There was an article in the paper this past Friday that caught my attention. A church in downtown Raleigh is in the process of installing a new pipe organ in the sanctuary. The new organ will include 97 sets of pipes, which equals to about 6,000 individual pipes. When installed, the organ will be twice the size of the old one.
Six technicians from Quebec, Canada, are in town for the next two weeks, unloading and assembling the two tractor-trailer loads of pipes in hopes of having the new organ assembled in time for the Christmas season. The church committee in charge of the purchase took three years to study the need and logistics for the organ. And how much did it cost? $1.8 million dollars.
This is one of the reasons I continue to grow disillusioned and frustrated with the traditional church. Is it really necessary to spend millions of dollars in order to increase the number of pipes on an organ that is used for choir practice on Wednesday evenings and during worship services on Sunday mornings? Will this new organ do anything to enhance or better the lives of those living in the surrounding community? Will it really enhance the worship services when a it requires the members to sing at the top of their lungs to be heard over the organ? Will a new organ be a tool for church growth and draw new members to the church?
I know this church. I know some people who attend this church. This church partnered with several downtown Raleigh churches (including mine) to build a Habitat house. I'm aware of various ministries they support. But, is an organ that cost $1.8 million a good use of resources when there are more pressing needs in the community?
I know a homeless couple that sleeps on concrete each night within two blocks of this church. They could use part of that $1.8 million to get an apartment for a baby that is due to arrive soon. There is a day shelter for women a few blocks in the other direction. The room where the women gather to each lunch has holes in the ceiling and trashcans are lined up to catch the water each time it rains. I think a small portion of that $1.8 million could patch the ceiling, and even have some left over to paint the walls and stock the food pantry.
I know some people living with HIV who are barely surviving on the small disability payments they receive. They could benefit from a share of the money. The Alliance of AIDS Services - Carolina could use a gift of money to increase their ministries to those living with HIV in the state of North Carolina.
I know of a soup kitchen a few blocks from this church that could use a share of the $1.8 million to provide more nutritious meals to the 300 individuals who stand in line each day to satisfy the hunger pains they experience.
I could probably think of 1.8 million ways to use that money. A pipe organ would not even be on the list. And were you to ask those who will never pass through the doors of this church on Sunday mornings, they could give you a wish list too. Instead, they will continue to stand on the streets of Raleigh, humming along with the strains of "O, For a Thousand Pipes" (the title of the news article) and wondering where that sound is coming from.
To see the full article in the News and Observer, follow this link: http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/765773.html
4 comments:
I feel sure that Edenton Street Methodist does its fair share in helping the community, and, quite frankly, if they want to spend 1.8 million on an organ, it's their business.
You didn't say in a previous blog if the beach condo is your personal property, but the argument could be made that the money that went for your beach trip could have been better used.
I think that the organ will enhance the worship of God, which is the primary reason for believers to gather together.
I think I made it clear that I was aware of and pointed out that Edenton Street UMC does its share of helping the community.
My issue was a personal one, in which I have a hard time with churches spending millions of dollars on mega buildings and items that I personally don't find necessary to enhance my worship of God. ESUMC has every right to spend that money as they choose - it is their business.
The beach condo is owned with eleven other families. It is used for family vacations, writing days, and often shared with others who have need of a vacation.
I don't know if you know me or not. I'm guessing that you don't or you would know my heart and have some idea of how I use my resources - you would know those things I believe in and support with my time and resources. I can assure you that the money I saved by not
eating out while at the beach will be used for a good cause.
I worked for the largest Episcopal Church in Txas for several months here in Houston. The annual budget is 8.5 million. The Tithes and offerings pledges totaled out well over the 8.5 million (a church with a surplus?) The church does do great things in the community, but also had a ot of programs and things that i thought might be too much. (like paying 20 people to be section leaders in a 50 person choir) Yes one of those jobs was mine for a time, but to have to pay that many people to fill a choir to match the organ and space of your place of worship?
The new sactuary was built with a beautiful Organ, and currently the Director of music has been bringing in top Organist form all over the country to present recitals. THe church has lost money from these events. This post, like all of yours :), just made me think.
Thanks,
Kenneth
Hello Jan, We haven't met but I like your last name :-)
I understand my response will vary a little from the point your were making. I agree 1.8 mill for an instrument to augment worship seems like a lot to most of us and certainly would seem excessive to emergent kinds of groups that have very little physical property. But the real answer is an "it depends." If 1.8 mill is a minor portion of a church's resources that will not be as excessive as their having to borrow 1.5 mill to acquire it would be.
My church, The Memorial Baptist Church in Greenville, NC, incurred significant fire damage January 13, 2007. We had an organ (which folks from Canada spent several days on site installing in the 1970's after building it in Canada) that cost $150,000. Not quite 1.8 mill, but a lot of money to us. It is being replaced for $400,000 mostly paid by our insurance company. Substantively the same organ.
So it becomes a little murky when criticizing dollars placed into appreciating property. Of course there is zero guarantee that anything will appreciate. But there is lots of precedent. Some dying churches have significant physical assets that are still available for ministry in the future.
Even so, it might be better stewardship to spend most of that 1.8 mill on ministry during 2007 that is stifled because of lack of resources. Just as it may be better stewardship to spend the significant dollars many churches place into endowment funds for ministry today rather than having only the earnings available. Of course the principle is still there, just like the value of an organ, but it is currently neutered as to ministry.
I've only contrasted "endowment funding" with "organ funding." There are thousands of such contrasts, each of which has an "it depends" answer.
It is so complicated that I'm probably the only one that gets it 100% right 100% of the time! :-)
Post a Comment