts and rehearsals (including, a couple of times, Andrew Carwood's group). There have also been occasions in my life when performances of music or dance in secular contexts (such as "The Protecting Veil" at Sadler's Wells) have been deeply spiritual experiences.

But I also like some modern worship music; although I agree that much of it is inane and repetitive, I believe that it "speaks to" many people. And, this week, my present church has run a children's Holiday Bible Club and I have enjoyed singing songs which, though highly appropriate for the occasion, might well make some "classical" musicians cringe.

Now, as a complete outsider to the current row, I can see that the way St. Sepulchre's has gone about things could well appear high-handed. One gets the impression that there was little or no consultation between the church leaders and the "user groups" before the letter was sent out. (Having said that, one wonders how practical it would have been to open a consultative process with so many disparate users).

Nevertheless I would say that a church should retain the right to decide what activities take place in its building; that they have to assess each activity in terms of their perceived mission; and that past tradition, while never being lightly dismissed, should not be the final arbiter of present practice. All this means that I have sympathy for both "sides" in this debate but, if pushed, would have to come down on the side of the church (even though I am no fan of HTB).

ISTM that the real issues that lie beneath this whole debacle are that on one hand we have the musicians, who very much feel that the church is, if not "theirs", at least their home of decades from which they are being "evicted"; and on the other hand we have a church leadership which has not only taken a radical change of direction but one with which the musicians are unhappy on aesthetic (and, in some cases, theological) grounds. I am not sure that this clash of cultures could ever be resolved amicably as the two groups seem to share so little common ground.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Exclamation Mark
quote:
Whilst I am not an HTB fan, although I share their churchmanship, I can see that they would be keen to run things in their own way. That may or may not accommodate a group of classical musicians to whom the sacred nature of the building and perhaps even some of the music, is secondary to the art of the music itself.


How very dare you!

No musicians - singly or as a group - are trying to "run" things at St Sepulchre's: all they are seeking to do is (1) have memorial services for colleagues who have spent their lives using their God-given ability to not only entertain and inspire but, frequently, interpret and enhance the scriptures and sacred texts ad maiorem Dei gloriam (to the greater glory of God); and (2) give performances of works either settings of such sacred texts or interpreting events from old and new testaments.

I think you'll find that the sacred nature of the music is very well understood and felt by those performing it. I can also assure you that they are also keenly aware of the "sacred nature of the building" - in fact one of the complaints levelled at plants is that they frequently move into a church and set about a re-ordering with scant regard to the "nature of the building", disposing of furnishings such as traditional lecterns and altars without a care. And their wanton disposal of hymnals, psalters and other items of religious music (up to and including organs) is well documented.

It would seem you don't see there is anything to be celebrated about the musicians' art as being inspired by God? So you won't be singing Craftsman's art and music's measure for thy pleasure all combine any time soon (it comes from the well-known hymn 'Angel voices').

A pity that those of a so-called 'purist' bent seem unaware of the thoughts of Saint Augustine on the matter of music.

Actually I was accusing HTB not the musicians. I am not an HTB fan, although I share their churchmanship, I can see that they would be keen to run things in their own way.

I was (rather clumsily I admit) pointing out some views I have come across over the years.

My own view is rather different - provided the buildings and people are treated with respect and there's nothing deleterious to the broad theme of Christian worship and understanding, then anyone and anything is welcome.

It does cut all ways. There is an expectancy in some churches that everything will have to be "sacred" and there's is also an expectancy in some who have used a building for a while that they can do anything they like, how they like, when they like. That cuts both ways too. I don't agree with either no least because I don't believe in a sacred/secular divide (Psalm 24:1).

It goes across the churchmanship too -- I've encountered Anglo Catholic Churches who won't allow joint youth services because they are too "charismatic."

I can't help but think that, on the basis of the information we have in the public domain, was that it was naïve at best for the Bishop to invite HTB to get involved. After all, they are hardly shrinking violets in the way they go about things.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It strikes me that this all may have a lot to do with (secular) musicians saying, "This is our church" and the PCC etc. saying, "Actually, it's ours!";

I tend to think it's a good thing if otherwise non-church goers feel a big emotional investment in a church building and I disagree with the finding expressed somewhere earlier (sorry - I'm bad at links) that those attending secular concerts in a church don't feel the love and presence of God. I went to concerts in churches through my childhood while being brought up atheist and my experience of those sacred spaces and music in them was probably part of what brought me to faith.

Surely anyone wanting to come through church doors to sit quietly and moderately reverently (during music or whatever) during which time they might look at the stained glass windows and feel some kind of spirituality is kind of a good thing?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yeah, I get that ...

However, I do wonder whether the Anglo-Catholic objection to the joint youth services you mention wasn't so much that they were 'charismatic' - some Anglo-Catholics are charismatic too, you know - but rather some pastoral concerns about the degree of manipulation and suggestibility involved in some of these types of service ...

So it might not simply be distaste at the style and churchmanship but a more pastoral and theological concern about the content and delivery ...

Incidentally, I noticed that my daughters were very sceptical of anything charismatic and full-on evangelical during their teenage years - and I don't think that was simply because their cynical old dad was moving away from all of that ...

They appeared to be able to 'see through it' in a more street-wise kind of way than I would have done when I was young and impressionable.

They went on a couple of church youth weekends away where emotional appeals and charismatic elements were introduced and they found it both cringe-worthy and unconvincing ...

'And it's like ... and it's like ... God is so awesome? Yeah? I mean ... it's like ... it's like this passage from the Bible? Isn't it just so amazing? yeah?'

Need I go on?

[Disappointed]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not tarring all evangelicals and charismatics with the same brush but there is a kind of Puritanical slash-and-burn thing going on in contemporary Anglican evangelical charismaticdom which I find very off-putting.

Rather than seeking to 'renew' or integrate some of the traditional stuff with their own particular expression or adapting it to adopt it, as it were - as Anglican charismatics tended to do in the past - they are chucking it all out and ending up with a mess of pottage that both lacks the gravitas of their own Anglican tradition on the one hand and lacks the authenticity of the older non-conformist traditions on the other.

For my money it ends up out of kilter on all counts.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
pete173 said earlier:

Just to say that there are some conversations going on wrt the St Sepulchre's issues

A salutary reminder that TPTB are aware, and that perhaps we don't indeed have the full story.

IJ
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Indeed.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Rather than seeking to 'renew' or integrate some of the traditional stuff with their own particular expression or adapting it to adopt it, as it were - as Anglican charismatics tended to do in the past - they are chucking it all out and ending up with a mess of pottage.

Although he was no charismatic, I remember reading a passage in "The Post-Evangelical Debate" by Michael Saward in which he unfavourably contrasted more modern forms of evangelicalism (well, 15-years-ago versions!) with his own form which was still rooted in the Anglican tradition.

[ 25. August 2017, 16:39: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A load of letters on the subject in the Guardian.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yeah, I get that ...

However, I do wonder whether the Anglo-Catholic objection to the joint youth services you mention wasn't so much that they were 'charismatic' - some Anglo-Catholics are charismatic too, you know - but rather some pastoral concerns about the degree of manipulation and suggestibility involved in some of these types of service ...

So it might not simply be distaste at the style and churchmanship but a more pastoral and theological concern about the content and delivery ...

Incidentally, I noticed that my daughters were very sceptical of anything charismatic and full-on evangelical during their teenage years - and I don't think that was simply because their cynical old dad was moving away from all of that ...

They appeared to be able to 'see through it' in a more street-wise kind of way than I would have done when I was young and impressionable.

They went on a couple of church youth weekends away where emotional appeals and charismatic elements were introduced and they found it both cringe-worthy and unconvincing ...

'And it's like ... and it's like ... God is so awesome? Yeah? I mean ... it's like ... it's like this passage from the Bible? Isn't it just so amazing? yeah?'

Need I go on?

[Disappointed]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not tarring all evangelicals and charismatics with the same brush but there is a kind of Puritanical slash-and-burn thing going on in contemporary Anglican evangelical charismaticdom which I find very off-putting.

Rather than seeking to 'renew' or integrate some of the traditional stuff with their own particular expression or adapting it to adopt it, as it were - as Anglican charismatics tended to do in the past - they are chucking it all out and ending up with a mess of pottage that both lacks the gravitas of their own Anglican tradition on the one hand and lacks the authenticity of the older non-conformist traditions on the other.

For my money it ends up out of kilter on all counts.

Yep my daughters were/are the same. I'd say my own way of looking at things is along the lines you suggest - less new wine and a little more historical. I must admit that I find most churches of the charismatic ilk rather identikit and lacking individuality. They get bums on seats which is what the denominations are looking for - the depth is more of an issue.

In this case though, it was an assumption about what was involved. The assumption (stirred up by a few of the congregation) was so far wide of the mark it was laughable.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I've had three church homes that were popular venues for secular musicians. Relations with the church folk were always cordial, and a few of the musicians actually wound up becoming members -- at least of our choirs, if not the actual congregations. I don't see a downside to opening up one's space for secular performances as long as the church gets some sort of reimbursement for light/power/ maintenance. (One church actually became the home of a local music society that paid monthly rent and, frankly, helped keep the lights on in an oversized, white- elephant building that was more trouble than it was worth but thst the congregation refused to leave.)
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
L'organist wrote:
quote:
Another plant, the Harbour Church in Portsmouth, is even stranger. There is no mention anywhere of communion and an enquiry about when a eucharist or communion service could be found was greeted with "we're not that kind of church". The website is heavy on Alpha, which they advertise with a fetching photograph of Bear Grylls.

Hmmm. I don't personally know anything about this church (not even in the same diocese) but looking at their website I get the impression it isn't intended to be a parish church. They are specifically targeting the un-churched and those who left the church. They also describe themselves as a "Resourcing Church" working with the existing parishes to reach the missing generation. That does suggest a rather different thing may be going on here. They are perhaps more a para-church organisation.

If they can reach those missing people and start bringing them up on more solid food, then pass them on to the parishes to grow them whilst the newcomers themselves bring their "oomph" (Thanks BF!), then is that a problem?

So many ifs of course. I recognise that. But if that's what they are aiming to do it might explain the "we're not that sort of church" comment.

(PS - as a singer I have both rehearsed and performed in concert at St. Sepulchre's. I'd be very sad to see it go, though more details please. I'm not sure its acoustics are that wondeful however.)
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
What bothers me about that approach, Honest Ron, is that well-intentioned outreach efforts like that end up becoming dislocated ...

I've heard of 'non-eucharistic' Fresh Expressions that believe that people are out off by communion and so they mess around down Starbucks instead ...

I've yet to o see a great deal of evidence that these things are channeling people into existing churches, they mostly seem to attract existing Christians who think they're being cool, trendy and radical.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
I do agree, Gamaliel - that would be my concern. On the other hand, I notice that one of their team is also a canon or minor canon, or whatever, at Portsmouth cathedral. So maybe that may help and be part of the deal.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
It would be useful to know a bit more about the facts. All the same I think I'm closer to Baptist Trainfan and Exclamation Mark than to L'Organist and Viola on this.

We have concerts etc here and encourage them, but there's all the difference in the world between doing something because it fits your strategy and where you think you want to go, and doing something because your church has ended up with a situation where a very large tail has been wagging what has become rather a small and enervated dog, and where it feels as though the tail thinks it is entitled to have the dog that happens to suit it.

We don't know how much parish life was left in the church before it linked up with HTB, but I'd suspect its lamp was flickering pretty feebly. Otherwise, HTB would not either have been called in or have spotted it as a good spot for an initiative.

If that assumption is correct, then we can say, that however convenient St Sepulchres might have been for the London musical establishment, as a church it no longer worked. So objectively one can hardly complain if the diocese, the area dean or the PCC decided that something needed to change drastically. If the downside of that is that eventually the relationship between the church and the musical establishment has to take second place to the church's belief as to what its own mission should be, then one has to accept that.

Whether that relationship survives or breaks down completely may depend as much on whether the musical establishment does accept that, as on anything the incumbent does or does not do.

It isn't going to work if an amorphous group of people who are not members of the congregation, and do not play an active role in the Christian life of the church, however important those people may perceive themselves to be, tell the vicar and the active members of the congregation 'no, your mission shouldn't be what you think it is because it doesn't suit us and we think we know best'.

Whether it the kingdom of heaven ends up being enlarged or not, we can only wait and see. There's an interesting parallel with the abrasiveness and aggressive controversiality of many of the nineteenth century 'heroes of Anglo-Catholocism', people like Alexander MacKonochie.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Could you elucidate that last point, it sounds intriguing!
 
Posted by Captain Smith (# 18825) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

We don't know how much parish life was left in the church before it linked up with HTB, but I'd suspect its lamp was flickering pretty feebly. Otherwise, HTB would not either have been called in or have spotted it as a good spot for an initiative.

If that assumption is correct, then we can say, that however convenient St Sepulchres might have been for the London musical establishment, as a church it no longer worked. So objectively one can hardly complain if the diocese, the area dean or the PCC decided that something needed to change drastically. If the downside of that is that eventually the relationship between the church and the musical establishment has to take second place to the church's belief as to what its own mission should be, then one has to accept that.


 
Posted by Captain Smith (# 18825) on :
 
The church was financially viable for a number of years prior to the HTB plant in 2013, not least because of venue hire which was mainly for rehearsals and concerts thereby fulfilling its mission to musicians. The diocese was therefore sufficiently confident to grant funds to reorder the east end, replace the heating system and provide humane toilet facilities amongst other things.

By 2013 the makeup of the PCC strongly reflected the stakeholders in the parish: the parish clerk and lay chair were both bellringers and roughly half of the membership were musicians, mainly members of the church choir.

Rev Ingall wrote to the PCC after his licensing (which none of the PCC or congregation had been invited to attend) saying that he didn't see any incompatibility between his ministry and the existing activities, i.e. mainly concerts and rehearsals. While the recent letter to hirers is largely framed in terms of practical use of the building that's really a matter of the daytime use: the comparatively large office staff use part of the main body of the church for their work which is mainly to do with administering Alpha courses.

For over three years they've been able to coexist with professional ensembles rehearsing on weekdays but for some reason they no longer can. There are spaces in the church which could be utilised as office space but for some reason those spaces can't be reconfigured even though the income from retaining the hire business would pay for the work. As for evening hires, the last accounts deposited with the Charity Commission don't indicate plans to increase Alpha and/or other courses to the extent that they'd cut across the existing hire programme.

The sudden change in policy suggests the decision was made for something other than purely practical reasons. While the PCC and incumbent naturally have discretion to make such decisions they are only temporary custodians of the building and have a responsibility to be honest with their stakeholders who extend beyond the immediate worship community. I don't think their public statements to date have fulfilled that obligation.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It would be useful to know a bit more about the facts. All the same I think I'm closer to Baptist Trainfan and Exclamation Mark than to L'Organist and Viola on this.

We have concerts etc here and encourage them, but there's all the difference in the world between doing something because it fits your strategy and where you think you want to go, and doing something because your church has ended up with a situation where a very large tail has been wagging what has become rather a small and enervated dog, and where it feels as though the tail thinks it is entitled to have the dog that happens to suit it.

We don't know how much parish life was left in the church before it linked up with HTB, but I'd suspect its lamp was flickering pretty feebly. Otherwise, HTB would not either have been called in or have spotted it as a good spot for an initiative.

I've no real knowledge of the situation, but I have enough knowledge of organizational life to wonder if it be less a matter of a feebly flickering lamp (and there is, of course, a matter of subjectivity; one person's feeble flicker is another's brave and steadfast witness) than a matter of organizational reach and expansion, and trying to prove a political point. I have been in parishes where things collapsed owing to a dreadful mix of personal and programme ambition.

Reading through the details, it looks a bit too untidy to allow for a simple explanation.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Could you elucidate that last point, it sounds intriguing!

The people that more recent Anglo-Catholics have regarded as heroes of the faith were introducing major innovations. They got very steamed up about making changes which really stuck in the craw of prevailing religious sensibilities. Fancy vestments, fancy rituals etc. went profoundly against what sturdy Protestant Englishmen understood the Church of England had been about for the past 300 years.

Many of their practices were undoubtedly illegal. There was frequent litigation to determine which ones were illegal and which weren't. They would not obey their bishops when they were told to stop. Although claiming to be doing this in the name of a more Catholic understanding of praxis, they insisted on a very Protestant interpretation of conscience, or at least so far as it concerned their consciences rather than anyone else's.

In those days, once inducted, a CofE clergyman was not restrained by having to work with their PCC. Many of them took a conscious pride in introducing their practices even though they knew what they were doing was deeply offensive to many of their flock, and often to their bishop. They 'knew best' and were not reticent in saying so. One can tell that some took a delight in getting up their bishop's nose.

It's where the idea comes from that one can often see reflected in these threads, particularly on the Ecclesiantics board, that 'our little group' knows how to do liturgy properly and nobody else does, and likewise, the sense that minor matters of detail really really matter.

So the concept that a self-identifying group of spiritual shock troops being energetic for the house of the Lord, but putting a lot of peoples' backs up, probably unnecessarily, at the same time, is nothing new.

They did much good work, particularly in slum parishes, but even there, they were not the first in the way that Anglo-Catholic history likes to tell us. Some years ago there was an episode of Who do you think you are? where a well known actress (but I can't remember who) found that one of her ancestors had been a formidably active and admired London slum parson in the early C19, a generation before the Oxford Movement.

And were the dockers and coal heavers of London's east end really all that interested in whether the sacrament was reserved, how many candles there were on the altar, or where the celebrant stood when consecrating the elements, rather than that here were people who were interested in them and prepared to sweat for them?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've yet to o see a great deal of evidence that these things are channeling people into existing churches, they mostly seem to attract existing Christians who think they're being cool, trendy and radical.

There isn't any evidence because they aren't doing it. As you rightly say, it's simply a matter of reorganisation - attracting people who think its cool and trendy.

Who wants to hear about a guy dying who asks you to do the same?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, which is one reason I feel increasingly estranged from that side of things ...

But then, there are different problems in different quarters ...
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Smith:
The church was financially viable for a number of years prior to the HTB plant in 2013, not least because of venue hire which was mainly for rehearsals and concerts thereby fulfilling its mission to musicians. The diocese was therefore sufficiently confident to grant funds to reorder the east end, replace the heating system and provide humane toilet facilities amongst other things.

By 2013 the makeup of the PCC strongly reflected the stakeholders in the parish: the parish clerk and lay chair were both bellringers and roughly half of the membership were musicians, mainly members of the church choir.

Rev Ingall wrote to the PCC after his licensing (which none of the PCC or congregation had been invited to attend) saying that he didn't see any incompatibility between his ministry and the existing activities, i.e. mainly concerts and rehearsals. While the recent letter to hirers is largely framed in terms of practical use of the building that's really a matter of the daytime use: the comparatively large office staff use part of the main body of the church for their work which is mainly to do with administering Alpha courses.

For over three years they've been able to coexist with professional ensembles rehearsing on weekdays but for some reason they no longer can. There are spaces in the church which could be utilised as office space but for some reason those spaces can't be reconfigured even though the income from retaining the hire business would pay for the work. As for evening hires, the last accounts deposited with the Charity Commission don't indicate plans to increase Alpha and/or other courses to the extent that they'd cut across the existing hire programme.

The sudden change in policy suggests the decision was made for something other than purely practical reasons. While the PCC and incumbent naturally have discretion to make such decisions they are only temporary custodians of the building and have a responsibility to be honest with their stakeholders who extend beyond the immediate worship community. I don't think their public statements to date have fulfilled that obligation.

Captain Smith, that's interesting. Are you recounting this from personal knowledge or hearsay?

Unless the diocese of London is vastly different from everyone else, it's unusual these days for either a bishop or a patron to impose an incumbent without involving the PCC through nominated selectors. I've also never heard of a licensing in which the parish isn't closely involved.


Most of my experience is local to here, but I know of a parish in the Oxford diocese a few years ago where the patron was an ecclesiastical party organisation. The parish selectors put their foot down. After their first refusal of a 'party' appointment, they basically said they'd been so impressed with what the curate had been doing during the vacancy, that if the patron tried to appoint anyone else, they'd go on refusing until the patron backed down and appointed their curate. The patron did have the sense to back down. The man in question went on to have many years of successful ministry there.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, I thought it seemed odd that PCC and congregation weren't invited to the licensing. Might that be simply because it was taken as read that they all had a perfect right to be there, and therefore didn't require a formal invitation?

Speculation is, perhaps, and certainly in this case, pointless. And TPTB have intimated as much, albeit more obliquely.

IJ
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the music question, I still don't understand why anyone would want to bother planting into a City church with a tiny resident population, in an area that is not exactly under-churched.
Can anyone shed light on the thinking behind this? I thought plants were meant to be about reviving ministry and worship in areas where there were, or might be supposed to be, large numbers of unchurched people in need of the Gospel.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Because it's in Zone 1, natch!
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Because it's in Zone 1, natch!

which is?????
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Because it's in Zone 1, natch!

which is?????
Closer to the city than zone 2?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
London Underground zones - Zone 1 is the City and West End - HTB is in Zone 1, Whitechapel and Bethnal Green are in Zone 2, just.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
But - from the above - it seems that they still want to build a commuting congregation (?thus depriving other churches of possible congregants).
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Yes, I thought it seemed odd that PCC and congregation weren't invited to the licensing. Might that be simply because it was taken as read that they all had a perfect right to be there, and therefore didn't require a formal invitation?

Speculation is, perhaps, and certainly in this case, pointless. And TPTB have intimated as much, albeit more obliquely.

IJ

I hope nothing horrible is happening/has happened.

My own cynical speculation on first hearing this story and based on doing a concert in St Sepulchre's last November at which the grand piano nearly fell apart was that they were trying to find a way out of the enormous expense of fixing the piano (or buying a new one) given that it would be a prerequisite for hirings.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Unless the diocese of London is vastly different from everyone else, it's unusual these days for either a bishop or a patron to impose an incumbent without involving the PCC through nominated selectors. I've also never heard of a licensing in which the parish isn't closely involved.

Yes, but HTB appear to almost see themselves as a completely separate denomination outside the normal rules and structures of the Church of England.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Because it's in Zone 1, natch!

which is?????
Sorry... I was (quite wrongly and arrogantly anglo-centrically) assuming that people would be up to speed with Bishop Philip North's recent comments: "[The church-planting movement must] put the poor first rather than last . . . HTB, New Wine and many dioceses and denominations are developing church-planting strategies. But too many are aimed at the low-hanging fruit in fast-regenerating urban areas or university towns. I am astonished at the number of people Jesus is calling to plant new churches as long as they are in Zones 1 and 2 of the London transport system."
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
True in other towns and cities too, and in other denominations and church groupings. Well said, Bishop North.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, I wish Jesus would leave Zones 1 and 2 aside, and inspire someone (not HTB) to 'Come over into Macedonia, and help us'....

We're not in Zones 1 or 2, but in one of the poorest parishes in the country - and the harvest is plentiful, though not by any means low-growing!

IJ
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
The trouble with low-growing fruit is that dogs p*** on it!
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Unless the diocese of London is vastly different from everyone else, it's unusual these days for either a bishop or a patron to impose an incumbent without involving the PCC through nominated selectors. I've also never heard of a licensing in which the parish isn't closely involved.

Yes, but HTB appear to almost see themselves as a completely separate denomination outside the normal rules and structures of the Church of England.
My CofE years are some time ago. But is there a custom of a bishop's appointment being permitted when a parish fails to appoint? Though I would've thought a parish of this sort would have wide and wonderful field to choose from, and no chance of failure to appoint through the usual channels.

Failures to appoint mainly seem to happen in a 'hard-to-sell' parish - or somewhere with serious past or potential 'difficulties'. But I don't know how, if at all, this operates in the CofE.

And even with a bishop's appointment, doesn't the invitation to the licensing issue from 'The Pcc and Parish of Wherever it is', anyway? Or from whoever the church governing body is?

It all sounds very complicated at St Sepulchre's! I hope they can resolve things productively to satisfy as many parties as possible. What a shame - and terrible witness - it would be if it all went tits up (so to speak!).
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
My CofE years are some time ago. But is there a custom of a bishop's appointment being permitted when a parish fails to appoint? Though I would've thought a parish of this sort would have wide and wonderful field to choose from, and no chance of failure to appoint through the usual channels.

Failures to appoint mainly seem to happen in a 'hard-to-sell' parish - or somewhere with serious past or potential 'difficulties'. But I don't know how, if at all, this operates in the CofE.

I did a bit of poking around. This is nearly right.

Normally, the patron of the parish 'presents' someone to have the tenure of the benefice. Both the Bishop and the Parish Representatives, two people elected by the PCC, can refuse such a candidate.

If no acceptable candidate is presented within 9 months of the benefice falling vacant, then the right of presentation moves to the archbishop of the province.

However, responsibility for the benefice remains with the bishop, who can appoint a priest-in-charge. It seems that this should normally be close to the normal procedure, with the PCC and patron at least consulted.

I think that a significant change in circumstances is one case when even an agreed person is appointed as priest-in-charge. One reason for this is that the bishop can withdraw the licence relatively easily. Shifting the incumbent with tenure if things have not gone well is harder.

quote:
And even with a bishop's appointment, doesn't the invitation to the licensing issue from 'The Pcc and Parish of Wherever it is', anyway? Or from whoever the church governing body is?

Indeed. Firstly it is the bishop's responsibility to inform the churchwardens (who are the bishops officers in the parish) and PCC of his intention to license the individual. I would think it would be invalid for this to take place without the presence of at least the church wardens.

When I have received invitations to the installation of a new parish priest, it has been from, I think, "The Churchwardens and PCC of the Parish of X".

I do not think that there is any evidence in this that HTB have been acting "outside the normal rules and structures of the Church of England", unlike some others...
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Partly right. Though now a Priest in Charge has as much security as an Incumbent under Common Tenure, so that bit isn't really accurate.

The appointment at St Sep's was done by +Richard as a way of revitalising the parish.

Robust discussions continue.
 
Posted by Captain Smith (# 18825) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Captain Smith, that's interesting. Are you recounting this from personal knowledge or hearsay?

Unless the diocese of London is vastly different from everyone else, it's unusual these days for either a bishop or a patron to impose an incumbent without involving the PCC through nominated selectors. I've also never heard of a licensing in which the parish isn't closely involved.

I'm there all the time, I'm buried under the South Aisle so I don't miss much.

The parish was in interregnum at the time of the plant but, as I stated earlier, financially viable. With the support of the diocese it was working on a proposal to further its mission to musicians with the involvement an honorary chaplain in view of the general lack of priests.

Out of the blue the Archdeacon wrote to the PCC a few days before the 2013 APCM to scrap that approach by introducing Rev Ingall who was at the time a spare curate at the HTB mothership, rather in need of a job. It was purely an imposition from the diocese: the patrons were not consulted and regardless of what feelings they might have had about HTB they weren't happy about the process.

The PCC conducted a constructive dialogue with Rev Ingall so they were content with him as a candidate, but were unhappy that process wasn't being followed and so challenged the diocese. This led to the diocese working around the PCC by licensing Rev Ingall in private: the PCC were not informed when the ceremony was happening and thus were denied the opportunity to attend.

The first the PCC knew about the appointment was an announcement on Twitter followed by a letter from the newly appointed Priest in Charge. The Bishop brushed the PCC's subsequent complaint about the diocese's actions with the breezy observation that 'no process is perfect'. It's looking very much as though that casual attitude has returned to bite the Church.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Smith:
The parish was in interregnum at the time of the plant but, as I stated earlier, financially viable. With the support of the diocese it was working on a proposal to further its mission to musicians with the involvement an honorary chaplain in view of the general lack of priests.

Out of the blue the Archdeacon wrote to the PCC a few days before the 2013 APCM to scrap that approach by introducing Rev Ingall who was at the time a spare curate at the HTB mothership, rather in need of a job. It was purely an imposition from the diocese: the patrons were not consulted and regardless of what feelings they might have had about HTB they weren't happy about the process.

The PCC conducted a constructive dialogue with Rev Ingall so they were content with him as a candidate, but were unhappy that process wasn't being followed and so challenged the diocese. This led to the diocese working around the PCC by licensing Rev Ingall in private: the PCC were not informed when the ceremony was happening and thus were denied the opportunity to attend.

The first the PCC knew about the appointment was an announcement on Twitter followed by a letter from the newly appointed Priest in Charge. The Bishop brushed the PCC's subsequent complaint about the diocese's actions with the breezy observation that 'no process is perfect'. It's looking very much as though that casual attitude has returned to bite the Church.

Hmmmm there seem to be quite a few strands to this story which are now unfolding (I'm assuming all we are hearing and reading is true).

Looking at the accounts, the parish was viable but only with the restricted funding for the music ministry and with concert/other income. On giving alone the church budget didn't balance - strange then that the powers that be (Archdeacon and/or Bishop) didn't play to the church's strength and history but sought to take things off in a very new direction which carried the danger of the explosion we're now seeing.

A strange decision given the nature of London church going and the presence of other HTB type churches nearby.

I must admit I'm feeling more sympathetic with the Rector now and less keen on those who made the decision to appoint. Not only have they seemingly taken steps to move the church in a certain way (and goodness only knows why the Bishop threw his lot in with it), they have abused process to accommodate it - if what Capt. Smith says is true.

Capt. Smith does seem to know an awful lot about what went/is going on .... can we distinguish, fact, interpretation of fact and fiction of fact here?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Had I been Rev. Ingall, I wouldn't have touched the job. But then I work in a tradition where congregational involvement is fundamental.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Had I been Rev. Ingall, I wouldn't have touched the job. But then I work in a tradition where congregational involvement is fundamental.

I expect Rev Ingall felt God was calling him and he needed to take on this role no matter how hard it might be. I'm sure everyone involved is doing what they think is for the best - it's just that they don't agree on what that is. *Sigh*
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, as pete173 says, robust discussions continue (and he of all people should know).

Hopefully, the musicians' concerns will be sorted out satisfactorily, and the congregation will continue to flourish.

IJ
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
We will await!
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:


Looking at the accounts, the parish was viable but only with the restricted funding for the music ministry and with concert/other income. On giving alone the church budget didn't balance.

But that's not normally a problem in the CofE, is it? There must be a lot of small CofE congregations that can't support their building or mission primarily out of their own pockets. The denomination seems to deal with that in most cases.

Some churches have a strong evangelistic impact, or are willing and able to reorganise themselves on less expensive lines. But for many ordinary congregations it's highly sensible for them to look to maximise the income they receive from outside sources. As congregations age and decline that's a strategy for survival.

I suppose London is different, though. I don't know anything about this particular situation, but ISTM that churchy people (or maybe it's just the bishops?) down there might see the lively, growing congregations in the vicinity and want a bit of that action. Just pulling in the rent, serving the community and keeping things chugging along doesn't cut it.

[ 29. August 2017, 12:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Just pulling in the rent, serving the community and keeping things chugging along

Sounds like the quintessence of Anglicanism to me tbh.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, that's Our Place - with the not unimportant addition of sacrificial giving from our (small) congregation, not all of whom are 'waged'. The same applies in many other small parishes, too, I guess.

BTW, perhaps 'celebrating the Sacraments' might be a better phrase than 'just chugging along'.

IJ
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Yes, that's Our Place - with the not unimportant addition of sacrificial giving from our (small) congregation, not all of whom are 'waged'. The same applies in many other small parishes, too, I guess.

BTW, perhaps 'celebrating the Sacraments' might be a better phrase than 'just chugging along'.

IJ

I thought the vague implication of steam engines had a nice Anglican flavour actually. How about "chugging along celebrating the Sacraments" as a compromise?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I thought it was only the Vatican which had white smoke coming out of the chimney (and only once every few years ...).
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well yes - and some posters here would have us believe that the C of E is rapidly running out of steam, anyway!

Sometimes, indeed, I do feel that we are chugging along, but I think the celebration of the Sacraments, whilst so chugging, is vitally important. Apart from anything else, it's what Our Lord commanded us to do. No disrespect to HTB and their like, but they do sometimes appear to be selling a 'feel-good' religion that doesn't have much to do with real life in the backstreets or rural wastes..

IJ
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

A strange decision given the nature of London church going and the presence of other HTB type churches nearby.

I must admit I'm feeling more sympathetic with the Rector now and less keen on those who made the decision to appoint. Not only have they seemingly taken steps to move the church in a certain way (and goodness only knows why the Bishop threw his lot in with it), they have abused process to accommodate it - if what Capt. Smith says is true.

You refer to 'those who made the decision to appoint' and the "bishop who threw his lot in with it". Surely the bishop must have been one of the "those"? HTB, being in the Kensington Area, has no particular leverage on the Archdeacon for the Two Cities Area.

It is not the case there are many other HTB type churches nearby. It so happens that I have recently done a small research project for which I needed to crudely classify parishes in the London Diocese. St Sepulchre's is the only "charismatic" (note quotes) parish in the City Deanery, and there are only three others in the whole of the Two Cities area. St George's Holborn, involved with the plant to St Sepulchre's, is, I think, the nearest church of that type to St Sepulchre's. It is over a mile away, and in the opposite direction to the City of London.

I imagine that the vision for the plant is to have a centre for Alpha readily accessible to those working in the City. Thus the issue with weekday use of the building.

The type of church which is spreading in the City is that of the Conservative Evangelicals. They have their mother ship of St Helen's Bishopsgate, of course.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
[QUOTE]You refer to 'those who made the decision to appoint' and the "bishop who threw his lot in with it". Surely the bishop must have been one of the "those"? HTB, being in the Kensington Area, has no particular leverage on the Archdeacon for the Two Cities Area.

It is not the case there are many other HTB type churches nearby. It so happens that I have recently done a small research project for which I needed to crudely classify parishes in the London Diocese. St Sepulchre's is the only "charismatic" (note quotes) parish in the City Deanery, and there are only three others in the whole of the Two Cities area. St George's Holborn, involved with the plant to St Sepulchre's, is, I think, the nearest church of that type to St Sepulchre's. It is over a mile away, and in the opposite direction to the City of London.

I imagine that the vision for the plant is to have a centre for Alpha readily accessible to those working in the City. Thus the issue with weekday use of the building.

The type of church which is spreading in the City is that of the Conservative Evangelicals. They have their mother ship of St Helen's Bishopsgate, of course.

Yes, that's right. It was a conscious strategic decision to try an HTB Plant in the City Deanery. Bishop Richard has always been committed to ecclesial bio-diversity. We have plants from Bishopsgate and S Martin in the Fields in the City. This was the first one from HTB.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:


I imagine that the vision for the plant is to have a centre for Alpha readily accessible to those working in the City. Thus the issue with weekday use of the building.

The type of church which is spreading in the City is that of the Conservative Evangelicals. They have their mother ship of St Helen's Bishopsgate, of course.

*tangent alert*

What is the difference between HTB and conservative evangelical at St Helen's Bishopsgate? I thought they were quite similar?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
@pete173, it's interesting to hear of a plant from St. Martin-in-the-Fields, a 'traditional', yet inclusive, Anglican church par excellence!

Is it at St. Stephen, Walbrook, by any chance?

IJ
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Far be it from me to question the judgement of such a notable Prince of the Church as + Richard Londin of blessed memory (and that is not intended as a sarcastic description), but why was diversity in the City Deanery considered to be worth pursuing? After all, pretty much nobody who worships at a City church lives round there, and if you're travelling in from Hammersmith or Hampstead or wherever, you might as well go straight to HTB or SMiF or St Helen's Bishopgate (which actually is in the City already) as to one of their City plants. Couldn't the energy and effort involved in the plants have been better used elsewhere?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps, but I get the impression that some, at least, of these activities are aimed at those who work in the City, rather than live there. Hence HTB and The Blessed Alpha Course!

IJ
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Hmph.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Quite.

I didn't mean to imply that that was necessarily a Good Thing! I should have thought that those working in the City had enough to do, anyway, and that a brief lunch-time/after work Eucharist (or prayer service, or meditation, or music recital) was as much as they could cope with...

IJ
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Indeed- tho' let the Gospel be preached wherever and however it can be, and God forbid that I should despise any sister or brother in Christ.
Still, I thought places like HTB were basically just full of City types and similar (stop staring out of the window, Welby, I'm talking to you) anyway.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
HTB is quite significantly a student church. I attended one September Sunday when they were gearing up for the new academic year. The back of HTB backs onto Princes Gardens which is surrounded by the main Imperial College halls of residence. Also in close proximity are the Royal Colleges of Music, Art and Organists. That block of South Kensington with the V&A, Science and Natural History Museums and Royal Albert Hall was given over to education and the arts in Victorian times.
 
Posted by Roman Cataholic (# 18736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:


I imagine that the vision for the plant is to have a centre for Alpha readily accessible to those working in the City. Thus the issue with weekday use of the building.

The type of church which is spreading in the City is that of the Conservative Evangelicals. They have their mother ship of St Helen's Bishopsgate, of course.

*tangent alert*

What is the difference between HTB and conservative evangelical at St Helen's Bishopsgate? I thought they were quite similar?

St Helens is Cessationist
HTB is Charismatic

Very very different styles of worship and theological approaches.

[ 29. August 2017, 23:20: Message edited by: Roman Cataholic ]
 
Posted by Captain Smith (# 18825) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Hmmmm there seem to be quite a few strands to this story which are now unfolding (I'm assuming all we are hearing and reading is true).

Looking at the accounts, the parish was viable but only with the restricted funding for the music ministry and with concert/other income. On giving alone the church budget didn't balance - strange then that the powers that be (Archdeacon and/or Bishop) didn't play to the church's strength and history but sought to take things off in a very new direction which carried the danger of the explosion we're now seeing.

A strange decision given the nature of London church going and the presence of other HTB type churches nearby.

I must admit I'm feeling more sympathetic with the Rector now and less keen on those who made the decision to appoint. Not only have they seemingly taken steps to move the church in a certain way (and goodness only knows why the Bishop threw his lot in with it), they have abused process to accommodate it - if what Capt. Smith says is true.

Capt. Smith does seem to know an awful lot about what went/is going on .... can we distinguish, fact, interpretation of fact and fiction of fact here?

Dr Andrew Earis, a key PCC member and Director of Music before, during, and for a while after the HTB takeover, has written an 'official' insider's account of the goings on for this week's Church Times. That should settle a lot of the speculation around the matter.

I would caution against too much sympathy for the Rector: he's had well over three years in which to resolve any issues the HTB ministry has had with 'non-religious hiring'. A day or two after his installation, so with the benefit of a fait accompli, he made a point of stating to the PCC that he didn't see any incompatibility between that and his new ministry.

The practical reasons cited for the cessation of daytime rehearsal hires could be worked around by reconfiguring some of the space in the church which is currently unused, and there is no obvious contention for the church space in the evenings unless some hitherto unexpectedly massive increase in provision for Alpha courses (or youth events involving cage football) is planned.

Since a coherent account of the HTB putsch will be published shortly I probably don't need to say anything for a while. Watch this space, as they say.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes, but we don't all get the Church Times, and its online articles are behind a paywall, I believe.

[ 30. August 2017, 05:55: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
@pete173, it's interesting to hear of a plant from St. Martin-in-the-Fields, a 'traditional', yet inclusive, Anglican church par excellence!

Is it at St. Stephen, Walbrook, by any chance?

IJ

Yes, Walbrook. We're up for planting by all sorts and conditions.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:

St Helens is Cessationist
HTB is Charismatic

Very very different styles of worship and theological approaches.

I did not know that (and I had to Google Cessationist). I have learned something - thank you. I'm a chugging along celebrating the Sacraments kind of Anglican as is probably fairly apparent so I don't always get the nuance.
 
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :
 
I also had to google Cessationist, and I also have learned something. I knew that the view that miracles ceased with the apostles was one that was observed by some, but did not know it had a name, never mind so many online links!
Ship of Fools, always educating!
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Far be it from me to question the judgement of such a notable Prince of the Church as + Richard Londin of blessed memory (and that is not intended as a sarcastic description), but why was diversity in the City Deanery considered to be worth pursuing? After all, pretty much nobody who worships at a City church lives round there, and if you're travelling in from Hammersmith or Hampstead or wherever, you might as well go straight to HTB or SMiF or St Helen's Bishopgate (which actually is in the City already) as to one of their City plants. Couldn't the energy and effort involved in the plants have been better used elsewhere?

Interestingly, and I have many friends in the City, AIUI one of the key growth areas (in so far as anything is growing) is attendance at lunchtime/evening services close to place of work in the week, rather than going to what's near your house on a Sunday.

This also seems to map over onto what's found with Fresh Expressions to an extent. So I can see that an evangelical church with an intensive weekday programme might actually be a goer.

There's a question, therefore, whether it should have been *this* church that was selected to do that, given its longstanding intensive usage for non-evangelical-centred activities. But I'm not sure it's right to say that people that go to it would go somewhere closer to home otherwise.

Bluntly, and to be absolutely reductive, it looks like one intensive special interest group supplanting another.

You'll know I'm as far from that end of the candle as they come, but I can well believe they're running short of time slots to do what they want to do in their own building.

Before that sounds *too* supportive of one party over the other, I did say it raises the question of whether this was the *right* church therefore to plant in. However, I'm sure there was some method in the decision making.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
Many of my Oxford friends (as an addition to the above) are in the city these days and previously thronged St Aldates and St Ebbes. I can believe that this sort of thing on their doorstep (and in the City even a mile can seem like the other side of the earth, so they're not all going to rush to Bishopsgate) would be right up their street.

I was a Puseyite, so would be running from them all!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
betjemaniac said:

Interestingly, and I have many friends in the City, AIUI one of the key growth areas (in so far as anything is growing) is attendance at lunchtime/evening services close to place of work in the week, rather than going to what's near your house on a Sunday.

This chimes in with Our Place's experience. We have in our parish some new housing developments (flats, mostly), many of whose inhabitants don't
actually live there. They work away from the town, mostly in London AFAIK, come back to sleep, and spend the weekends in the country cottage, Prague, or where-have-you....

If, therefore, they are Christians, I can well believe that they may take an active part in the life of a City church on weekdays, perhaps occasionally going to another church on a Sunday if there happens to be one conveniently to hand.

IJ
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
[Q/B]



This chimes in with Our Place's experience. We have in our parish some new housing developments (flats, mostly), many of whose inhabitants don't
actually live there. They work away from the town, mostly in London AFAIK, come back to sleep, and spend the weekends in the country cottage, Prague, or where-have-you....
[/QB]

Now that's an interesting tangent - do you really think that if someone doesn't work where they live then they don't live there? Or is the country cottage a third location, rather than where they stay in the week?

[ 30. August 2017, 10:28: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, I was being rather tongue-in-cheek!

The sort of folk I'm referring to use their flat in our parish as a weeknight dormitory, spending their working week in the City, and their weekends in their country cottage, or wherever.

This means that they have no time or opportunity to enter into the life of the town or parish in which their flat is situated, IYSWIM. They may, however, be active in their City church during the week, be it an HTB plant or another...

IJ
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, I was being rather tongue-in-cheek!

The sort of folk I'm referring to use their flat in our parish as a weeknight dormitory, spending their working week in the City, and their weekends in their country cottage, or wherever.

This means that they have no time or opportunity to enter into the life of the town or parish in which their flat is situated, IYSWIM. They may, however, be active in their City church during the week, be it an HTB plant or another...

IJ

Got you - just checking!

I work 50 miles from my house...
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Just pulling in the rent, serving the community and keeping things chugging along

Sounds like the quintessence of Anglicanism to me tbh.
Yes, indeed.

But my question is whether chugging along (plus 'celebrating the Sacraments' as Bishop's Finger says) is deemed by the CofE hierarchy to be a sufficient expectation for churches in central London.

Out here in the provinces any church with as popular a musical programme as St Sepulchre's would be held up as a success, but ISTM that the stakes are higher in London. London contributes significantly to the CofE's stats for churchgoing, and the leadership is probably focusing on that to ensure that it continues.

That doesn't explain why this particular church has been chosen for special attention, but I suppose it hints at why there's no great regard for the church's portfolio of secular tenants.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cathscats:
I also had to google Cessationist

so did I
 
Posted by Roman Cataholic (# 18736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:

St Helens is Cessationist
HTB is Charismatic

Very very different styles of worship and theological approaches.

I did not know that (and I had to Google Cessationist). I have learned something - thank you. I'm a chugging along celebrating the Sacraments kind of Anglican as is probably fairly apparent so I don't always get the nuance.
It could be argued that Cessationist theology is anti-sacramental, for it denies the role of the Holy Spirit in the transformative nature and properties of the sacramental life.
As an 'celebrating the Sacraments kind of Anglican', you have more in common with HTB than you do with St Helen's.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
It could be argued that Cessationist theology is anti-sacramental, for it denies the role of the Holy Spirit in the transformative nature and properties of the sacramental life.

I don't really understand what you're saying here, sorry.

But I suspect that many Christians of the St Helen's Bishopsgate variety would probably regard Communion as little, if anything, more than a "memorial", i.e. they'd be closer to the Baptists than the Catholics in their understanding.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Or they would be sacramental within the meaning of the (1662) Prayer Book where the work of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments is about transformation in the life of the believing recipient rather than any other kind of change e.g. transubstantiation.
 
Posted by Roman Cataholic (# 18736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
It could be argued that Cessationist theology is anti-sacramental, for it denies the role of the Holy Spirit in the transformative nature and properties of the sacramental life.

I don't really understand what you're saying here, sorry.

But I suspect that many Christians of the St Helen's Bishopsgate variety would probably regard Communion as little, if anything, more than a "memorial", i.e. they'd be closer to the Baptists than the Catholics in their understanding.

Put it this way: Cessationists don't believe that the spiritual gifts of the Spirit are bestowed onto believers today, for they believe ceased after the apostolic age. If that were to be true, then there are no ontological changes occurring in the sacraments of Baptism and Ordination, or in the daily lives of Christian believers.
The sacraments are vehicles of change, in which the Holy Spirit becomes involved in the lives of the recipients.
HTB, being Charismatic and therefore open to the gifts of the Spirit, would have to be open to the idea that the Holy Spirit uses the Sacraments to change the lives of Christians.
St Helen's, being Cessationist would deny that God uses the Sacraments. The emphasis would have to be on the inward conscious change of a person who is formed by the Word of God instead.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
And yet both purport to be parts of the Church of England, which officially recognises two Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper), so one supposes that these are celebrated in some way at these places.

Using (of course) the same Anglican liturgies.
[Eek!]

Or not.
[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
Put it this way: Cessationists don't believe that the spiritual gifts of the Spirit are bestowed onto believers today, for they believe ceased after the apostolic age. If that were to be true, then there are no ontological changes occurring in the sacraments of Baptism and Ordination, or in the daily lives of Christian believers.
The sacraments are vehicles of change, in which the Holy Spirit becomes involved in the lives of the recipients...
St Helen's, being Cessationist would deny that God uses the Sacraments. The emphasis would have to be on the inward conscious change of a person who is formed by the Word of God instead.

As a cessationist, albeit a non-Anglican and non-Calvinistic one, I would say this is inaccurate. While it is correct to say that cessationists would say that spiritual gifts as listed in I Cor. 12 have ceased but that the Holy Spirit would change a person via the Word. Many, including myself, would agree that an ontological change does take place in baptism.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, Roman Cataholic, I think you'd find that neither HTB nor St Helen's, Billingsgate would have a particularly 'developed' sacramental theology, the opposite in fact.

In HTB type circles there tends to be a very low and memorialist approach to the eucharist and baptism would be seen as an 'outward sign' of inward grace as it were and with no ontological or salvific import beyond that of signifying intent.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I note that Roman Cataholic hasn't answered the question I put to him last week about who he knew the plans of the Bishop of bristol.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps that's because he wasn't privy to them, after all.

Least said, soonest mended, maybe?

IJ
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
And yet both purport to be parts of the Church of England, which officially recognises two Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper), so one supposes that these are celebrated in some way at these places.

Using (of course) the same Anglican liturgies.
[Eek!]

Or not.
[Paranoid]

IJ

I suspect that there are some churches at the other end of the candle who are equally likely to sail close to or over the line in regard to using those forms of service "authorised or allowed by canon". [Biased]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed there are, and I make no excuse for them.

IJ
 
Posted by Viola (# 20) on :
 
And there we are: Church Times article Caged football is OK, Mozart Requiem not so much.
 
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :
 
What a good article! And such a charitable challenge at the end of it.
But what struck me most was the picture of the interior, which I had never seen before. This is a building designed to invoke a sense of the numinous. Not all church buildings are designed for that purpose, some are really meeting halls, some are about the preaching and so on. This one is about the numinous, or so it seems to me, and that just from a picture. The spirituality of the building would be why it is a great space for its musical heritage.
But the idea of putting caged football into that space is horrendous. It would be practically difficult, I should think; but worse, the idea of it will nauseate those who have had experience of the holy in that space, and it will teach those who participate to be blind, deaf and insensitive to their surroundings. And that is an insensitivity which may well carry over into other aspects of life.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The Sunday 'plant' congregation in 2013 was 60 people. The MW Report of 23 July 2017 counted about 30 people...as the Church Times article speculates, the Sunday congo is shrinking, not growing.

Maybe the plant has, in fact, not been successful, and maybe, just maybe, a mistake has been made (even Bishops and HTB are not infallible!).

(O, and BTW, 'caged football' sounds like some sort of punishment in Hell).

IJ
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I note that Roman Cataholic hasn't answered the question I put to him last week about who he knew the plans of the Bishop of bristol.

That really sounds like it ought to be some ghastly euphemism:

So comrade: what did YOU know about the plans of the Bishop of Bristol?

Nothing comrade, nothing I swear!

We shall see about that - bring the cage and the rats!

OK - I've lost it - but it's Friday.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Or even the RACK!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE

Well, it is Friday.... [Big Grin]

IJ
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Remember: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! (Cue Sousa's "Liberty Bell").
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Well i think the comfy chair might well be among the tortures inflicted by the HTB inquisition. That and a smoothie bar.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Perhaps that's because he wasn't privy to them, after all.

Least said, soonest mended, maybe?

IJ

Perhaps he is playing knockdown ginger. Making myschievous statements then running away.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, and he's probably old enough to know better.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
The detail now emerging suggests that significant questions need to be asked of the Archdeacon and the Bishop of London. Knowing HTB's approach and track record, a great deal more care - and some cast iron guarantees about the future of the concerts - should have been exercised at the start.

It all seems strangely silent from that quarter as the HTB bashing is gaining traction.

I wonder what offers were made and assurances given to HTB at the start. The initiative did not come from them but from the Bishop. Equally, I wonder what was said to those who represent the classical music side of the church's ministry.

Perhaps this may serve as a salutary - and much needed lesson - of the care that needs to be taken when one church is "invited" to regenerate another. Perhaps it is better for the invitation to come from the church itself , who then go into the marriage with eyes wide open, rather than with any sniff of a shotgun wedding.

That approach has caused problems at St Sepulchres, as I am given to understand it is also doing in Central Plymouth.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Anglican or Baptist?
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
There's absolutely no lack of clarity about the terms on which the plant took place. The conversation that is now going on relates to the PCC's proposed policy change.

But we're not having those conversations in the public domain, which will only exacerbate the situation and provide further opportunity for false information to be circulated. I'm working to get a resolution on this when everyone is back in town.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Pete123, a difficult task, no doubt, ahead of you all. Sincerely, all the best wishes for a satisfactory outcome for all involved.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by pete173
quote:
But we're not having those conversations in the public domain, which will only exacerbate the situation and provide further opportunity for false information to be circulated. I'm working to get a resolution on this when everyone is back in town.
Since you're the acting bishop surely its up to you which conversations are "in the public domain"?

If my personal experience of HTB, and others of similar ilk, is anything to go by, you'd do well to curb your natural instincts to believe well of everyone and trust that they keep their word and put in place measures to ensure that every meeting is recorded verbatim - not in minute form but audio and/or video recorded. Moreover, it might be a good idea to bring in someone independent before any meetings to get together with the current Rector and give him a crash-course in music, music for the liturgy and writing for sacred texts - maybe call in a favour from your fellow old MT Bob Chilcott?

And I think serious questions need to be asked of anyone, lay or ordained, who thinks that cageball is suitable in a Grade I listed building. No doubt the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and the London Regiment would be thrilled to know that their old regimental colours were in danger of serious damage from flying footballs in the name of some spurious happy-clappy 'missional' activity.

And now we have yet another case of a 'missional' church upsetting the musical applecart at St Paul's Church in St Albans, where the vicar (no doubt an expert ?) has opined that it is best they dispense with their organ because "the time has come for us to modernise” and “electronic organs are very good. I'm sure the Diocesan Organ Adviser for St Albans (who happens to be the Cathedral Organist as well as a distinguished recitalist) will welcome the vicar's views...
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by pete173
quote:
But we're not having those conversations in the public domain, which will only exacerbate the situation and provide further opportunity for false information to be circulated. I'm working to get a resolution on this when everyone is back in town.
Since you're the acting bishop surely its up to you which conversations are "in the public domain"?


Yup.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Cage-football?

They'll introduce cage-wrestling next.

I'm surprised it hasn't happened already ...

Meanwhile [Overused] and [Votive] for pete173 and everyone else who has to mediate and sort out what looks to be like a god-awful mess on both sides ...
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I have yet to check it out but so far 2 friends have told me that an approach to St Sepulchre's to hold a memorial service for a deceased opera singer friend has met with a wall of resistance - even though said singer sang in the church in his student days and died a communicant member of the CofE.

Good luck pete173 - you have a mountain to climb.

[ 02. September 2017, 15:21: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, we shall see. It may be that TPTB will acknowledge that mistakes have been made, but I do wonder just how one might 'uproot' an unsuccessful church 'plant'.... [Confused]

IJ
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Meanwhile [Overused] and [Votive] for pete173 and everyone else who has to mediate and sort out what looks to be like a god-awful mess on both sides ...

Amen to that. Good luck!
 
Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :
 
Being a haggis of little brain and reading through all this discussion, I wonder if we are missing the central point and need to just ask one simple question.

What is a church for?

Is it a place of entertainment/music, allowing special groups to practice and perform in, even when these events clash with the wishes or the clergy/congregation, or a place where people come to worship God?

It seems to me, as a poor wee haggis with a northern brain, that a church is a place where a believing community go to worship God (you can do it anywhere, I know) and other activities should fit around the central acts of worship - whether that involves Mass, High Anglican worship, strict Baptist, Wee Free psalms, happy clappy charismatic noisy worship, Bible study, theology groups, kids clubs or whatever.

I've been in too many churches where musicians (some with no or dubious Christian beliefs) rule the roost and Christian worshipers are left out in the cold, their decisions over-ruled often by a musician who may not even be a member of the church. That's not right. A church is a church: a place for the worship of God.

Don't get me wrong, I love music and as a musician myself, see its importance in all areas of life.

The ROH would soon complain if HTB hired it for an event or series of events and then refused to leave in order to allow the RO or RB to perform and have first options of the use of their own building!

So what's the fuss? A church should firstly be a place of worship - not a concert hall or practice studio.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Bishops Finger
quote:
I do wonder just how one might 'uproot' an unsuccessful church 'plant'....

Sometimes one has to bow to the inevitable and use weedkiller. In this instance it seems that the incumbent has lied to some of the original congregation/worshippers at St Sepulchre's and that the plant staff continues to be economical with the truth now. I'm sure the plant collectors who first planted Himalayan Balsam thought they were introducing a pretty and useful plant - but now it is one of the worst invasive species in the UK.

posted by wild haggis
quote:
I've been in too many churches where musicians (some with no or dubious Christian beliefs) rule the roost and Christian worshipers are left out in the cold, their decisions over-ruled often by a musician who may not even be a member of the church. That's not right. A church is a church: a place for the worship of God.

Don't get me wrong, I love music and as a musician myself, see its importance in all areas of life.

First, I'd ask how you know that the musicians have "no or dubious" beliefs: have you asked them?

Second, what do you mean by a "member of the church": do you mean a member of the same denomination or someone who is an established worshipper before being asked to become involved with the music?

FYI any proper church musician will be someone of faith who has studied the use of music in the liturgy, who understands the role of music within worship and who has at the forefront of their mind that any musical offering must be there to enrich or enhance the act of worship. All if these issues should be covered at interview.

quote:
The ROH would soon complain if HTB hired it for an event or series of events and then refused to leave in order to allow the RO or RB to perform and have first options of the use of their own building!
A very good example indeed: St Sepulchre's has been the "musicians' church" for a very long time, pre-dating the current HTB style by decades.

At the time of the installation of the current Rector (the "planting", in other words) the role of St Sepulchre's as "The Musicians' Church" was specifically referred to and in the context that St Sepulchre's role as a place for concerts (largely of sacred music) and as a place where memorial services - proper liturgies with prayers, scriptural readings, etc - for musicians to be held was to be respected and preserved. It has not been the case that the wicked musicians have tried or are trying to stop the HTB plant from doing its thing, it is that the HTB people are trying to say to the original congregation, musicians, Parochial Church Council and groups which have been part of the scene at St Sepulchre's for decades that they are no longer welcome.

A better analogy would be to say that a homeowner (St Sepulchre's) was approached and asked to give a home to a lodger (HTB): this they agreed to do on the basis that the lodger be aware of the rules of the house; the lodger then proceeded to act more and more as if they held the title to the house, until finally they went behind the back of the homeowner to the Land Registry, registered the house as their own and then promptly gave the homeowner notice to quit.

quote:
So what's the fuss? A church should firstly be a place of worship - not a concert hall or practice studio.
And no musician - church or secular - is suggesting anything other than that the church remain a church. It is not the musicians who have been playing indoor football in this fine Grade I listed building, after all ...
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I think, Wild Haggis that a lot of the criticism is from bulls to whom the letters HTB (Holy Trinity Brompton) automatically drip with red, a crystallisation of everything they don’t like. It might have been different if the secular musicians were being cleared out so that St Sepulchre could be devoted to a church plant committed to the restoration of the first edition of the English Hymnal, with the correct introits etc and full Anglo-Catholic ceremonial.

As I said earlier on this thread, much of this reminds one of the sort of reaction there was to takeovers by anglo-catholics of advanced views in the nineteenth century, or in the era of the Anglo-Catholic Congresses in the 1920s.

Furthermore, although Cathscats might now see a church in classical style as ’numinous’ and speak of the ’spirituality of the building’, your typical C19 anglo-catholic activist would have detested its ‘pagan architecture’. Given half a chance, he (invariably he) would have knocked it down and replaced it by some brick gothic monstrosity. And if his name was Dearmer, the furnishings would have had to have been in his version of the best arts and crafts taste.

Incidentally, what do ROH, RO and RB stand for. Is it Royal Opera House, Royal Opera and Royal Ballet or is it something else? And in an earlier post, which of the various players in this saga does TPTB stand for. The initials doesn’t obviously fit with any of them?


I’m not that excited by aspects either of HTB or its plants. Yet despite that, I’m still not sure I’ve as much sympathy for the musicians as I possibly should have. I agree with you Wild Haggis, that the primary purpose for which a church building exists is to provide a place for a church to meet to worship God. Also, those activities that directly relate to that and to how it sees its mission (rather than what somebody else with an agenda of their own tells them how they’d like it to see its mission) should, and are entitled to, take priority over activities that however worthy, don’t.

And some of the things that have been said in this debate, I really don’t agree with. I quite often agree with Andrew Brown - though less so since he’s been collaborating with Professor Woodhead. But I do not agree with this statement of his in the Church Times a week or so ago.
quote:
“Lovers of classical music are, of course, a niche audience; but they are all, by definition, spiritual, even when they are not religious: people attentive to what a former missionary friend of mine calls “the thing that is true even if Christianity isn’t”.
Obviously the first statement is correct. “Lovers of classical music” are as much a niche audience as lovers of Hillsong. But the rest is tosh. It’s not being prepared to say this which is muddying the waters. Lovers of classical music are not "by definition" 'spiritual' in either the dictionary sense or any looser sense of any of those words. Appreciating art music no more gives a person a free pass into the kingdom of heaven than singing black gospel in a club, or, for that matter, stamp collecting or being able to distinguish Early English from Decorated.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
The whole thing is a vanity project, and deliberately, provocatively destructive: cage football is just a "balls to you and your classical music stuff that I don't understand" gesture.

Living round the corner from a similar project, I simply can't get away from the sound of Harry Enfield's character Loadsamoney. Having spent a large amount of money making the church round the corner from me into an audio-visual experience of which I have seen no practical community use, they have now purchased a pub. To what end I have no idea, but they certainly haven't advertised the purpose.

It simply feels like a massive expression of ecclesiastical vanity. Some bishops like that, even if they don't like the type of church that goes with it. Our allegedly catholic-minded bishop seems to be addicted.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
@Enoch - TPTB = The Powers That Be, in this case the Diocese of London. pete173 is Acting Bishop of London following +Richard Chartres' retirement earlier this year.

IJ
 
Posted by andras (# 2065) on :
 
What are churches for? It's one heck of a good question!

Historically, they were used for almost anything and everything. St Stephen's turned into the House of Commons, most mediaeval Welsh churches were also used as seats of Commote Courts, weekday schools were often held in them, and they provided useful market halls when the weather was bad, with only the tinkling of the Sanctus bell to remind people of the sacred moment of the Elevation of the Host.

Frankly I think we've got too precious about church buildings these days; the more different activities they can be used for, the better. Though I do think that I'd draw the line at cage football!
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Again, as ever there'll be two sides to the coin and there'll be pillocks among the HTB brigade and pillocks among the classical and sacred music buffs ...

I agree with Enoch, being a devotee of classical or sacred music does not in and of itself make someone more 'spiritual' ... but then again, farting around with cage football and audio-visual presentations, purchasing pubs because it seems to be the trendy thing to do and so on doesn't necessarily make one a cutting-edge evangelist either.

I'm sure there is an element of anti-HTB-itis here but there's a rawness in the reactions of L'Organist and some others that goes beyond that, I think ...

The issue, to me, boils down to a certain disingenuousness in the methods of some of these groups - a certain sleight of hand.

That isn't to say that everyone on the music-buff side is going to be whiter than the driven snow either ...

Which is why I have every sympathy and more for Pete173 and others whose onerous job it is to sort out the god-awful mess.

People are people and where there are people there are problems.

That's far more basic than introits or invasive species of evangelical ... it runs deep through each of our souls ... Solzhenitsyn said something like that ...
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

FYI any proper church musician will be someone of faith who has studied the use of music in the liturgy, who understands the role of music within worship and who has at the forefront of their mind that any musical offering must be there to enrich or enhance the act of worship. All if these issues should be covered at interview.

Well, that should be the case, but some slip through the net. I used to know a Lay Clerk at a cathedral (a bloody good counter-tenor as it goes) who was quite open about the fact he "didn't believe a word of it" and was only doing it for the money. I'd be very surprised if he was alone.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've known a few cathedral choristers who weren't at all clear about what Christians are supposed to believe ...
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I walked past the entrance to HTB on Brompton Road last night. For those who don't know, it is found up an alleyway between the Brompton Oratory and a disused tube station; the church buildings are tucked in behind the main road. It has been rebranded, with all the signs showing HTB, new flashy lower case logo, and references to htb.org, and not a lot else. Nary a mention of the CofE in the cluster of posters and signs, or church. A poster referring to "the best thing I did in my life" and a photo of possibly Bear Grylls. I couldn't see anything on the Alpha Course, which was what was being marketed last time I walked past.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
FYI any proper church musician will be someone of faith who has studied the use of music in the liturgy, who understands the role of music within worship and who has at the forefront of their mind that any musical offering must be there to enrich or enhance the act of worship. All if these issues should be covered at interview.

While I don't disagree, that sounds extremely disparaging of the huge number of churches whose music is provided by well-meaning and dedicated volunteers from the congregation who "do their best" (and sometimes that is very good) with the skills and abilities available to them.

[ 04. September 2017, 05:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:


1. First, I'd ask how you know that the musicians have "no or dubious" beliefs: have you asked them?

2. FYI any proper church musician will be someone of faith who has studied the use of music in the liturgy, who understands the role of music within worship and who has at the forefront of their mind that any musical offering must be there to enrich or enhance the act of worship. All if these issues should be covered at interview.

3. A better analogy would be to say that a homeowner (St Sepulchre's) was approached and asked to give a home to a lodger (HTB): this they agreed to do on the basis that the lodger be aware of the rules of the house; the lodger then proceeded to act more and more as if they held the title to the house, until finally they went behind the back of the homeowner to the Land Registry, registered the house as their own and then promptly gave the homeowner notice to quit.

1. Yes I have. There have been a significant number who either don't profess Christian beliefs or have a non creedal understanding of faith.

2. It depends what you mean by proper. I agree that an interview process is essential but what happens when you inherit a "non proper" attitude (as I have twice)?

3. The analogy is a good one but I'm not convinced by the implication of church groups being "lodgers" (it has a rather pejorative edge to it) nor do I think the picture works here.

Let's follow your analogy. The so called lodger has been invited in by the Land Registry themselves (Bishop and Archdeacon) to tidy up the house and make it attractive to new tenants. Thew LR know what the tenant is like - they are part of a community with a track record known behaviour. The lodger acts according to nature - with some due regard to circumstances (no feet on the chairs at first) - but soon settles in with the run of the place. Before you know it they've kicked the earnest discussions off the telly and are watching Top Gear and Football instead.

Those who know me irl will attest I hold no candle for htb's brand. I'm, admittedly, of a similar theological position but my guts heave at the dumbing down of "church" in their hands to get bums on seats. Not to say their dreadful Waitrose lite approach: no church plants on council estates for them.

That said, I've seen some abuses over the years from those who feel a sense of entitlement to use a building in such a way that precludes others. I don't have any issue with organs, choirs or music in church. I'm happy with concerts. What bothers me is two things in cases like this

Firstly, there's sniping from both sides as to what music is right. Some of it direct, other responses like those in the Church Times less direct but still passive-aggressive

Secondly, it was an issue you could see coming 4 years ago. The Leopard doesn't change his spots. Worship HTB style would hardly have been welcomed prior to the interregnum - why would anyone even think this could ever be a good mix? Why not, as in many other places, link the church in a joint benefice with another congregation of like mind?

Blame on all sides yes but the biggest questions to answer seem to me (at least) to lie with those who considered it a runner in the first place.

This is a high profile example but there are instances like this elsewhere which suggest an imposed agenda and churches where things are done to people, rather than for and/or with them.

It is not a happy place to be in.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
This is a high profile example but there are instances like this elsewhere which suggest an imposed agenda and churches where things are done to people, rather than for and/or with them.
[Overused]

A perfect, pared back summary of the problem.

Over to you, pete173
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, as so often, ExclamationMark speaks sense.

Without revealing the location, I know of an instance where a senior cleric pushed forward a plan for a trendy café style Fresh Expressions church-plant in a setting where all the local clergy had advised that it was culturally inappropriate.

A bright-eyed, bushy tailed young vicar moved in with his family and they bought him a house. They bussed in equally bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young middle-class kids from nearby towns to participate in café style discussions in coffee shops that did not engage the locals on any way, shape or form.

The whole thing was a disaster. The incumbent was treated so shoddily - or shittily rather, by the powers that be that he left the CofE and joined another denomination where he is serving as a minister some hundreds of miles from where this particular car-crash took place.

The worst aspect in my view is that a veil of almost Stalinist silence has been drawn down across the whole thing. It's never mentioned. It's as if it never even happened. The senior cleric apparently changed the subject whenever it crops up.

The shocking thing about the whole sorry episode is that it's highly reminiscent of the sort of conspiracies of silence I saw during my 'restorationist' years ...

People were appointed to positions of locations that were clearly unsuitable and dropped like a ton of bricks when things didn't work out. All the 'prophecies' and rah-rah-rah were conveniently forgotten about and brushed under the carpet.

I'm saddened that the CofE seems to be following suit to some extent. It's a disturbing development.

Baptist churches have other issues but they are less likely to suffer from this sort of thing, other than in those places where they've jumped onto a managerial bandwagon in a way that is causing devastation right across the board.

If these kind of church-plant initiatives don't happen organically or naturally then there are always going to be problems.

To draw on a military analogy, because the Japanese had over-run Chinese fortifications with relative ease during an earlier conflict, they thought they could do the same at Port Arthur in 1904 despite the Russians having concrete bunkers bristling with Maxim guns. Not only that, they didn't learn from their mistakes and sent wave after wave of their infantry to untimely deaths.

I feel sorry for the Anglican bishops. They are trying to show enterprise and initiative, but as yet they haven't devised the right tactics for very different battlefield conditions, if I can use that analogy.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
dreadful Waitrose lite approach
Brilliantly put, EM.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
While I don't disagree, that sounds extremely disparaging of the huge number of churches whose music is provided by well-meaning and dedicated volunteers from the congregation who "do their best" (and sometimes that is very good) with the skills and abilities available to them.

And the other times we at least aim for the "make a joyful noise unto the Lord" standard. [Two face]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Precisely.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
This is a high profile example but there are instances like this elsewhere which suggest an imposed agenda and churches where things are done to people, rather than for and/or with them.
[Overused]

A perfect, pared back summary of the problem.

Over to you, pete173

I am afraid this is where I say you choose your polity and work with its faults. Nonconformity has less of this because its polity puts more power with the congregation. It is much harder for external bodies to the congregation to impose something on them. Then Nonconformity has a far higher rate of groups in the congregation making life very difficult for others. Good polity is a matter of minimizing the inevitable evil contained therein.


Jengie

[ 05. September 2017, 08:42: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, yes, and whilst this particular situation would be less likely to arise in a non-conformist setting, there are issues that might arise there that might not arise in episcopal or other settings ...

We pays our money, we makes our choice ...

It's a tricky one all ways round and I'm glad it's not me who has to sort out the problems ... although we can't avoid those wherever we are.

Ideally, each system should be able to play to its own particular strengths and work to overcome their own intrinsic weaknesses - or at least minimise the baleful effects ... but that's always going to be easier said than done.

And when all is said and all is done, there's a lot more said than done ...
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Especially in churches.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
One of the challenges about Church of England polity is that while there are certain limits and rules which must be observed, there is an immense power at local church level for a church to do what it likes and obstruct what it doesn't like.

A bishop can't tell a PCC either that it must, or it must not allow e.g. secular activities to take place in its building. Nor, provided it sticks within the wide remit allowed by Common Worship can the bishop tell a church how it must worship

Even where a church breaks the rules, e.g.
quote:
Canon B 14 Of Holy Communion in parish churches
1. The Holy Communion shall be celebrated in every parish church at least on all Sundays and principal Feast Days, and on Ash Wednesday and Maundy Thursday. It shall be celebrated distinctly, reverently, and in an audible voice.

a determined incumbent with the PCC behind hime/her may simply face the bishop down, unless the bishop is willing to go nuclear with the disciplinary measure etc.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
BroJames

In Nonconformity, you cannot even make such rules. If you believe the CofE gives autonomy to local congregations and give that as an example, then I think you prove my point.

Jengie
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
In Nonconformity, you cannot even make such rules.

True of Baptist or URC. But what about in Methodism, or in the more autocratic of the "new" churches, though?
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
BroJames

In Nonconformity, you cannot even make such rules. If you believe the CofE gives autonomy to local congregations and give that as an example, then I think you prove my point.

Jengie

Oh yes. I agree. It's just that from the outside people sometimes expect the powers that be in the Church of England to do, or to prevent something without an appreciation of how much autonomy the local church actually has.

Most parishes choose, mostly, to obey the rules and/or observe the guidelines, and mostly most parish churches are made up of people who mostly agree with the rules. But the bottom line is that they can choose not to, and if they choose not to there is not much capacity in the institution to coerce.

So with St Sepulchre, for example, TPTB cannot easily (if at all) enforce they have to persuade. Especially in this case where institutionally the rules say that this sort of thing is a decision for the PCC.

[ 05. September 2017, 14:49: Message edited by: BroJames ]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Just as a tangent. I wouldn't call "Holy Communion every Sunday" a rule. It is what I would expect and hope for. It is why I go to church.

And "the church" for me isn't primarily the local congregation.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
In Nonconformity, you cannot even make such rules.

True of Baptist or URC. But what about in Methodism, or in the more autocratic of the "new" churches, though?
Interesting point and confirms the impression I've long been under, which is,

Baptist, URC (i.e. Old Dissent) + Brethren - more congregational and more autonomous than CofE.

CofE - although diocese and deanery are important, almost all day to day activity is actually parish based. The system as it now is, rather than say 50 years ago, is very dependent on incumbent and PCC/parish working co-operatively together.

Methodist, and I suspect most Pentecostal and Afro-Carribean churches - less congregational and less autonomous than CofE, with day to day management much more embedded in the connection.

Various outlying groups which are independent but not derived from Old Dissent - everything run by the minister, and driven by his (very rarely if ever, her) personal dominance + charisma in the secular sense of that word.


But I'm no expert in comparative ecclesiastical polities and would be interested to know whether that is how it appears to others from different traditions.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
In Nonconformity, you cannot even make such rules.

True of Baptist or URC. But what about in Methodism, or in the more autocratic of the "new" churches, though?
But the 'new' churches are often congregational, so each congregation is free to make some rules for itself, autocratic or otherwise. Many of them choose and hire their own ministers. And I doubt that it's denominational autocratism that prevents most Pentecostal congregations from celebrating communion every week; theology and custom are more likely.

British Methodism is more centralised, but because Methodist churches are considerably lay-led it's sometimes argued that the ability of the clergy to control what congregations choose to do is limited. A Methodist circuit superintendent certainly isn't expected to impose huge changes on a congregation's devotional life, or its lettings policy.

However, the circuit system does have a limiting and hermetic effect on churches, whether by design or default. Ironically, this makes congregations less susceptible to 'autocratic' impulses from elsewhere. I think it would be simpler for a HTB-type group from outside to get the go-ahead to start a FE rather than mess about with an existing circuit's set-up and culture. (But of course, Methodism doesn't have churches with HTB's level of influence or resources.)
 
Posted by andras (# 2065) on :
 
British Methodism has become notably more 'top-down' over the last ten years or so - perhaps longer.

One experienced minister - who shall be nameless - commented to me very recently that when he had been ordained, he regarded Methodist Church House as the home of friendly and experienced people who would offer him all the help and support he needed, whereas now he regards it as full of lay 'experts' trying to tell him what to do, and with little real support available at all.

That rather echoes what I've heard elsewhere, so I doubt if it's very wide of the mark. It seems that church polity can change rather drastically over quite a short time, and probably to no-one's benefit.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Ah, you mean HQ.

Would you say that the congregations themselves are aware of this interference, or primarily the clergy? What I imagine is that the clergy are being urged to engage in all sorts of evangelistic endeavours, but without being given the tools to do so. In which case, the impact on congregations is probably not that great.

[ 07. September 2017, 16:38: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I would say that many of the 'new churches' are a lot less congregational than they appear. It depends on the 'stream' or 'connexion' to use an older term.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would say that many of the 'new churches' are a lot less congregational than they appear. It depends on the 'stream' or 'connexion' to use an older term.

Yeah. I work with a variety of churches and the veneer is pretty slim in most cases. Mind you, that's the case in the larger Baptist Churches too - the elders bring stuff to the congregation who agree to accept it. One such church leader proudly told me he'd not had one decision questioned in 6 years - sad.

Mind you, there's a centralising process within Baptist circles too following BUGB's recent "futures" project.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would say that many of the 'new churches' are a lot less congregational than they appear. It depends on the 'stream' or 'connexion' to use an older term.

Yeah. I work with a variety of churches and the veneer is pretty slim in most cases.
Yes, but it's not just autocracy within some congregations: I believe some groupings are strongly centralised and choose the pastors for the churches.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Which brings us neatly back to St Sepulchre's where the original congregation and PCC had an incumbent imposed upon them - so no shared decision there.

And where the new regime is seeking to use the top-down model used by HTB to impose its values on not only an established congregation but, perhaps more importantly, a long-established wider group of occasional worshippers and well-wishers. I'd suggest that the current state of the CofE is not so robust that it can afford to squander goodwill built up over decades and, perhaps worse, give a picture of an autocratic hierarchy which isn't interested in those who wish it well.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Tangent. L'Organist, beautifully said. That reflects exactly the situation in a church around here.

Very sad.

M.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
One of the blessings we have at the church where I'm minister is that we have a large number of people who, though they don't come to Sunday services, consider us to be "their church". Maybe they go to a different church, maybe they don't go to any: t doesn't seem to matter. We're friends with them, we chat to them, listen to them, pray for them (and they support us in all sorts of wonderful ways).

Yes, it would be lovely if they came to us on a Sunday, I'm not going to deny that. But our relationship with them isn't based on that. And it strikes me that the worst thing you could do would be to destroy the good, loving relationships we have with them just because they're not formally members of our congregation.

And as an outsider to this, it seems a tragedy that, as L'organist suggests, HTB appear to have done that in this case, for no good reason.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
Following from Stejjie's last point about HTB: is it possible that those who might be characterized as extreme believers are simply uncomfortable about worshipping in the presence of casual believers or non-believers. And that -- despite their self-identification as evangelicals -- they might unconsciously feel more comfortable gathering only among themselves?

[ 08. September 2017, 12:04: Message edited by: roybart ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I've shown this thread to an acquaintance who was at HTB for some years, fairly involved in their groups. When they moved away from London the crowd at HTB were loud in their lamentation, particularly about the absence (as they saw it) of a "proper" church. Still, you move to rural England and you have a choice of village church or no church, and if you wish to continue to worship you take the church (CofE, of course) that is on offer.

Well, this came as a revelation to the ex-HTB one and they discovered many aspects of parish life that hadn't occurred to them in London: things like a proper, functioning PCC; churchyard working parties; a choir with a membership of people who weren't all professional gospel/praise-band singers; cleaning rotas, etc, etc, etc. The biggest shock to them was they found doctrinal diversity - a congregation made up of people who came from almost every conceivable churchmanship, snake-belly low to nose-bleed high, and all of whom seemed prepared to accept that each other's preferred worshipping pattern was valid. IMV it is this last that is lacking among HTB people: they can be incredibly rigid, lay involvement is very tightly controlled and most activities are top-down organised. As the acquaintance said, HTB was long on talk about everyone being involved but the reality was that everyone was controlled with a very small "in" group at the top who made decisions and actively discouraged anyone who showed signs of straying from the 'slot' to which they'd been assigned.

Not saying this is always the case but ...

[ 08. September 2017, 13:47: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
One of the blessings we have at the church where I'm minister is that we have a large number of people who, though they don't come to Sunday services, consider us to be "their church". Maybe they go to a different church, maybe they don't go to any: t doesn't seem to matter. We're friends with them, we chat to them, listen to them, pray for them (and they support us in all sorts of wonderful ways).

Yes, it would be lovely if they came to us on a Sunday, I'm not going to deny that. But our relationship with them isn't based on that. And it strikes me that the worst thing you could do would be to destroy the good, loving relationships we have with them just because they're not formally members of our congregation.


I thought that was how evangelism kind of worked tbh. A lot of people drift in gradually rather than having a big road to Damascus switch into church mode.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed it can (and does) sometimes work like that. Stejjie's church sounds very much like Our Place!

IJ
 
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :
 
From the words,written by L'organist,I have to conclude that HTB can hardly be considered an Anglican parish church.
It has become more or less an independent church,rather similar to an American Protestant Mega Church,with a lot of people and probably blessed with a lot of money.
Where is the Anglican worship and spirituality ?
What do these HTB people feel when they are attending services in their cathedral of St.Paul, Ludgate Hill ?
I remember the days in the sixties when I attended
a couple of times the Parish Communion,inspiring
well attended,not very High but still very Anglican.
If informal worship,like HTB is the future of the Church of England,I am afraid that many traditional Anglicans will look for Rome or the Eastern Orthodox.
I am grateful that the current London Diocese,has still many thriving churches in the Anglican Catholic tradition.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Utrecht Catholic
quote:
From the words,written by L'organist,I have to conclude that HTB can hardly be considered an Anglican parish church.
I agree. Although the website mentions the word "Anglican" the reality on the ground bears little resemblance to anything remotely Anglican, or CofE.
quote:
It has become more or less an independent church,rather similar to an American Protestant Mega Church,with a lot of people and probably blessed with a lot of money.
As someone who had been to HTB in the days when it was a standard London church, I decided to go along and see for myself what it was like now. I have to say the nearest experience I have had to it was a visit to a large church in California: both seemed full of shiny, well-heeled people with smiley faces; every conversation was punctuated with earnest protestations about "the Lord"; and both had services (sorry, not a word they use - "worship") that was big on country-style music and lacking in any structure.
quote:
Where is the Anglican worship and spirituality ?
GONE!
quote:
What do these HTB people feel when they are attending services in their cathedral of St.Paul, Ludgate Hill ?
I'd like to think they would feel inspired: by the music, the architecture, the quality of preaching; however, I suspect they'd decide that "worship" at St Paul's wasn't "real".
quote:
I remember the days in the sixties when I attended a couple of times the Parish communion,inspiring well attended,not very High but still very Anglican.
That is still the case at St Paul's. And St Paul's also gives would-be worshippers a choice which ranges from a simple, said communion service (either morning or evening on a Sunday), to Matins, to a full-on choral communion service, plus choral Evensong.
quote:
If informal worship,like HTB is the future of the Church of England,I am afraid that many traditional Anglicans will look for Rome or the Eastern Orthodox.
You could be right: at the moment there are many people who, if their parish is chosen for "planting" feel pushed out and the solution for them is unclear. If your local church is HTB-ed and you don't find it congenial, my experience is tht you'll find little comfort from either the plant people or the bishop/archdeacon who put them there.
quote:
I am grateful that the current London Diocese,has still many thriving churches in the Anglican Catholic tradition.
Yes, but not as many as there were, and for how much longer?

Perhaps the best way of telling whether or not HTB is still a CofE church is to see whether or not there are recognisable services for a visitor to attend if they aren't into informal "worship" - say a visitor who simply wishes to make their communion on a Sunday morning. In the HTB "group" of four churches there is only ONE which seems to have communion services - St Augustine's in Queen's Gate. In that they are clearly in breach of "the rules" which state that there shall be a celebration of Holy Communion in every parish church every Sunday and on every feast/holy day.

There are also rules about the form of liturgy which can be used and there are approved forms for the CofE: yet at HTB there is NO recognisable form of liturgy at all. If my own PP deviates from using one of the approved forms he risks being called to account by bishop and archdeacon, yet HTB is able to be a UK version of a US revivalist "ministry" and nothing happens. Disgraceful.
 
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :
 
Dear Mr./ Mrs.L'Organist,thanks for your comment.

Several years ago I bought a most interesting book called : Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail .

This publication gives the reader a picture how US Evangelicals were fed up with informal services and as a result they found their way to the Episcopal Church,the American Branch of the Anglican Communion.
I have been told that many other Evangelicals went to the Orthodox Church,also a church with a splendid liturgy, full of biblical stuff.

Is it not both sad and strange to see that the opposite is happening in the U.K.?
I am more convinced than ever, that the Eucharist/Communion service is the Lord's service on the Lord's Day.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
It is not an HTB fault that has a lack of theological diversity, it is a city (rather than suburb or village) church behaviour. These congregations follow the strong brand style. The uniting concept is not the location but a common interest.

There is a steady change in ways communities organise dating back to the Industrial Revolution away from locational belonging and towards a tribal/interest group belonging. This is partly why Nonconformists initially did so well in towns and cities over Anglicans.

This is not necessarily theological diversity. St Sepulchre's seem previously to have done this around bing involved with music. My home church did it around coming from Scotland. I can think of a URC that does it around Social Justice. My parish church does it around worship style.

Jengie
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
I think HTB get round the communion rule (rightly or wrongly) by maintaining they are one site and by offering a weekly Holy Communion service at 9am at Queen's Gate and a Sung Eucharist rather nicely done with incense 11am, choir and the Angelus. Both services are well attended. It's important to remember that the HTB crowd and their plants represent a minuscule proportion of London's churchgoing population, and their numerical success is often exaggerated.

Interestingly the few parishes in London in evangelical tradition that were not offering a weekly Communion service, but did so when +Richard put his foot down have been finding that these early services have become as popular as their later informal services.

London is well represented with churches across every churchmanship tradition with the exception of traditional low church which are few and far between.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
I know that there are churches which are not sticking to the rules as regards Communion services and I agree: if we are Anglicans we do things the Anglican way.
However I can also think of several clergy friends both in the UK and in Kenya who have up to eight local churches under their care as part of an amalgamated parish/ benefice.
Lay readers and leaders take responsibility for running the non-Eucharistic services and the priest visits all the churches in rotation to preside at Communion services.
Some have retired clergy who can assist but not always- it's quite a challenge!
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
The Canons permit variation from the every Sunday rule in multi-church beneficent.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
But is HTB a "multi-church benefice": the old parish of Holy Trinity Brompton had one church: St Augustine's was a separate parish.
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
Yes it is. Holy Trinity with St Paul's Onslow Square and St Augustine, South Kensington.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
It is also the case that (Canon B11)
quote:
Morning and Evening Prayer shall be said or sung in every parish church at least on all Sundays and other principal Feast Days, and also on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
The circumstances under which this can be dispensed with under Canon B14A also applies to Canon B14 which is the one about holding Holy Communion each Sunday.

So, who else is breaking the rules?

That some form of Communion is the principle Sunday service in many churches is a relatively recent phenomenon. I would think that a mere 50 years ago very many Church of England parishes would have had something like 8am Communion, 11am Mattins and 6.30pm Evensong as the standard fare.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
<snip>I would think that a mere 50 years ago very many Church of England parishes would have had something like 8am Communion, 11am Mattins and 6.30pm Evensong as the standard fare.

Yes that's true, but the Canons don't require HC to be the principal service, just that it be celebrated.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
And on every day for which Collect, Epistle, and Gospel are provided in the BCP, I think, with a sermon. Cranmer intended Holy Communion to be the principal service, but it didn't work out that way, the English having been used to attendance, but not communicating, at Mass for several preceding centuries.

BTW, I observe that quite a few of the churches in our Deanery have at least Morning Prayer each day. Evening Prayer seems less common, presumably because of demands on clergy time (our former p-in-c said Morning Prayer publicly in church, but Evening Prayer privately at home, some miles distant).

IJ
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
And on every day for which Collect, Epistle, and Gospel are provided in the BCP, I think, with a sermon. Cranmer intended Holy Communion to be the principal service, but it didn't work out that way, the English having been used to attendance, but not communicating, at Mass for several preceding centuries.

This is an interesting comment. Do you have a reference for this?

My recollection from my childhood is that when attending a Communion service, it was always a struggle to find the pages for "The Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion", partly, I suppose, because they were not well-thumbed, but mainly because they were not near the beginning, unlike the pages for Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer. Maybe this was for 1662 , and the ordering of the services in 1549 was different.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
And on every day for which Collect, Epistle, and Gospel are provided in the BCP, I think, with a sermon. Cranmer intended Holy Communion to be the principal service, but it didn't work out that way, the English having been used to attendance, but not communicating, at Mass for several preceding centuries.

This is an interesting comment. Do you have a reference for this?

My recollection from my childhood is that when attending a Communion service, it was always a struggle to find the pages for "The Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion", partly, I suppose, because they were not well-thumbed, but mainly because they were not near the beginning, unlike the pages for Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer. Maybe this was for 1662 , and the ordering of the services in 1549 was different.

I've always been told that Holy Communion is in the middle of the BCP as it's easier to keep the book open at the correct page in the middle of the book. Common Worship is the same, except no one ever actually use any of the CW books in an act of worship.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
I've always been told that Holy Communion is in the middle of the BCP as it's easier to keep the book open at the correct page in the middle of the book. Common Worship is the same, except no one ever actually use any of the CW books in an act of worship.

Must admit I've never heard that one. Sounds a bit unlikely to me. It doesn't strike me as fitting the sort of way people thought about things in the 1660s.

Sounds more like wishful excuse-making.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Whether or not Holy Communion was in the middle of the book for that reason, it's clear from the fact that the sermon is ordered to be preached then, and that Banns of marriage are to be announced, that this was intended to be the principal service. In fact as far as I know it always was, except that the prohibition on any celebration where there were not the sufficient number of communicants (three or four?) meant that the liturgy was normally cut short after the Prayer for the Church Militant.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
@Higgs Bosun, the best book I've read concerning the impact of the Reformation on the Church in England is Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars - highly recommended.

I don't have a 1549 Prayer Book to hand (!), so I can't quote the rubrics, but I think the clue as to the importance of The Lord's Supper in Cranmer's mind is that it is the only service at which a sermon or homily is mandatory.

OTOH, The Shorter Prayer Book of 1946 (a neat little volume, and quite user-friendly) places the Communion service after Morning/Evening Prayer and the Litany, and refers, after the Creed, to 'The Sermon (if there be one)'. Presumably this is because in 1946 many churches had only a said Communion at 8am, or perhaps once a month at 12 noon, or 730pm, i.e. after Mattins or Evensong.

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Cross-posted with Angloid, but I seem to recall that 1662 required three, or at least two, persons to communicate along with the priest.

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Sorry to triple-post, but I've just looked in my presentation edition of the BCP published during the brief reign of King Edward VIII (i.e. 1936), and the rubric at the end of the Communion service reads ' And there shall be no celebration of the Lord's Supper, except there be a convenient number to communicate with the Priest, according to his discretion.'

IJ
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Until the middle to late C19, the normal Sunday morning service in the CofE was Morning Prayer, followed by Litany, followed by Antecommunion, except on a Communion Sunday, when the service went through to complete Holy Communion. I have an C18 BCP in which Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer and Holy Communion up to the Nicene Creed are in large print, and everything after that is in smaller print.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
As late as 1981 there was a church in St Albans diocese where this happened on the first Sunday of the month. Full Choral Matins at 11, followed by the Litany, then the full BCP communion service.

They did have a Series II Parish Communion at 9am for those without the stamina for the full deal.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Presumably the 11am full-on service Ceased To Be on account of the deaths (from exhaustion, or perhaps boredom) of the remnant of the faithful.

If it was full Matins as per The Book, they'd have been thanking God for having 'safely brought [them] to the beginning of this day' just before noon, which may be another clue to Cranmer's idea that Matins should properly be the first service of the day.

IJ
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
they'd have been thanking God for having 'safely brought [them] to the beginning of this day' just before noon IJ

We used to alter that to read 'who hast brought us thus far today'.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Excellent idea! I'm slightly surprised that such a sensible modification was never made 'official'.

IJ
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
There was meant to be a PCC meeting at St Sepulchre's on the 15th (I think) to be attended by Bishop Pete with the stated intentions of (a) finding out what was going on, and (b) sorting it out.

Since then, silence. No regular musical event people have heard a peep.

Come on, Pete: what are you going to do. This is not something that can be left until the see vacancy is filled.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Nothing on St. Sepulchre's website etc. to be sure. Just that they're having a night of prayer tonight: "We will be worshipping & praying from sunset Sept 22 to sunrise Sept 23 2017 at St. Sepulchre’s".
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Nothing on St. Sepulchre's website etc. to be sure. Just that they're having a night of prayer tonight: "We will be worshipping & praying from sunset Sept 22 to sunrise Sept 23 2017 at St. Sepulchre’s".

Are they celebrating the autumn equinox? Sounds kinda pagan... [Devil]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There was meant to be a PCC meeting at St Sepulchre's on the 15th (I think) to be attended by Bishop Pete with the stated intentions of (a) finding out what was going on, and (b) sorting it out.

It's not uncommon for the result of that kind of meeting to be (c) we need another meeting.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
PCC meeting is this coming Sunday. Don't believe the gossip factory.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The outcome of that meeting (if it is released into the public domain) will make interesting reading, so far as the subject of this thread is concerned.

ISTM that further comment and speculation are, in the meantime, unnecessary.

IJ
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The silence isn't good.

And the new(ish) regime at St Sepulchre's missed a golden opportunity to display some goodwill: all they had to do was reinstate the (formerly) annual memorial service for Sir Henry Wood and all London orchestral musicians who have died during the year. This used to take place on the Sunday after the last night of the Proms but was stopped when the HTB people moved in.

It was a good service: the wreath which is placed on the bust of Henry Wood before the last concert starts was always taken to place by his memorial plaque in St Sepulchre's. It was a non-denominational service which used to get a very respectable crowd. Now held in another church but I know the promenaders would dearly love to get back into the church where Sir Henry is memorialised and his ashes are interred.

Again, over to you Pete.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Blimey, the PCC meeting was only yesterday!

Give the poor Secretary a chance to write up his/her notes...

IJ
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Surely the best Minutes are those written before the meeting takes place? [Devil]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Aha! It is as I suspected - Baptist Trainfan is (secretly) or has been (in the past) an Anglican!

[Eek!]

IJ
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
As it happens, I was brought up in the CofE before I saw the light and joined the One True Church (at around the age of 18).

Surely though you ought to have conjectured as to whether I had ever been a minute-taker in the Civil Service - which I have not.

[ 25. September 2017, 13:12: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, I did wonder about the Civil Service (or perhaps local government), but forebore to be insulting! (And is there a reference to Yes, Minister somewhere? Sounds like a Bernardism...).

IJ
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Not consciously Sir Bernard, but this rings true: Sir Humphrey: "It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them and that every member’s recollection of them differs violently from every other member’s recollection. Consequently, we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, from which it emerges with an elegant inevitability that any decision which has been officially reached will have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials and any decision which is not recorded in the minutes has not been officially reached even if one or more members believe they can recollect it, so in this particular case, if the decision had been officially reached it would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, and it isn’t so it wasn’t". Sounds like Diocesan Synod, or Baptist Church Meetings.

[ 25. September 2017, 13:37: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Killing me]

Indeed it does! And I can just see the look of bewilderment on poor Jim Hacker's face....

IJ
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The silence isn't good.

And the new(ish) regime at St Sepulchre's missed a golden opportunity to display some goodwill: all they had to do was reinstate the (formerly) annual memorial service for Sir Henry Wood and all London orchestral musicians who have died during the year. This used to take place on the Sunday after the last night of the Proms but was stopped when the HTB people moved in.

It was a good service: the wreath which is placed on the bust of Henry Wood before the last concert starts was always taken to place by his memorial plaque in St Sepulchre's. It was a non-denominational service which used to get a very respectable crowd. Now held in another church but I know the promenaders would dearly love to get back into the church where Sir Henry is memorialised and his ashes are interred.

Again, over to you Pete.

I thought that evos. would jump at the chance of doing an altar call at such a well-attended event
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Hmm. Depends whether it's God who is being worshipped, or Sir Henry...

IJ
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Hmm. Depends whether it's God who is being worshipped, or Sir Henry...

IJ

I went to that service one year - I don't remember Sir Henry getting much attention and it was more like those annual services that a lot of parishes do to remember all the people from the church who died that year. I went to remember a particular musician who mattered a lot to me and it was a lovely thing to have done. I'm so sorry to hear it's been stopped.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Fair comment, and point taken.

It may well be, and one can only hope and pray, that some positive 're-balancing' will take place at St. Sepulchre's as a result of current deliberations.

IJ
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Well they'd better get their act together quickly because the groups who're being pushed out are looking at the possibility of legal action of some sort...
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
...in which case the only people to benefit will be the lawyers.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Well they'd better get their act together quickly because the groups who're being pushed out are looking at the possibility of legal action of some sort...

What on earth will that achieve?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
As I hinted above, £££ for the lawyers, and possibly opprobrious epithets directed towards both sides, along with some juicy church-bashing fodder for the gutter press.

IJ
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
I see that Bishop Pete has put out a statement here. It looks like a good Anglican compromise me to (and I mean that sincerely not sarcastically) but I've only scanned it not thought about it in depth.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
Also, the rector has issued a statement.

(The interesting thing to me in this statement is that they have "re-started Sunday services after a gap of more than 30 years.")
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
To me, as an outsider reading the statements, it appears as if +Pete has (a) had a good go at the PCC for what they did; and is (b) doing some excellent and creative attempts to undo any harm that's been done. I like his emphasis on the importance of the place which Anglican churches have in the community.

Of course it would be quite improper for him to confirm or deny this on the Ship!
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
No winners in this one.

Let's hope that the church which has restarted Sunday services after such a long gap(!) engages with its community both musicians and otherwise. Let's pray that the musicians and others who use the church do so recognising its place in history as well as in faith.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
St. Sepulchre's is not the only City of London church to have had no Sunday services for many years, given the small size of the local resident population, but many of the churches do host other denominations on a Sunday morning.

ISTM that, as others have remarked, the Bishop and the PCC have had a robust re-think, so let's hope the future for St. Sepulchre's continues to see the growth in mission and outreach that should always be the aim of any church.

+Pete's announcement of the new musicians & churches website in a month or so is an interesting and positive development. Maybe other dioceses could learn from this idea?

IJ
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To me, as an outsider reading the statements, it appears as if +Pete has (a) had a good go at the PCC for what they did...

Yes indeed:
quote:
I am grateful to the Rector and PCC of St Sepulchre for being willing to engage with me and other diocesan colleagues about their decision. In that engagement I have repeated and re-inforced the role the Church of England plays in the communities it serves. The Church of England is called to be a welcoming, inclusive, and engaging church. I have re-emphasised the importance of this to all those at St Sepulchre
I do not think it requires too much imagination to be able to guess the tone of the 'engagement' that lay behind the second and fourth sentences there. They suggest to me what I believe is called in the Civil Service a 'meeting without coffee' (if such a thing can be imagined in any - no-Adventist, anyway- church [Biased] . )

[ 28. September 2017, 22:25: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
They suggest to me what I believe is called in the Civil Service a 'meeting without coffee'

[Killing me]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Given their other plans this is sheer sanctimonious hypocrisy. They are a cult answerable to no one and nothing but their own ego.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Given their other plans this is sheer sanctimonious hypocrisy. They are a cult answerable to no one and nothing but their own ego.

Just like so many others of different hues in the C of E. Parishes do have significant autonomy. In addition, a parish is a charity, and the PCC members are the trustees, and so responsible for ensuring that the charity meets its charitable objectives. Is the provision of a venue for rehearsal or concerts (on a commercial basis) one of those objectives?

Is it really so bad to have a church building holding Christian events rather than mainly acting as a music venue?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Thunderbunk
quote:
Given their other plans this is sheer sanctimonious hypocrisy. They are a cult answerable to no one and nothing but their own ego.
Yes, I'm afraid that is my reading.

In any case, regardless of whether or not +Pete is to be commended for achieving a compromise (and I think that is highly questionable), the fact remains that HTB were allowed to take over a church on the strict understanding that its role as the London musician's church and home of the national Musicians' Chapel be preserved and allowing them to break this means that in future any such promises or undertakings given can be viewed as entirely optional and non-binding.

The stuff about encouraging music in other London churches is just so much flannel: it is happening anyway - and in any case, given what has happened at St Sepulchre's, who is to say this pattern won't be repeated.

The statement by David Ingall is breathtaking in its hypocrisy and is nothing more than window-dressing. The proof of the attitude towards music of him and his HTB coven is on their own website: there are NO concerts or musical events listed after the end of November this year. Bearing in mind the lead-time for arranging such things it is pretty certain that will remain the case for most, if not all, of 2018. Or perhaps he thinks that people will be drawn by a lunchtime "praise" event featuring worship songs?

The statement and "compromise" reached is a massive climbdown on the part of the Diocese, the stand-in bishop and the Archdeacon (who if he wasn't involved should have been) and amounts to nothing less than an endorsement of the bullying tactics exerted by the planting church and its sponsors.

[ 29. September 2017, 12:34: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Those are serious allegations, l'Organist. Are you perhaps one of those reported to be contemplating legal action of some sort?

IJ
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
In addition, a parish is a charity, and the PCC members are the trustees, and so responsible for ensuring that the charity meets its charitable objectives. Is the provision of a venue for rehearsal or concerts (on a commercial basis) one of those objectives?

Based on what l'Organist says, I guess it is. Or at least being the Musician's church etc is an explicit objective of that particular church according to the diocese of London.

[ 29. September 2017, 15:18: Message edited by: Helen-Eva ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
What I also find quite disturbing, is that the two accounts already linked above, and this one from the Church Times also apparently written since the same meeting, is that if they didn't all refer to the same place, one would not believe they were talking about the same story. The Church Times one is behind a pay wall, but you should be able to get a limited number of free views per month.

Knowing the way even the most respectable journalists, yet alone the Church Times (!!) find the temptation irresistible to gross up the drama of a story because cantankerous contention is so much more newsworthy - fun, even - than boring fact, I'm inclined to give the Church Times version the least credence of the three.


As an aside, if there haven't been regular Sunday services for 30 years, it's a bit difficult to conclude that St Sepulchre's mission to the musical community has been having much effect.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

As an aside, if there haven't been regular Sunday services for 30 years, it's a bit difficult to conclude that St Sepulchre's mission to the musical community has been having much effect.

How does this follow? I don't know St Sepulchre at all, but the City of London has a rather small resident population (less than 10,000), and a very much larger community of commuting workers (more than 300,000).

Those 300,000 people aren't there on Sundays.

The idea that one should only serve the 10,000 residents and not the 300,000 people who are there for long hours on weekdays is rather misguided to say the least.

So I conclude that the absence of Sunday service from a church in a community where 97% of the people aren't there on Sundays really doesn't tell you anything about the effectiveness or otherwise of the church's mission.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
In addition, a parish is a charity, and the PCC members are the trustees, and so responsible for ensuring that the charity meets its charitable objectives. Is the provision of a venue for rehearsal or concerts (on a commercial basis) one of those objectives?

Based on what l'Organist says, I guess it is. Or at least being the Musician's church etc is an explicit objective of that particular church according to the diocese of London.
Helen-Eva, your post crossed mine while I was writing it.

Parish churches are charities but they don't usually have specific objects more precise than to be a parish church for the parish of X. Such an explicit objective would be almost unknown for a church whose origins go back to a medieval or pre-medieval past at a time when the City of London was densely packed with residents.

It would be very unusual, I suspect unknown, for there to be a church which included within its explicit charitable objects a mission to the musicians of the City of London, yet alone the provision of practice rooms and rehearsal facilities.

So unless the vicar and PCC have concluded either that providing such facilities is part of St Sepulchre's Christian mission and would further the greater glory of God or that the income from it is a useful subsidy to that mission, it's probably outside the lawful objects of St Sepulchre's.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
How does this follow? I don't know St Sepulchre at all, but the City of London has a rather small resident population (less than 10,000), and a very much larger community of commuting workers (more than 300,000).

Those 300,000 people aren't there on Sundays.

The idea that one should only serve the 10,000 residents and not the 300,000 people who are there for long hours on weekdays is rather misguided to say the least.

So I conclude that the absence of Sunday service from a church in a community where 97% of the people aren't there on Sundays really doesn't tell you anything about the effectiveness or otherwise of the church's mission.

I accept that, and admit that that my experience of city centre churches in medieval centres where people no longer live in is of this city (Bristol, see below) not London.

It is a dilemma what you do when the churches are no longer where the people are. Here, even allowing for the ones destroyed by bombing and not rebuilt, central Bristol includes two churches that don't have services but are maintained by a trust, one that's a concert hall (i.e. not a church at all), one that's an office, one that was a diocesan library and is now unused, and one that nobody knows what to do with.

The ones that are working churches here do still have Sunday services and congregations. Although they do things in the week, those are likely either not to be well attended or to involve the Sunday congregation in some way. True, Bristol may well have residential neighbourhoods closer in to the original core than the City of London. That still means, though, that people are coming into the centre on Sundays. Even so, there is a lot more of inhabited London that's fairly central than people tend to assume.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The Friends of the City Churches have a useful website, with information about the various churches, and links to their websites (where applicable):

http://www.london-city-churches.org.uk/

BTW, some Hostly advice might be welcome, as it seems to me that this thread is getting close to interfering with a church's internal affairs, with people also dangerously close to accusing interested parties to be liars.

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Incidentally, if you go to that website, click on 'City Events', and scroll down a little way, there's a link to a PDF list of Saturday and Sunday services in City churches. The Sunday list is quite impressive, with a wonderful variety of denominations and liturgies!

IJ
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Enoch
quote:
As an aside, if there haven't been regular Sunday services for 30 years, it's a bit difficult to conclude that St Sepulchre's mission to the musical community has been having much effect.


Regular weekday services took place which were attended by people from offices nearby. And there were other services, such as carol services, which had a good attendance.

In any case, it must be recognised that many members of the "musical community" are working in churches on a Sunday.

I'm puzzled by the silence of the Patron of the living in all of this: I'd have thought that St John's College, Oxford, might have some input on this situation? Or were they persuaded to relinquish their patronage to the bishop?

I'm not sure why anyone would think the coverage in The Church Times would be biased or slanted against +Pete and the parish: my reading of it is that it gives an accurate description of what has happened. Of course, the plant people and +Pete may not like the light it casts on them, but that is not the same as inaccuracy.

As for the idea that there will be "exciting developments" around Christmas: I can tell you now that none of the people I know who have been involved with Christmas concerts and services at St Sepulchre's in past years have been contacted about anything for this year, and none of them are holding their breath.

I feel a smidgeon of sympathy for the acting bishop, but only a smidgeon. To be blunt, David Ingall and the HTB plant people brought about the shoot out and they picked the ground and waited to see what happened: +Pete and the diocese blinked and decided to retire from the field. The statement on the diocesan website is a pretty threadbare figleaf and can't disguise the fact that HTB and Mr Ingall have run rings around the diocese and its acting bishop and are completely unrepentant about the bad faith they have shown.

[ 29. September 2017, 20:42: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Given their other plans this is sheer sanctimonious hypocrisy. They are a cult answerable to no one and nothing but their own ego.

Just like so many others of different hues in the C of E. Parishes do have significant autonomy. In addition, a parish is a charity, and the PCC members are the trustees, and so responsible for ensuring that the charity meets its charitable objectives. Is the provision of a venue for rehearsal or concerts (on a commercial basis) one of those objectives?
The Trust Deeds (where they exist) will be so broad as to ensure that a wide range of things can be done but will not be required to be done. It's a matter of a number of options but little compulsion to take any particular one.

Sunday worship and Alpha Courses would, for example, fit perfectly. The church would then be said to be providing a Christian presence in the community. They don't have to provide a venue for concerts but given the history they would IMHO have a moral obligation to continue.

The one point I'm still unsure on, is what guarantees were given about the music when the plant started. A lot has been claimed but getting to the nub of it is vital.

The church seem to be wholly at fault. Who's to say, thought that there haven't been a few ill directed remarks about the theology of the new plant, allied to a presumption about church use from various groups not directly linked to the church, which may have hardened already setting attitudes.

It's unhelpful to drag the theology of the plant into this - a move which would make anyone over defensive.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Trust deeds only need exist when the Charity needs to be registered. This does not apply to C of E churches.Yes, it does apply to all other churches.

Jengie
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
C of E churches are increasingly required to become registered charities as their income reaches a certain threshold. I think some form of generic statement of trust has been agreed with the Charity Commission, but I'm not sure.

As far as St. Sepulchre is concerned, provided they don't breach Canon Law, or breach their duty as trustees, the PCC aren't really answerable to anyone, except the Annual Parochial Church Meeting. A Special Parochial Church Meeting can be 'forced' by one third of the lay members of the PCC, or an Extraordinary Meeting can be called for by one tenth of the Electoral Roll membership if the Archdeacon agrees. But in either case AFAICT they can only force a discussion and make recommendations to the PCC.

AFAIK, once a parish priest is appointed, the patron(s) have no power at all over her/his actions and can do nothing until the living becomes vacant.

Most of the apparent power of bishops etc. lies in influence and persuasion. The long term bruising effect of using the law in these situations, even when as with the Oxford Movement, the law was technically on the side of the hierarchy means that even where legal levers are available the powers that be are reluctant to face the uncertainty, negative publicity and cost of using them. Legal victories in this sort of situation tent to be Pyrrhic.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I notice that the Musicians' Chapel at St. Sepulchre's seems to have a life of its own:

http://www.musicianschapel.org.uk/

There appears to be a degree of independence from the rest of the church's activities, so hopefully this will continue (the May 2018 service is already planned and advertised).

Time will tell...

IJ
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
If a CofE parish is to be registered as a charity - and you're quite right that the form now is for each parish to do so on an individual basis - then they have to satisfy the Charity Commission that they fulfil certain aims or bring "public benefit".

If the Chancellor of the diocese of London did his homework and was on the ball, then one of the charitable aims of St Sepulchre's should clearly be to act as the national musicians' church: IMV it would be astonishing if this wasn't included when charitable status was sought and obtained.

Next time I'm in the City I'll make a point of going to St Sepulchre's: first because I need to sort out an entry in the Book of Remembrance; second to see if they've still got the rather fine altar frontal and matching communion rail kneelers which were given as a gift in memory of Sir Malcolm Sargent, conductor of the Proms for many years.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
The Charity Act (2006) withdrew the presumption that the "advancement of religion" is, in itself, to the public benefit.

However, as the group "Stewardship" point out in this helpful paper, "The new rules on demonstrating and reporting on public benefit are in some ways a wake up call to the church. A call to think carefully and objectively about the positive impact that we, as a community of Christians make to individuals and to society, from the perspective of the outside world. This is very much a positive thing – causing us to evaluate and re-evaluate what we are doing and achieving. It may even cause us to refocus and do things better!"
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
The Church has been registered as a Charity since January 2015. On the Charity Commission website its stated activities are "ST SEPULCHRE'S IS PART OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. WE PROMOTE THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, WITH A PARTICULAR FOCUS ON THE WORKPLACE AND MUSIC, AS THE NATIONAL MUSICIANS' CHURCH. WE PROVIDE REGULAR CHRISTIAN WORSHIP SERVICES, OPEN TO ALL; AND THE TEACHING OF CHRISTIANITY THROUGH SERMONS, COURSES AND SMALL GROUPS. WE ALSO PROVIDE A VENUE FOR THE STAGING OF CONCERTS AND OTHER EVENTS, SUCH AS LECTURE SERIES". This is bulked out by a reference to their Mission Action Plan which is appended to the annual accounts.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, as I said, time will tell. That all sounds fair enough to this outsider, but I expect those with axes to grind will still be accusing TPTB and the PCC of being, in effect, liars and poltroons... [Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
second to see if they've still got the rather fine altar frontal

Surely HTB don't hold with such popish frippery.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Go to the Charities' Commission website and you can access the church's return.

Like any charity with an income of over £100K it has to register as an individual charity.

Points to reflect on from the accounts.

1.Concert fees and rental form a large part of the church's income. That income at over £300K is significant but declining

2. The Mission Statement refers to an aim of music excellence and the church's role of the Musicians Church. The report also refers to an expanding program of hiring. There's a Music Director and a Worship Pastor on staff. Is there any background tension between those two posts which has helped to generate more heat than light?

3. The church receives grant income from outside sources (e.g. Guilds) to fund certain aspects of its musical ministry. What control and/or strings do those groups have? What oversight does/can the church exercise over those "appointees?" Not every church would be happy with those circumstances as the vision//goals of such groups are not always compatible with those of the church

4. On both sets of accounts, the list of PCC members has one name redacted. Why? Who?

5. The church has access to income few other churches enjoy -- flat rental, parish rate, NET mast rental.

6. There's a very low % of charitable giving (around £10k). That's not untypical of parish churches as it doesn't include the diocesan share

7. 20 -25% of income is spent on church running expenses (excluding salaries) Seems high
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
It's worth mentioning that the weekly service of Choral evensong and monthly sung Eucharist continues as normal and is not affected by the dispute. There was a suggestion earlier that they had been discontinued but that's not the case.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Really? St Sepulchre's own website describes the Sunday service thus:

Our Sunday services are informal and lively, with contemporary worship, Bible-based preaching and prayer. They are underpinned by a desire to seek the presence of God, and grow in our faith. Each Sunday there is also a lively children’s programme. ...

We celebrate Communion on the 3rd Tuesday evening and 1st Sunday of every month.


There is no mention of any "monthly Eucharist" unless that is what is referred to about the 1st Sunday, but the website gives the firm impression that it is a "contemporary" service.

The website should be up-to-date, since it has been much altered since the meeting with +Pete to include stuff about music, such as

St. Sepulchre’s is ‘The Musicians’ Church,’ and music and musicians are at the heart of our ministry. We believe that God loves music, and that He delights in how we use our gifts.

Our vision is for St. Sepulchre’s to be a place where music and musicians are valued and appreciated, a space for musicians to use, and a place where they can encounter God.


At the moment this is just so many words; and it is astonishing that The Revd Ingall thinks that musicians can encounter God in a "space" but apparently not through making music.

It is still the case that the "concerts" button has nothing at all after a concert on 16th November: at a time when nearly every central London church is listing carol services and concerts there is zilch at St Sepulchre's.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
The choral services are on Tuesdays.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
It looks to me as though they have a choral service every Tuesday evening. On the third Tuesday of each month it is a communion service rather than evensong.

My guess is that that is a long-established pattern in a church which for many years has had no Sunday congregation.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, I assumed that the 'monthly Sung Eucharist' was one of the Tuesday evening services.

I wonder if they have a full BCP Eucharist, or combine it with a shortened Evensong? A MW Report might be interesting, as long as it's from someone interested in liturgy rather than litigation.

IJ
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
The music list for the "summer term" (the most recent to be posted online) suggests that the usual "canticles" and "responses" are replaced by a Communion setting. So a "proper" choral Eucharist, I suspect.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thanks, BT - I hadn't spotted that link!

The list is rather incomplete, but yes, it does appear that the 'third Tuesday' 630pm service is a full BCP Sung Eucharist.

IJ
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The music list for the "summer term" (the most recent to be posted online) suggests that the usual "canticles" and "responses" are replaced by a Communion setting. So a "proper" choral Eucharist, I suspect.

Exactly. The weekly choral service on a Tuesday is Choral Evensong and that is replaced once a month with a Sung Eucharist.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
It must be quite a contrast to the informal Communion service on the first Sunday of the month! I do hope they at least use an authorised C of E Eucharistic Prayer, to keep the lawyers at bay.

IJ
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Though even this has been bypassed in the case of a church I know of. Not directly an HTB plant as far as I know, but a similar ethos: the (then) Bishop simply offered them the use of a redundant church and then gave it its own parish of which the boundary is the churchyard wall.

I know of a case like that. However, in that case the church's parish had been combined with the neighbouring parish a number of years previously. Apparently it is very hard to undo this legally. The bishop did not want to have the building deconsecrated and sold off, so invited a plant group to come, which needed the agreement of the combined parish.

In another case of the reversal of closures, the absorbed building became a 'Pioneer Ministry' within the combined parish.

Then there is the case of the combined parish, where the unused church building is now a (conevo) plant and is the parish church of its original parish. The other building and its original parish
are now combined with the active neighbour. Legally, this is moving a parish boundary, which is much easier.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
UPDATE

This from the St Sepulchre's website
quote:
We are hoping to work with a range of musicians and groups as we put together an exciting programme of services, concerts and musical events for 2018. If you are part of a choir, orchestra or group who would like to perform here at St. Sepulchre’s as part of our programme, do please let us know! (office@stsepulchres)

Saturday Concert Series

Throughout 2018 we will be running a series of monthly Saturday evening concerts (including rehearsal time for the performers) in partnership with a variety of different external musical groups, and including high quality classical and choral music both ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’. The series will run on the third Saturday of every month, and we invite choirs and orchestras interested in performing one of these concerts to get in touch for more information.

‘Music in Worship’ series of concerts with reflections

A series of evening concerts on the first Monday of each month, starting on Monday 5th February, exploring the importance and beauty of music in worship. Each evening will be around 60-90 minutes long, roughly three quarters of which will be music, with reflections on the music and worship alongside them.

So, to replace a schedule that used to average 8 or more high-quality concerts/ lecture-recitals every month they propose 2 only, with restrictions on one of them.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, at least it's a start, and maybe the programme will, in time, be expanded.

But to what restrictions are you referring?

IJ
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... So, to replace a schedule that used to average 8 or more high-quality concerts/ lecture-recitals every month they propose 2 only, with restrictions on one of them.

But that's over two per week. With that level of pressure on their day-to-day programme of ordinary church activities, they may have had a point.
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
In addition to concerts the music list for the long-standing Tuesday evening choral service has now been published and continues as before.

http://stsepulchres.org/choral-evensong/
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
With 4 Choral Evensongs per month, plus 2 concerts per month, things are surely looking up. Perhaps, if the new programme 'works', more events may be added in due course.

BTW, what happened to those vague threats of 'legal action', whatever that may mean?

IJ
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Bishop's Finger
quote:
to what restrictions are you referring?
The "Music in Worship" slot on the first Monday of the month which will be (to quote the website)
quote:
exploring the importance and beauty of music in worship. Each evening will be around 60-90 minutes long, roughly three quarters of which will be music, with reflections on the music and worship alongside them.
What they want is liturgical music, rather than just something with a sacred theme or subject: so settings of the Mass maybe, but not a cantata, so appealing to a pretty niche market. And the whole thing will be packaged with "worship" which is likely to further restrict its appeal - after all, not everyone who appreciates the beauty of, say, Dvorak's Mass in D is necessarily going to be prepared to sign up for 15-25 minutes of "worship" and "reflection". That is fact - a friend enquired and was told they wanted music for worship only, not music with a sacred theme. In other words, they're already rowing back on the "compromise" reached with the Acting Bishop of London, etc.

posted by Liturgylover
quote:
In addition to concerts the music list for the long-standing Tuesday evening choral service has now been published and continues as before.
Not so. First, there is no Evensong after 5th December, just a carol service on the 12th December.

Second, the inclusion of Taize chant in a service of Choral Evensong is incredibly jarring, made more so by the fact that they don't necessarily relate to the readings: for example, on 5th December a chant looking forward to the Holy Spirit is coupled with readings from Isaiah (sins purged through the blood of the Messiah) and Matthew (Palm Sunday). Of course, they're using the wrong lectionary readings but the "reflective chant" wouldn't fit the correct readings either.

I also don't quite understand why if the service is on a Tuesday they're using the lectionary readings for the second Sunday service - but then perhaps the whole idea of a lectionary schema of readings is foreign to Mr Ingall and his merry flock?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Oh dear, they really can't do anything right, can they?

First off, where's the harm in having a Carol Service (possibly with a joint Advent/Christmas theme) on 12th December? It's that time of year.

Presumably, although details are not yet on the website, the service on 19th December will be the customary 'third Tuesday' Eucharist.

Secondly, the Taize chants may well not be as 'incredibly jarring' as you suppose. This could be an experiment, which might, or might not, work, but IME such reflective chants can enhance, rather than detract from, a 'traditional' service.

Thirdly, as to lectionary readings, these are not the Law of the Medes and Persians, and can be changed if required. The Sunday readings may be used on the presumption that those attending will not have heard them on the preceding Sunday, for whatever reason.

IJ
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What they want is liturgical music, rather than just something with a sacred theme or subject: so settings of the Mass maybe, but not a cantata, so appealing to a pretty niche market. And the whole thing will be packaged with "worship" which is likely to further restrict its appeal - after all, not everyone who appreciates the beauty of, say, Dvorak's Mass in D is necessarily going to be prepared to sign up for 15-25 minutes of "worship" and "reflection". That is fact - a friend enquired and was told they wanted music for worship only, not music with a sacred theme. In other words, they're already rowing back on the "compromise" reached with the Acting Bishop of London, etc. ...

I could see how one might object if a concert hall were to insist on liturgical music rather than just music with a vaguely sacred theme. This, though, is a church, not a concert hall. It's also the musicians' church, not the musicians' vaguely religious clubhouse. I don't see how one can justify objecting to a church saying that the sort of music it wants and is going to have is music that constitutes worship. Worship is what a church is about. That is what church music is for.

I don't know what the exact wording was of the compromise to which you are referring, but it's difficult any longer to interpret this complaint as one of either principle or integrity. It sounds more like objecting just that one doesn't like the current programme because it isn't the programme your friend would have chosen if it had been his or her job to choose it.

I agree with the message of Bishop's Finger's first sentence. I think it's fair comment.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
Last week I saw Lucy Worsley's programme on Evensong.* At the end they had some responses in a blues style, and quite jazzy. Thus, I can see that some Taize stuff could easily fit in with other suitably chosen music for Evensong. A bit of innovation at the Musicians' Church sounds appropriate. It is not as if there are no other places nearby doing choral evensong...

(*Partly because a friend at work has a son who is in the Hampton Court Chapel Royal Choir. However, there were no closeups of the lad.)
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Bishop's Finger
quote:
to what restrictions are you referring?
The "Music in Worship" slot on the first Monday of the month which will be (to quote the website)
quote:
exploring the importance and beauty of music in worship. Each evening will be around 60-90 minutes long, roughly three quarters of which will be music, with reflections on the music and worship alongside them.
What they want is liturgical music, rather than just something with a sacred theme or subject: so settings of the Mass maybe, but not a cantata, so appealing to a pretty niche market. And the whole thing will be packaged with "worship" which is likely to further restrict its appeal - after all, not everyone who appreciates the beauty of, say, Dvorak's Mass in D is necessarily going to be prepared to sign up for 15-25 minutes of "worship" and "reflection". That is fact - a friend enquired and was told they wanted music for worship only, not music with a sacred theme. In other words, they're already rowing back on the "compromise" reached with the Acting Bishop of London, etc.

posted by Liturgylover
quote:
In addition to concerts the music list for the long-standing Tuesday evening choral service has now been published and continues as before.
Not so. First, there is no Evensong after 5th December, just a carol service on the 12th December.

Second, the inclusion of Taize chant in a service of Choral Evensong is incredibly jarring, made more so by the fact that they don't necessarily relate to the readings: for example, on 5th December a chant looking forward to the Holy Spirit is coupled with readings from Isaiah (sins purged through the blood of the Messiah) and Matthew (Palm Sunday). Of course, they're using the wrong lectionary readings but the "reflective chant" wouldn't fit the correct readings either.

I also don't quite understand why if the service is on a Tuesday they're using the lectionary readings for the second Sunday service - but then perhaps the whole idea of a lectionary schema of readings is foreign to Mr Ingall and his merry flock?

Yes so. This is exactly what happened in previous years - the last service before Christmas was always a carol service. As to the Taize chant, the music is selected by the Choral services Director and the church has always used the lectionary for the Sunday even before Mr Ingall and his flock arrived.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Tuesday 12th is, of course, not quite the last service before Christmas, unless they intend to cancel the 'third Tuesday' Eucharist this year, seeing as it's so close to Christmas itself.

Maybe the Director and Choir are taking a break?

IJ
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Tuesday 12th is, of course, not quite the last service before Christmas, unless they intend to cancel the 'third Tuesday' Eucharist this year, seeing as it's so close to Christmas itself.

Maybe the Director and Choir are taking a break?

IJ

Sorry, what I meant was that that pattern is a long established one in the church, and indeed elsewhere in the City churches most of whom hold their carol service in that week rather than the following week.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, ISWYM. I guess many of the regulars at City churches will be 'Away' for the Christmas/New Year break.

IJ
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
There is no Choral Eucharist down for 19th December. The office at SS thinks choral services will resume on 16th January. (The same office is also of the opinion that where the first Monday of a month is a bank holiday the "Music in Worship" concert won't take place so nothing in May and, in 2018 at least, nothing in April either.)
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The first Monday in April, 2018, is Easter Monday, so there's hardly likely to be a huge attendance at any church, be it in the City or elsewhere!

The same surely goes for the May Bank Holiday, I would think.

[Roll Eyes]

IJ
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The first Monday in April, 2018, is Easter Monday, so there's hardly likely to be a huge attendance at any church, be it in the City or elsewhere!

The same surely goes for the May Bank Holiday, I would think.

[Roll Eyes]

IJ

Indeed. I just checked on City Events and the number of concerts last year across all the City churches on both Easter Monday and May Day Bank Holiday was zero.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Understandably so, as clergy, choirs etc. take time to draw breath after Holy Week.

It will be interesting to see, nevertheless, what services etc. St. Sepulchre's provide over Christmas this year, and Holy Week next year.

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
...and just dropping in to observe that there's a fair number of concerts arranged for November:

http://stsepulchres.org/music/concerts/

There's a problem with this? They seem to be updating their website as fast as they can, but clearly not fast enough for the would-be lawyers.

[Ultra confused]

IJ
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There is no Choral Eucharist down for 19th December. The office at SS thinks choral services will resume on 16th January. (The same office is also of the opinion that where the first Monday of a month is a bank holiday the "Music in Worship" concert won't take place so nothing in May and, in 2018 at least, nothing in April either.)

The office staff probably have been told nothing definite yet about the resumption of choral services. And again, would it be the decision of the staff to make a decision that there's to be no concert on a bank holiday? I doubt it. It's scarcely fair to attack them.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, it seems that, for certain people, St. Sepulchre's staff can do nothing acceptable.

[Disappointed]

To give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they are busily planning all sorts of services and events, none of which might necessarily be that easy to arrange, given the number of different people involved.

IJ
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
…the church has always used the lectionary for the Sunday even before Mr Ingall and his flock arrived.

We usually use the Sunday Second Service lectionary for our midweek Eucharist. The Daily Eucharistic Lectionary really needs to be used every day if it is to make sense. The Sunday lections work for a weekly usage, but a proportion of the Wednesday congregation have already heard the Principal Service readings, so we use the Second Service readings. This gives a sense of flow/continuity from week to week with seasonal readings as appropriate, and readings which are able to stand alone without needing one to have heard the previous lection to get enough context to make sense.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The "Music in Worship" slot on the first Monday of the month which will be (to quote the website)
quote:
exploring the importance and beauty of music in worship. Each evening will be around 60-90 minutes long, roughly three quarters of which will be music, with reflections on the music and worship alongside them.
What they want is liturgical music, rather than just something with a sacred theme or subject:
That sounds very restrictive, so is it necessarily the case? I can see a place for including music which isn't specifically religious yet which, played within the context of worship and placed between appropriate Christian readings and prayers, can be immensely inspiring and even challenging.

To take a parallel, one can sometimes include "secular" poems in a service which provide a powerful and thought-provoking response to a Bible reading or a sermon. Equally, one can use short video film clips to do the same. I'm not suggesting for a moment that St. S's has any intention of doing that, merely to say that the creative use of music in worship can encompass far more than "sacred" or "liturgical" stuff. The comment that this series will "explore" the use of music in worship seems to hint at this.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
This announcement has been made. It is probably not unconnected with the subject of this thread.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
IIRC, Bishop Pete mentioned it earlier in this thread.

Time will tell, but ISTM that throwing open all London churches - not just St. Sepulchre's - to fine music-making is a Good Thing.

Doubtless, the would-be litigators amongst will disagree.... [Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

Time will tell, but ISTM that throwing open all London churches - not just St. Sepulchre's - to fine music-making is a Good Thing.

Yes, I'd agree with that. With some caveats, of course - there is value in a regular concert series being in the same location, so people know where to go, rather than being at a random church each week / month / whatever. Plus, of course, not all churches are created acoustically equal.

But a central clearing-house of churches that are willing to be concert hosts has to be a good thing.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It does depend on the availability of willing volunteers to open up, move chairs, clean, even make coffee ....
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
So, all seems to have gone quiet on the St Sepulchre-without-Newgate front - or has it.

Was gobsmacked to find David Ingall on the TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) channel the other day. Having made this discovery I've kept an eye on the listings (Freeview 65 in the UK) and discover that HTB also appears on the channel under its own name. So presumably Messrs Gumbel, Ingall et al are more than happy to be associated with this organisation?

I think we should be told.

[ 17. January 2018, 14:22: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Ultra confused]

Seriously creepy stuff - this 'prosperity Gospel' shite, yet again.

But it must work, when you look at all the bright, shiny, well-off HTB types...

IJ
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I made myself watch David Ingall speaking about Mary, Martha and Lazarus: not only would it have earned me a detention during my years studying for 'O' level Scripture but it left me not knowing whether to [Killing me] or [Waterworks] or [Projectile]

And Mr Ingall obviously doesn't consider himself to be ordained, a member of the Church of England, or know the correct title of the church where he has title since he is billed as David Ingall, St Sepulchre's In The City - so a bit like Carrie & Co but with tombs rather than sex???
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
L'organist wrote:
quote:
So presumably Messrs Gumbel, Ingall et al are more than happy to be associated with this organisation?
Crikey. Those photos look like something out of a wet dream by Charles Pooter. Or Donald Trump.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I wonder if David Ingall has ever heard that well-known phrase You can tell a man by the company he keeps ? One would like to think so but looking at his fellows in the TBN schedules gives one pause.

There's John Hagee - a man with interesting views. Joel Osteen and Daniel Kolenda also feature in the schedules. All promoters of the "prosperity Gospel".

The rest of the schedule is like a roll-call of those Televangelists who have been exposed for claiming higher degrees and doctorates - Meyer, Hinn, Copeland, "Bishop" TD Jakes, etc, etc, etc.

Maybe now London has a bishop she may wish to look at this and have a gentle word in Mr Ingall's shell-like?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Is this entirely fair, rather than looking for an excuse to hang someone you already don't like? Don't these organisations just sell airspace to anyone who will buy a slot? If I buy my newspaper in a newsagent I don't regard it as reasonable to be criticised because other people buy soft porn there.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
There are other ways that David Ingall could preach and be broadcast without having to chare with such dubious bedfellows. There is Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), Premier Radio (which now also has a TV arm. Above all, there is CTVC (the Churches Television Centre) which produces high-quality programmes and films, non-denominational and satisfies the criteria to be a registered charity, as set up by its founders, Lord and Lady Rank.

It is not a question of liking, or not, David Ingall: I don't know the man. However, what I know of him is that he is someone who has given solemn undertakings to his bishop and then broken them. And that he seems to think it right that he share a pubic platform with people who preach a "gospel" at variance with the CofE of which David Ingall is an priest - people, moreover, who are happy to go on record with ideas that are abhorrent (9/11 was a "punishment" for US sin) and who are brazen in their lies and personal misrepresentation.

A priest is a leader, a pastor, and should be a beacon of probity to his flock and those he wishes were of his flock. Just because Aesop made his remark about a man's chosen company in a pre-Christian pan-theistic society more than 2,500 years ago doesn't mean it should be disregarded today - after all, we value the content of the Old Testament!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
He who lies down with a dog, rises with fleas (or words to that effect). Not Aesop, IIRC, but possibly Seneca.

Whatever - it does seem to be true.

IJ
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I wonder if David Ingall has ever heard that well-known phrase You can tell a man by the company he keeps ?

Well yes, and that accusation has been levelled against one better than David Ingall.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
That reply is close to blasphemous.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Dear all,

This thread seems to have strayed a long way from worship practices at St. Sepulchre's and into gossip about the people involved.

It is also becoming, frankly, needlessly heated.

Although neither of these things are necessarily illegitimate, they are not suitable for an Ecclesiantics thread, which is to say a place for serious yet courteous discussion of worship practice.

At this point I am going to close the thread, and suggest that anyone who is interested in pursuing any of the issues arising start a new thread to do so, probably in Purgatory.

Thanks all!

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0