<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Having been out all day yesterday - looking at a
bellframe that the ringers hope to remove! - I've only just picked up on
yesterday's postings, but would like to echo David Cawley's analysis of the
outcome and his observations on the need for calm and considered responses
(especially in public)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The noose has undoubtedly tightened with regard to
alterations to churches and their fittings, but what makes matters worse is that
standpoints have become so polarised. In truth, the "all must be kept" approach
has no more validity than the "all must be new" standpoint. There is a need for
a due regard for the heritage, but equally there should be scope for both
necessary renewals (as, surely, ought to be possible at Great Malvern) and for
well-considered improvements. The Great Malvern judgment is a prime example
of what happens when opposing sides dig in and refuse to budge - more as a
matter of principle than anything to do with practical realities.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I tried to cover this in my paper at the
Perspectives conference at Worcester in 2007, and it might be timely to suggest
that people revisit it in the light of current developments (RW supplement 25
January 2008 pp.105-28) which contains several useful contributions other than
my own. My paper is quite tightly argued in places and needs to be read
carefully for the subtlety (and balance) of some of the key points. I have also
written a more general paper about the balances in conservation in churches -
"Our Parish Churches: some reflections on the passage of time" - in
<EM>Ecclesiology Today</EM> no.40 (June 2008) pp.60-66</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Perspectives was arranged to address these issues
and it did so with some success. But maybe we need to make more use of the
published papers in order to maintain the momentum. In hindsight,
Perspectives may have brought people together but it hasn't had the effect - yet
- of encouraging the dialogue between opposing parties that is so badly
needed. Give and take on both sides is required, and some suggestions on
this are to be found in my Perspectives paper. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>We need to remember that the cause of ringing is
not well served - because it merely raises hackles and sets alarm bells
ringing - by the "only new will do" standpoint that fails to recognise or
accommodate conservation possibilities. Conservationists react to it just as we
ringers respond to dogged persistence to preserve in cases of limited
historical interest and demonstrable need for renewal</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>CP</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><!--End group email --></BODY></HTML>