The church-in conjunction with a qualified builder who holds the client's best interest at heart-must closely examine the options and determine which one provides the greatest gains in both worship and stewardship. Does the organ have enough of its original potential to justify restoring it? Is the instrument hardy enough to warrant rebuilding? At some point in the evaluation process, there often lies a fine line between the cost of rebuilding and that of totally replacing an instrument. Would it be better to try to rebuild what there is, or to scrap it altogether and start afresh? Simply put, if an organ is in too great a state of disrepair, or is simply wanting in too many crucial areas, the only practical solution is Replacement. In many cases the organ is in good repair mechanically but is just too limited in size or tonal design. This is often the case in churches which were small country churches when the organ was installed but now, due to urban sprawl, are sizable suburban parishes with large music programs. If the organ can't be enlarged or seriously altered without drastically changing the character of the instrument, then it should be replaced. Such instruments, if truly in good condition, should be given a second chance in a new location and companies such as The Organ Clearing House should be enlisted to find it a new home.

One client that comes to mind had a poorly-installed 1929 6-rank Moller that was rebuilt on a shoe string budget in the early 1960s. Over the years, a number of well-meaning but short-sighted attempts were made to improve the instrument using second-hand parts to make minor tonal and mechanical changes. The result was that after seventy years, the church was left with an organ that had devolved to a point of financial and musical liability. It could not be counted upon to serve the needs of an active congregation.

If the only thing you ever did to maintain your car was add more oil to the engine, the car would decline rapidly. So it is with organs. Eventually they cannot be bandaged back into working order, but must be replaced. Once made, the decision to replace carries other advantages. It frees the church to reposition the organ in another part of the church. The client mentioned above was able to start fresh and choose the best location in the room for the organ, as well as to consider the overall tonal concept of the new instrument. Complete replacement does allow greater design advantages that would provide musical satisfaction and mechanical reliability while looking objectively at the entire worship and musical situation.

Often, the next step is to determine the location of the new instrument, trying to shun the customary chamber. Is the present location really the best place for a new instrument? Did the old organ's sound fill the room adequately? Did it sufficiently support hymn singing even on major holidays? If not, then why? An instrument completely buried in the back of a chamber behind heavy grille cloth will probably not perform to its full potential. If this is the case, then every effort to open the organ up and bring it as far "into the room" as possible should be made. Placement is often key to a successful installation. Often, a better physical location will allow a smaller organ, properly voiced, to serve quite well.

All in all, the decision whether to restore, rebuild, or replace is not always simple. But with careful, objective consideration a clear path can be charted and the church will end up with an instrument that not only serves their musical needs but gives them years of mechanical reliability as well.