or not as the case may be...
I'm a member of a local church who currently has an organist who plays every week for the services. When she is on holiday I fill in for free. (about five times a year). She currently gets an honarium payment for her time, although the last couple of years has declined to take it.
I have now heard on the grapevine that she has announced that she no longer wishes to play for evening services, presumably continuing with the mornings and the weddings and funerals, which she gets extra payment for.
There are some other issues going on here, and evening services are poorly attended at the moment. One of the questions I have though is what to do if I am asked to play for the evening services, which seems quite likely.
I would love to be involved but don't want to be taken for granted. I already do lots of voluntary hours, church stewarding, running the brownies and helping with the toddlers group. I work as a piano teacher, and want to do a professional job. Can I really just say 'yes ok if you'll pay me?' Am I being unrealistic to expect to be paid? Any advice or experience?

You're right to approach with caution.

As a professional musician you are also within your rights to ask for payment, especially as you say, you will need to do a professional job. The flip-side is that if you remain on a voluntary footing, you can walk away more easily if the need arises.

My husband used to do 2 mattins services a month at our local Anglican church and he was paid for these. He still does 1 Sunday morning service at the other Anglican church nearby and is paid for this. He is not taken for granted by the other organist (who set up the mini rota to give herself a bit of down-time). For the record, my husband is not an organist by profession, but does have organist qualifications and strives to do a good job.

Perhaps only you can decide whether you'll be taken for granted, and whether this will grow out of proportion. We find this can be the case at our Catholic church, where we are volunteers, and so we have recently taken steps to limit our involvement a bit.

If you are already an organist, then yes you should definitely charge. However, if you are pianist who won't be playing the pedals, then I wonder if it is the right thing to do. After all, you will be gaining experience and learning on the job, so would it be right to charge until you are playing the instrument properly?

I play morning services for nothing, having at one time asked for payment at the same church.
My arrangement is that I will play for as many as I am available, and can have a church key so I can go in mid week and practise if I wish (I rarely do). When Im not availble they have two people who can play manuals only of a Clavinova. But then Im not a professional musician, though well qualified.

If you start the job on an unpaid basis you will find it very difficult to go back cap in hand when your duties increase. Working free gratis also makes things difficult for other professionals who may need the money more than you do.

If you really don't want to be paid for playing I would suggest that you accept the stipend and simply give it back to the church via the offering plate.

In my view it is wrong for the incumbent organist to 'cherry pick' weddings, funerals and other profitable services, and then to expect a volunteer to play for services that do not warrant payment.

SB

These days the majority of church organists are employees. In these circumstances, the minimum payment is the National Minimum Wage.

In respect of anyone who is not an independent contractor, one can either be a volunteer and have genuine (i.e not round sum or flat rate) expenses reimbursed, or be paid the National Minimum Wage. There is no alternative.

It is not wrong to expect payment, for learning to play the organ is an expensive business and, in any event, the labourer is worthy of his (or her) hire.

Barry Williams

The Royal School of Church Music takes an interest in this matter and tries to set fair (for both sides) expectations of payment depending on level of committment and expertise required. Their web site gives guidelines which I know others have found helpful. Unfortunately, you need to be an affiliate or individual member to get the exact rates, but the page indicated has lots of good advice.

I feel very strongly about this issue. I play about twice a month at our local village Church and am paid per service. The previous organist was a 'converted pianist' and chose not to ask for payment but, from the outset, I asked for this arrangement and it was accepted without question. Like you I help out with, and enjoy, other activities within the life of the Church on a voluntary basis.

On two occasions in the quite recent past I have deputised at a large, thriving Church with a comprehensive 3 manual instrument at their 9.00 am services. No offer of payment was made, so when I was asked for the third occasion I enquired about payment. Their administrator sent me an email saying that 'never in her 30 years involvement at the Church had they ever paid a deputy organist'. I declined to play.

Now their argument is the well known one and it goes something like this; if God has given you a musical talent then in return you should offer whatever ability you have FREELY in His service. Well, God may have given the likes of Mozart, Shostakovich and Leonard Bernstein a ready made musical talent but He certainly didn't give me one. I had to spend thousands of pounds on my musical education together with many hundreds of hours practising in cold damp Churches to be the reasonable organist I am today.

Mr Bouffant makes a good point about maybe not asking for payment whislt you are learning the trade, but I suspect from what you have told us that your playing is already competent. Furthermore as Swell Box has said 'If you start the job on an unpaid basis you will find it very difficult to go back cap in hand' In my opinion that alone makes a very strong case for payment.

"Now their argument is the well known one and it goes something like this; if God has given you a musical talent then in return you should offer whatever ability you have FREELY in His service. Well, God may have given the likes of Mozart, Shostakovich and Leonard Bernstein a ready made musical talent but He certainly didn't give me one. I had to spend thousands of pounds on my musical education together with many hundreds of hours practising in cold damp Churches to be the reasonable organist I am today."

This argument implies that one has a talent that enable performance without training. Even Mozart and Bach needed training!" Someone has to pay for that training. God gave me natural talent for only one thing and that was not music. (Even then I needed training.) I have paid for every penny of my musical training and it had been very much more expensive than getting a pilot's licence.

I do hope that churches and clergy will drop the 'talent' argument forever. It is so unbiblical

Barry Williams

Not only is it unbiblical, it is also passive-aggressive emotional blackmail.
I find it thoroughly offensive - why is it applied to music like that? What about people who have a God-given talent for caring for others - should they then become a nurse but not expect payment? What about those who are brilliant at working with young children? Or animals? Should they work for nothing and live in poverty? Ridiculous.

As for Mozart and co, they had paid positions.

To the OP, you should expect to be paid and should say so. If the church then decides that they would prefer to seek out someone who will do the job for nothing, that is up to them.
Ditto for Oldromola's case - if the church have never paid a deputy organist in 30 years then they will have to choose someone to fill this role who does not expect to be paid. It doesn't make it the right thing to do though.

Its tricky isn't it. I've been chewing it over and decided to guage the opinion of people here. Yes I feel I do play competantly (at least as well if not better than the current organist). No expert but play a few simple tunes and the hymns confidently. Now I'll admit I haven't yet learnt to pedal (although would be open to learning if I was playing more often, could be fun) but then neither has the current organist whos been playing for however many years! We have a modern electronic organ, I make a reasonable sound and I enjoy it. Nothing compared to what some of you do I know and take my hat off to you. I keep it simple but make sure its done well if that makes sense. We'll see what happens...

I wonder whether their Parish Administrator is paid? (Ours is, and she recives significantly more renumeration for her four hours per week than most organists do. )

Most clergy of my aquaintance are also paid, and have a house provided. Morover, their training is provided free of charge by the diocese, which the Archdeacon is keen to point out when trying to justify our parish share, currently in excess of 100,000 GBP per annum.

If church musicians are expected to work for nothing, why does every other 'professional' in the church expect to be paid?

SB

They don't! Various members of our church just help. Our church treasurer is an accountant, but doesn't charge the church for his services - he has volunteered to do it. We have on several occasions benefitted from the free legal advice of a member who is a lawyer. We have ladies who cook church lunches for nothing, whose day job involves cooking. We do our own church cleaning. Our organist and music group play for nothing (OK, I admit none of those are professional musicians, but our local parish church has several pro musicians in its music group, and they don't charge the church either).

It depends on how you see your church. To me, it's an extension of the family - how many professionals charge their family for what they do for them? However, I don't say that other people shouldn't see it differently. If you want to ask your church to pay you, you should do so. Then it's up to the church whether or not to accept your offer.

"...how many professionals charge their family for what they do for them? [i]"

How many family members expect a prfoessional person to attend twice, sometimes three times a week to render services by which they ordinarily earn their living? Most organists do not charge church members for weddings and funerals. That is the proper comparison for family matters.


Barry Williams

You can't choose your family, but you can choose which church to play at

My wife, who is also an Accountant, was Church Treasurer in this parish for nearly ten years, and didn't expect a penny. Church Treasurers are generally unpaid, and that is well understood. However, unlike an Organist, she could choose when to do the banking and the accounts, and didn't have to attend services if she didn't want to.

On the other hand, the Parish Administrator here is paid, on the grounds that she has to work regular hours in the parish office as required by the clergy. The clergy are also paid, and housed, and have their expenses paid.

Regarding professionals working for family members; in my experience, most 'professionals' avoid working for 'friends' and family members wherever possible, as it is so easy to fall out over such matters, and frankly, few people can afford to spend their working time providing their services free gratis.

SB

Its interesting point about God given talent etc vs musical training.. vs payment..

When I go to church, I go to worship God, that is my 1st priority!
I will play if need to be or asked to. Someone has suggested I should be paid for transport.
(sometimes wish I could play in service when the pianist plays a joyful hymn.. like it was played at a funeral :/ )

The only time I would want to be paid is if hired by another denomination.

Its a truly fascinating subject, it goes beyond music to.

There is another aspect of this matter.

Not every organist is in a financial position to donate fees. The best position is for the organist to take the fee and donate it to the church, adding Gift Aid. In that way the donation is confidential, the church gets used to playing the proper rate, ('the labourer is worthy of his hire'), and the church benefits from the Gift Aid.

The only argument against this process is that no-one has a right to be paid. That line is so wholly unscriptural that it is unsupportable in every respect.

There are still places that do not expect to reimburse mileage, let alone pay a fee. In the present climate that is simply unrealistic.

Barry Williams

I've played in Methodist churches for 14 years and have never received a penny in return for this. I understand that the Methodists always take this stance (though I am aware of several Methodist churches who do pay their organists). I did get fees for weddings and funerals, but these were set by the church and were significantly lower than one might expect. When I suggested what I considered proper rates I was told "no one will want to get married here...!".

I also made a suggestion at one point that if they weren't prepared to pay anything, maybe they'd consider making a small contribution towards music etc...you can imagine the horrified faces! An organist at one of the local churches moved away leaving them without music. They couldn't get anyone to volunteer to do it and eventually I was approached with the words "We can't get anyone to do it for free so we think we might need to pay someone...we were thinking about ?2 per service...would you be interested?..." Suffice to say I did not take them up on their offer.

At the end of the day, I could have moved to a paid position but I did enjoy being part of the community there. I wasn't so bothered about a weekly fee, but over the years, I got fed up with the attitude of just spendiing nothing on the music in the church. By the end, if I wanted to choir to have new music I was financing it out of my own pocket. If churches want decent music, then they need to accept that for many of us, it's a professional commitment. I was doing two services a week, choir practice plus other prep - probably at least 5 hours in total. Whilst churches don't like spending the money, their worship will be enhanced no end by having the music dealt with properly and professionally. Shock horror...the provision of good quality music might actually be a good selling point!

A long time ago when I attended a Methodist church the situation was as mentioned above. The organist was not paid for weekly services but only for weddings and funerals. At the time I took it for granted that our organist played for the sheer pleasure of doing it and that she was a committed Christian and giving her talent to the church. It never occurred to me that this was not really on as a general rule. I now know better and in any case times have changed drastically and what people could afford to give in terms of time and talent many years ago is far from the case now. In any case, if you want to give but not undercut other people you can, as Barry Williams says, quietly give the money back to the church.

As far as financing the music, music holders and gowns, was concerned our choir worked as a team - we held jumble sales, coffee mornings, sposored activities of various kinds and gave concerts at which the audience was expected to buy a programme or make a donation. This may not be an option for a top class cathedral choir but it worked for a suburban non-conformist church where the standard of music was at the time as high as could be expected with the resources we had. But then the choirmaster was an ex-naval commander and he stood no nonsense.

".....and he stood no nonsense."

How very important this is in a choir master.

Barry Williams

...(sorry, posted in wrong forum by mistake!)

I spotted this in the Forum Cafe and thought it rather appropriate to this thread.

SB

At risk of restarting a thread that was more-or-less over:

I no longer play the organ - the reason is that organs always come with a church attached. It's not that I'm not religious: on the contrary, I do care, and want to go to church to worship, not to play music. In fact when it comes to church music I have difficult feelings: it's often very beautiful music, but it rouses the Suspicious Protestant in me, who worries that he is transported by music, not by God, and therefore would prefer not to have the music...

But I would have liked to carry on playing, and I would have been prepared to pay for my practice time.

Now there are also not enough people learning the organ. It really is running the risk of becoming a dead instrument.

Can I suggest that if more churches were encouraged to hire out the use of their instruments for a sensible fee (without threat of being coerced into playing for services!), they would be able to generate enough cash to pay their "proper" organists to play for the services? They should be proactive! Go out and advertise: we have this organ, come and play it! Better, this would actually encourage more organists to get more beginners interested in playing the instrument. Who knows, some could even increase their income still further by teaching. Of course it's not ideal to be taught by a piano-convertee, but as the number of available players increases, so does the chance of finding a genuine organist rather than a willing pianist.

Just an outsider's view...

Writing as an organist who used to teach, and who gave up teaching because getting permission for students (mature, responsible) to practise was well nigh impossible, what can I say ?

Since I got ill nearly three years ago I haven't really been able to play the organ; I did as best I could for a year on the piano, but there were a lot of complaints from the congregation that the piano wasn't suitable (entitled to their opinion, but the alternative was sing unaccompanied). Since we moved, I haven't sought get involved with any church. In many ways, this isn't because I don't want to go to church, but because as soon as you mention anything about music (trying as hard as you can to keep it quiet), you're nearly always pounced on to help out (and I have been practically hounded out of places in the past where I've refused!). I would dearly love to get back to playing the organ for my own enjoyment, but as you quite rightly say, what opportunities are there where there isn't the playing for services attached?


My previous church allowed the cathedral assistant and organ scholar to practise there (they had their own key) and it worked out fine. Once we'd established things like turning the lights off, locking every door etc. there were no problems. The ridiculous thing was that the cathedral were quite willing to pay for this opportunity, if only towards the upkeep of the organ, but the church refused time and time again to accept any money.

" I would dearly love to get back to playing the organ for my own enjoyment, but as you quite rightly say, what opportunities are there where there isn't the playing for services attached?[i]"

My heart goes out to you, Seer Green.

It is possible to obtain an relatively inexpensive electronic insrument for home practise. That frees one from the need to be associated with a church and thus the sometimes irksome duty of playing for services. If you need assistance in this matter please send a private email and I will do all I can to assist you.

It is a fact of history that organs have become associated with churches. What a pity it is that they were not associated with inns, hostelries and public houses. (That is what my great hero, Oliver Cromwell, preferred! He retained a professional organist.)

Churches do seem to cause a lot of unnecessary grief to people. In the process organists, loyal servants of the church, get hurt and wounded and then prefer not to play. It is so sad but so common.

Barry Williams

That's it.

This particular form of organ-playing low-life isnow definitely out of here.

Oh dear, Barry, you've pressed my rant button again.

I'm with Samuel Wesley, who regarded music as a degrading occupation, only fit for those incapable of earning their living in a more respectable way. This certainly remains true for organists.

Here and there you can still find the odd church that values musicians and is prepared to allow them the scope to function decently and meaningfully. If you can find one of these, great, but for the most part I can't fathom why any trained organist would want to subject themselves to working for the church.

In my experience most ordinary churches these days have no understanding or empathy whatsoever with music, organs, or organists. I do know four or five musical priests for whom I have the greatest respect, but they are very much in a minority - and two of them are retired anyway. More common is the priest who thinks he knows about music, but actually doesn't. As far as I can see, your average parish priest today wants good, hearty, congregational singing, a large choir (mainly for witness value, though some do encourage anthems) and that is about it, apart from bits of background music before, during and after the services.

I know of one church today which is the opposite of what limh describes. Everything revolves around the priest. I assume he is sincere, devout and well-meaning, but he consults no one and takes no one's views into consideration - and that goes for the PCC too. He does whatever enables him to feel comfortable and if people don't like it they have to lump it. Services here are a bit like a TV entertainment with the priest as the star compere. This may be an extreme case, but I have come across a few not dissimilar ones.

They say that organists are difficult people and sometimes they are, but, looking around me and at some high profile cases that have come to national notice, I'm convinced that the biggest egos in the Church of England are not the ones sitting on the organ benches.

Thanks for keeping this thread going. I'm enjoying reading the discussion.
I'm still trying to work out exactly whats going on and negotiating... so I will keep you posted and updated when I know. I'm also trying to persuade them to purchase a digital piano so that we don't have to have songs of fellowship songs on the organ if they're not suited. I am so pushing my luck at the mo and wouldn't surprise me if they say no... The minister was supportive though and he pointed out it was only two weeks worth of offertory money so should be affordable. One member pointed out it was the QUALITY of our worship and music and fellowship that mattered and not the money or the concerts or the christmas fairs. Another offered to donate half of the money to buy it as someone was kicking up a fuss about the money... (full of great characters our congregation and never a dull moment!) Thanks for your thoughts.
We will see. I'm treading very carefully. And pushing my luck in a big way!

If only it was that complicated.

In my experience (as the parent of a keen organist) I would say it has much more to do with church politics than playing ability or musical style.

The music in most of the churches around here is dire, so you would think they would welcome a keen music student who can play an organ properly; but that is not the case. Holding the post of [unpaid] Organist is seen as a position of honour in this parish, and has little to do with the post holder's musical ability. Any possible threat to this position is taken very seriously indeed.

Once money is involved, some such individuals will cling on to their posts for dear life, even though they have no interest in the church or it's music; and (in the case I am thinking of), cannot even be bothered to get out of bed to play some Sunday mornings, and has been known to follow the coffin into church at more than one funeral.

Curiously, in either case there are always individuals behind the scenes who, for their own reasons will support said organists via the back door. Such support is clearly political, and rarely has anything to do with music.

You also have to remember that many churches are run by retired people for the benefit of retired people, and there is genuine fear of younger blood coming in to upset the status quo.

Much the same applies to church choirs. The naive amongst us might think that a church choir would welcome an experienced chorister who can sight read, sing in tune, and sing the odd solo part, but we would be wrong.

Thankfully though, there are places that value genuine musical ability, where politics don't get in the way of music or worship. They may be few and far between, but you will know when you find one, and will be grateful of it (as we are).

SB

I'm afraid it's a common failing of many small communities (of whatever type, not just churches) to be closed shops and resistant to change etc.

Although I'm not an organist, I do know quite a few and fortunately, one localish church which has a decent organ (they're currently raising a lot of money for work on the church, of which about 50k or more is designated for work on the organ). They also allow a number of people to use the organ who are not necessarily church organists and some learners. I suspect this is uncommon - but they do have a good music director and sympathetic rector.

One also has to be sensitive to the prevailing culture in a parish. If you turn up as a potential organist and patronise/upset/demean the locals then it might not be surprising if they turn around and give you short shrift.

A parish is like any other social structure, it has a unique dynamic which is a function of history, personalities and politics. The aspiring parish organist must be sensitive to these matters and set a course to avoid potential pitfalls.

Expecting a parish to be grateful because you offered your services is a bit arrogant, I would think. One has to earn the gratitude by becoming a full part of proceedings, not just a show pony who can play piece X or Y.

A perfectly legitimate and alternative view, (for the view expressed above may relate only to the competent amateur,) is that you are a professional, being paid professionally to do a professional job. You expect a professional relationship.

The difference between these two positions is probably the cause of many difficulties.

Barry Williams

That is sad. I presume you are talking about someone who wants to join a choir and sing Sunday by Sunday, fitting in with the existing choir members and the way they do things? (Perhaps gradually influencing things as time goes on, of course.)

It doesn't even necessarily have to involve professionals. More often than not it's simply the difference between someone who knows what they are doing and a meddler who hasn't a clue. But then, where priests are concerned, the cynic would say that it's the essence of their job to pontificate about things that are beyond their understanding, so I suppose it comes naturally.

....... But when you have lived in the parish, a stone's throw from the church concerned for nigh on thirty years; when you were married in that church; had children baptised there; served on the PCC for over twenty-five years; been very active in maintaining the church, and worked tirelessly in fund raising and all the usual things, I would have thought it reasonable that a caring, Christian community would want to encourage your child that it had baptised, nurtured and confirmed, and who is showing real promise as an organist, rather than handing a rare opportunity to play to somebody from 50 miles away, who is of similar age, has similar experience, but no previous connection with the parish, for purely political reasons.

You may well consider my attitude to be arrogant and conceited, and that is your prerogative. But; there has to be something seriously wrong when the 'husband and his [unelected] wife who make all the decisions' (I am not talking about the PCC or Rector here) are quite happy for the youngster concerned to play fund raising recitals, but are not prepared to allow him to play for a service; again, for purely political reasons, and with no explanation ever given.

If the music in the church concerned was of an exceptional standard I would fully understand, but right now it is about as bad as it gets; and that, I suspect, is the problem. (Likewise the choir.)

SB

"[b]the 'husband and his [unelected] wife who make all the decisions' .................are quite happy for the youngster concerned to play fund raising recitals, but are not prepared to allow him to play for a service;[b]"

Herein lies the answer, for it is not 'the husband and his unelected wife' who make any decision whatsoever about music in the church. It is only the minister i.e. vicar, rector or priest in charge who has the final word about who shall or shall not play the organ. Swell Box does not tell us if the husband and his unelected wife are organist and/or choirmaster. If they are, then they would at least have some say, but the ultimate
responsibility rests in law with the minister. (Canon B20.)

Sadly, there are a number of clergy who will not take the responsibility or who try and devolve it others, (even to a 'Worship Committee', whatever that is), usually with disastrous results.

The situation is not uncommon.

Barry Williams

I'm keen, in the course of work, to point to Canon B20 as the ruler of the relationship between minister and DOM - and I have to say that, despite all else, it works well in my present situation.

However, in the course of work in several other churches, and in advising others, there is general ignorance about that measure. This ignorance is, fairly naturally, widespread amongst the laity, but also, sadly, pretty common amongst clergy. Many clergy seem not to know that there is canon law on the subject.

Non-Anglican churches of course have their own measures to govern the relationship, some effective and some less so. The unfortunate situation under discussion, though, seems to exist in the CofE, sadly.

Some general education of ordinands seems indicated, and, by extension, of PCCs.

I would like to make a slight amendment to your sentence:

Many clergy seem not to know that there is canon law.

[/quote]



....... But when you have lived in the parish, a stone's throw from the church concerned for nigh on thirty years; when you were married in that church; had children baptised there; served on the PCC for over twenty-five years; been very active in maintaining the church, and worked tirelessly in fund raising and all the usual things, I would have thought it reasonable that a caring, Christian community would want to encourage your child that it had baptised, nurtured and confirmed, and who is showing real promise as an organist, rather than handing a rare opportunity to play to somebody from 50 miles away, who is of similar age, has similar experience, but no previous connection with the parish, for purely political reasons.

You may well consider my attitude to be arrogant and conceited, and that is your prerogative. But; there has to be something seriously wrong when the 'husband and his [unelected] wife who make all the decisions' (I am not talking about the PCC or Rector here) are quite happy for the youngster concerned to play fund raising recitals, but are not prepared to allow him to play for a service; again, for purely political reasons, and with no explanation ever given.

If the music in the church concerned was of an exceptional standard I would fully understand, but right now it is about as bad as it gets; and that, I suspect, is the problem. (Likewise the choir.)

SB
[/quote]


I have experienced similar kinds of problems at my 'home' church. It is very unsettling, hurtful and can in fact rock your faith etc. Having spent hours of blood/sweat/tears/furious letter writing/worrying/defensive conversations in the name of it all, I realise that it is a fruitless concern and have been able to move on through other doors that have happened to open, as I get the impression that yourself and SB Junior are being able to do. Of my situation, I grew up in said church, my mother was caretaker there for a number of years, and as such we were as well ingrained in to its life and community, similar to what you speak of. The lack of clergy backbone and care, and the turning against myself and my family of the vocal members of the congregation (and various committees), has resulted in (very sadly) our departure.

At the end of it all, I am convinced that there is a problem with being a 'prophet in your own land' here. It seems that no community likes seeing someone they always remember as a baby/child coming in to a position of responsibility, even within a Christian community. Perhaps it's because it makes them realise they're getting old. Perhaps it relates to the psychological concept of self interest, inherent within us all, rather than the natural evolutionary psychology of concerning after our kinship in order to look out for the future of the group/community/family/organisation. Perhaps, it's because the people concerned aren't really Christians. Perhaps it is because it is not what is meant for us. Perhaps, therefore, it is opportunities 50 miles away - such as some recent doors that have opened for yourselves - that are 'meant to be'. To adapt a quote slightly from a very nearby cathedral organist of significant standing, if God wants to be worshiped by organs and SATB choirs, He will make it possible. That, He is doing!

Tosher

I have painful experiences of something along those lines, but not church related. For many years (from being a young teenager) I was part of a local group with a specialist interest/hobby. I was on the committe by my mid teens, had organised national conferences by 21. Yet when, after well over 20 years invovlement I became chairman, there was a significant minority who were very "anti" despite the fact that I had been hugely invovled for all that time in all of the organisation and planning.

I eventually concluded it was the "prophet in his own land" situation. I served my term and then left after nearly 30 years. The national and regional conferences and other special events no longer happen. Why? Oh, that would be because I used to organise them.

I took up music instead (I had just started singing lessons before it started to blow up). So you see, it's not limited to churches, it's wherever you get small-minded people who value their personal power and authority over the greater good. Sadly.

The committees that run churches are often (not exclusively) populated by people who were used to being in positions of authority (e.g. used to be in the miltary, local politicians, company directors etc) and although retired use the church as their fiefdom.

It is very common for folk to be unable to recognise maturity in someone they have known since youth. Even parents have this problem!

I can recall one suburban church, of the Baptist denomination, where the deacons ('elders') had been the backbone of the place for years. As they increased in wealth and moved out to larger houses they stayed in their positions of church power, travelling back for services and meetings. As a result, the youth (and there were many in that place) felt unrepresented and gained no experience in running the church. As these deacons gradually died off there was a huge gap.

Incidentally, the deacons guarded the rather poor pipe organ as though it was a real gem, which it certainly was not. Persons were not permitted to play the organ unless they were have lessons from a teacher whose qualifications had been approved by the deacons. Just occasionally the youth were permitted to do something, but it was almost as though it was a showpiece just for the older people to admire. ("They did rather well, didn't they?")

Incidentally, this is the place where the deacons tried to force Geoffrey Beaumont's Twentieth Century Church Light Music Group music on the youth on the grounds that it was modern. At that time (the early 1960s,) the youth were more interested in The Shadows than imitation 'Salad Days' style hymns.

Another example is the appointment of an extremely able organ tuner at the age of twenty-two years to a very important 'round'. He was treated badly by certain parish organists who wondered why so young a person had been appointed. The cathedral organists, however, were delighted, for he was (and still is) a very fine tuner. Indeed, he has just been promoted to a position of great seniority, notwithstanding the fact that he is still young.

All of these attitudes result from a lack of respect. The message that Jesus taught was first and foremost to respect others. (The so-called Golden Rule - do unto others as you would be done by.)

Regrettably, some churches do seem to be the last place where the essence of Jesus' teaching is found, though there are happier examples to be given, where more enlightened thinking prevails.

Barry Wiliams

Well now: The husband is a Reader, who seems to have strong 'wee free' tendencies. He does not particularly like music or organs in the church, and neither does he like having the church warm and comfortable. His unelected wife is from a Primitive Methodist family, and seems to have a similar outlook, which is probably to be expected after many years of marriage.

Both are 'miserableists' (believing that the only way to save the planet is to sit in the cold and dark, never going anywhere), and both have openly said that 'church should not to be enjoyed'. Furthermore, many of the decisions made by the Reader in connection with the church are clearly his wife's wishes, and not his own.

Matters are further complicated by a previous Rector, who continues to live in the parish. He keeps his own counsel, but his wife seems to enjoy stirring the mire whenever she can, and seems to have considerable influence in some circles.



Regarding Tenor Viol's comment; the 'husband' has an interesting track record, which I would have thought should have rung loud warning bells in the church:

The 'husband' was a science teacher at a semi-rural Comprehensive for many years, eventually becoming a Head of Department. However, when the school's Head Teacher retired, our Reader took it upon himself to assume the position of Head Teacher himself during he interregnum, whilst formally applying for the post. In the event his application was unsuccessful, and a teacher from outside of the area was appointed. Despite this, our Reader refused to acknowledge the authority or even the existence of the newly appointed Head, and continued making executive decisions without the Head's (or anybody else's) agreement or authority.

Eventually things got ugly, and he had to be escorted from the school, and was given a job at County Hall, where we understand his megalomaniac tendencies continued until he was given early retirement.

The account outlined above is well known around the parish, and yet successive Rectors have allowed this Reader to impose his views and wishes on the church, and to empty it!

Interestingly, many of those who have left the church now worship at the local Methodist and Roman Catholic churches, whilst others, like ourselves, travel afar to other Anglican churches. There is also a newly formed 'New Age' church which operates from the Parish Hall. That is not 'our thing' at all, but we understand they regularly have congregations of 60 or more on a Sunday morning, quite a few of which come from the Anglican church across the road!

I am pleased to say that SBJ has since been offered a fantastic opportunity, and we have now moved on as best we can. But I am still angered that one unhinged couple should be allowed to wreak such havoc and damage on a beautiful church that my family been so closely involved with for many years, and which I still love and value. What angers me even more is that these individuals continue to poison the minds of others, and worse still, that people (including clergy) continue to believe what they say!

SB

This is all quite dreadful. However, the responsibility always rests with the vicar/rector/minister. It is he or she that must sort this out.

Barry Williams

Quite right.

I (and others) have discussed the matter of said Reader with the previous incumbent on several occasions. He openly admits that 'there is a problem', but then says that the Reader has 'anger management issues', and that he 'wouldn't want to tackle him on the subject'. He also says that Reader's wife suffers badly from stress, and that he wouldn't want to make things worse for her. (Never mind the rest of us.)

The present incumbent likes to delegate everything to local DCC's and sub committees, thereby sidestepping any difficult decisions.

Rather than grasp the nettle, we had a Parish Review about two years ago where the 'management style' of the Reader, and lack of decision making at the top were identified as major obstacles. Predictably, nothing has changed.

SB

This highlights the difficulties of not addressing the real issue at the material time. The incumbent, if unwilling to address a major issue, should consult the archdeacon. The parishioners, indeed, should have referred this matter to the archdeacon or the bishop years ago. It is easy to be wise after the event, after the harm has been done and after the people have left the church - for ever - they do not come back.

The present incumbent cannot delegate pastoral matters, such as appear to be presented by these two rather sad people. Further, it having been identified as an issue in a Parish Review, the incumbent is obliged to take the necessary action.

Readers, incidently, have no managment function as readers whatsoever, so they cannot have a 'managment style' that gives rise to problems. Likewise, the incumbent cannot delegate musical matters to anyone save the organist and choirmaster. PCCs and DCCs, like music/worship committees, have no authority because the incumbent retains all powers under Canon B20.

I have, quite recently, come across a case of an unfortunate couple in a choir whose interpersonal skills were rather lacking. Everyone just put up with them. The incumbent refused to take action because they were 'very good givers'. One of the churchwardens took a different view and expressed the matter in somewhat direct terms. The situation certainly improved.

Musicians in churches do seem to suffer rather a lot from lay intervention of an unforunate kind. The law is there to support them, as are the members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. However, actually taking action is difficult and people often prefer to leave. It is good that Swell Box Junior has a happier place at which to play. My wife and I have been to the church and know the Director of Music. It is a good place with a superb organ.


Barry Williams

Post Deleted

Just to update you all. I have agreed to play for evening services now. Talked to minister and agreed we would look into splitting the money. I think the organist really does want to retire altogether but not wanting to drop everyone in it... iyswim. I have also stuck my neck out in worship consultation meeting and said that if I am doing this then evening services need to change(gosh!) to suit a smaller gathering as sometimes there are just a handful of people in the evening. In the morning its fairly full.
Anyone else any experiences of any formats / music which have worked well with just a few? I want people to feel comfortable rather than battling to sing 5 hymns, when there's sometimes only four or five people! (sometimes up to twenty). The current organist or preachers don't seem to make allowances... Us Methodists are die hards for our five hymn sandwich. The organist seems to play the same as when there's a full morning congregation, I think I would soften it a bit so that people aren't straining to sing over it?
I do think a few more people would be there if they felt more comfortable.
Hope this makes sense!

There needs to be a certain 'critical mass' of worshipers for singing to work, and I think five is very close to that limit, especially if the service is held in a large church building.

Is there an option to move the service into a smaller meeting room, for example, and to use a piano?

One of our midweek communion services here was dying a few years ago, and the one hymn was dropped because nobody felt comfortable singing it without accompaniment. The service was held in the quire, but without organ, whilst the nearest piano was too far away to be of use.

Eventualy the decision was made to move the service to a meeting room, which is comfortable, easier to heat, and has a piano. There was a lot of resistance at the time, but the congregation now numbers twenty or more most weeks.

SB