Category Archives: Church of Scotland

Church of Scotland General Assembly 2010 Moderator Designate

Leave a reply

This morning the nominating committee announced the Moderator Designate for the 2010 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  I would like to congratulate the Rev. John Cairns Christie on receiving this honor.

Rev. Christie is a native of Glasgow and is a second career minister having a first career as a teacher with training in biology.  He holds the highest professional certification of Chartered Biologist from the Society of Biology.  After nearly two decades in education he was ordained to the ministry in 1990 and his early service included work as a school chaplain.  He has also served as convener of the Glasgow Presbytery Education Committee, among others.  Since 2004 he has been serving in Interim Ministry and currently serves at St Andrew’s Parish Church, West Kilbride and some times at Scots Kirk, Lausanne, Switzerland.  (And I thought I had an interesting commute. )  The Rev. Christie appears to have plenty of activity in his life having served on several GA committees, recreational activity that includes 5-a-side football, and his wife Annette is on the international team for the Scottish Indoor Bowling Association.

The Church of Scotland has an official press release of the announcement and so far the media appears to be using the info in the press release.  I’ll update here when more detailed stories or interviews have been published.

UPDATE: I was glad that we still have an insider view of the process thanks to the Rev. Ian Watson at Kirkmuirhill.

UPDATE: An interesting editorial in The Times about The Kirk needing to have a Moderator for longer than one year so they can “make a mark.”

Sorting Out What The Actions Of The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland Mean

3 Replies

The General Assembly (2009) of the Church of Scotland dealt with a protest to a Presbytery approval of a church’s call to a partnered gay man to serve as pastor of the church.  For more details you can check out a couple of my previous posts, but to greatly summarize the actions of the Assembly on the specific case the policy of the CofS going forward they:

  1. Sustained the call and the Presbytery approval
  2. Formed a Special Commission to report back to the 2011 General Assembly with recommendations about such actions in the future.
  3. Placed a moratorium on ordination and induction (installation) of partnered same-sex individuals while the Commission is working
  4. Placed a gag order on all officers of the church urging them not to talk publicly about this whole issue while the commission is working

There has been much made about the gag order since the Assembly, including my comments in May and August. Up to this point that has been getting most of the publicity.

But this week brings news of some disagreement over the nature of the moratorium on ordination of partnered gay candidates.  Thanks to the Rev. Ian Watson for bringing this to our attention and all the important details are laid out in a post on his blog, with a brief follow-up.

His first post is extensive and complete enough that a GA Junkie can get a good idea of what the issues are.  I will summarize the recent action and then comment on the polity implications and the parallel to the PC(USA) working through this same question.

Rev. Watson reports that on September 1 the Presbytery of Hamilton “voted to nominate for training for the ministry of a man who is in a civil partnership.”

The question that arises is what is the scope of the Assembly’s action.  The specific deliverance says:

Instruct Presbyteries to observe a moratorium on ordinations and
inductions which might appear to prejudice the Special Commission before it reports.

Rev. Watson reports that as part of this decision the Presbytery received advice from the national CofS Ministries Council pertaining to the moratorium.  The complete advice is in his post, but it reads in part:

The decisions recently made should ensure that no applicant will be prejudiced, between now and the General Assembly of 2011, in the decision of their Presbytery whether to nominate them. That Assembly will determine the Church’s position, on receipt of the report of the Special Commission that has been established under the convenership of a Scottish judge.  No-one can predict at this stage what implications that might have for those who are applicants, candidates, or serving in the ministries of the Church at that point. 

So it is unclear if the moratorium applies only to the final step in ordination and induction, or applies to the whole ordination process.  This is a question that the Church of Scotland will have to wrestle with.

One of the reasons that I bring this up is because the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has had to deal with exactly the same issue, and the changes that the Report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity (PUP) brought.

Since adoption of G-6.0106b into the PC(USA) Book of Order there has been a discussion about at what point in the ordination process the “fidelity and chastity” clause needed to be applied.  The decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, especially Sheldon v. West Virginia and Stewart v. Mission, set the pattern for handling these cases during the ordination process not at the point of the final examination for ordination by the Presbytery.

The Authoritative Interpretation adopted with the PUP Report allowed for declaring exceptions to the standards of the church but it does so in the context of examination for ordination, not entry into or during the preparation process.  Suddenly the ground shifted so that the review was no longer during the preparation process but at the time of examination.  This was the process affirmed by the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific in the case of Naegeli v. San Francisco, but has not been tested by the GAPJC yet.

So there you have some of the subtleties of this type of case.  Where is the appropriate point in the process to enforce standards or policy?  It is not clear that the Church of Scotland case will go any further, that would require a protest from members of the Presbytery of Hamilton and Rev. Watson does not suggest that is coming.  There does appear to be a need for a formal clarification from the Ministries Council to the whole church, not just on a case-by-case basis to Presbyteries.  But this would then start to drift into the realm of the prohibition on publicly discussing the topic. 

And what is the spirit of the actions that were taken by the CofS General Assembly?  The sense I got from listening to the debate was that they wanted to provide a level and neutral space for the Commission to work.  A space that was not biased or prejudiced by specific actions and statements within the church.  I must agree with Rev. Watson that this action by the Presbytery of Hamilton does seem to encroach on the spirit, if not the letter, of the Assembly action.  Time will tell how this develops.

Church Of Scotland National Youth Assembly 2009

1 Reply

As the first weekend of September approaches it is once again time for the National Youth Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  The event will be held 4-7 September at Stirling University.

To keep track of the Assembly the best method will probably be Twitter with the hashtag #nya2009.  If you remember from last year, the hashtag for that Assembly made the Twitter trending list at one time and the organizers asked people to temporarily stop tweeting and return to the real world from the virtual.

There is also an official blog for the Assembly at cosyblog.wordpress.com.  On there you can read that the theme of the Assembly this year is “Field of Dreams.”  To give you a flavour of the Assembly this year here is a shortened up version of the welcome on the official blog:

It’s not long now til we meet at Stirling University – hope you are beginning to get excited!

We have a great programme lined up: Digging deeper and unearthing the ground in our debate chats on Identity, Multi faith, Spirituality and Wealth.

Lots of different types of worship to stir you out of your beds in the morning and to get you jumping at night.

Long lunches where you can doing something Physical and Sporty and the Scottish National Sports Centre (very conveniently also on the same campus) Hmm not likely to find me there much I’m afraid!  You can catch a movie, have some quiet worship time or go to any of the workshops – of which there are masses to choose from!

The hootenanny is there for all you folks who have a talent to share – get in touch with Kim Wood if you haven’t already done so!

We have 35 folk coming from Sweden who perform in a fab choir – they will be doing a set for us one evening as well helping us to hum the odd tune here and there.

Don’t forget, that Saturday night is the Gala Dinner – Big surprise as to the theme (even for me!) so don’t forget your glad rags and some dosh for the charity we are supporting!

The moderator has gone on holiday!!! Hopefully he will be back in time!!

It’s going to be great!! Looking forward to seeing you there. We will be thinking about Field of Dreams – what are your dreams, visions, hopes for the church, the world, yourselves, your faith……..

In case you did not catch it, the official topics for discussion will be “Identity, Multi faith, Spirituality and Wealth.”  Should be interesting, especially since the decisions of this Assembly will provide recommendations and business items for the General Assembly next May.  I consider the NYA a great event because if you want insight into the thinking of the younger generation in the church this is the event to watch and because of how it interacts with the GA.

In addition to the official blog I was tempted to “round up the usual suspects” and make recommendations as to who to follow, but decided instead I would add updates to this post as they started to post.  The one “announced” blogger I can recommend is Chris Hoskins over at What is Freedom? who has put up his intro message for NYA2009.

So stay tuned and I look forward to the discussion next weekend.

Law And Gospel

2 Replies

It has been an interesting week in the Law and Gospel department.  The Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has been meeting in Minneapolis and the high-profile topics have been related to same-sex relationships, both regarding the church’s role in civil union and marriage as well as serving in church office.  It is interesting to listen to the Lutherans work through their business and note the similarities (getting hung up in parliamentary procedure, standing in line for microphones, the arguments on both sides of the same-sex relationships issues) and the differences (bishops, technical terminology, theological distinctives). 

One of the most interesting things to me is that in their arguments regarding same-sex issues there was a recurring theme of Law and Gospel.  While this argument always comes up in a variety of forms in these debates and discussions, my impression is that it is more prominent here than in Presbyterian discussions, probably because it was a major emphasis of Martin Luther‘s work.  We Reformed deal in Depravity and Election, Lutherans appear to wrestle with Law and Gospel.  We talk about translations and confessions, New Testament passages and Old Testament patterns.  They were discussing the various categories of Levitical laws and how they have been superseded or replaced by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God.

At the bottom line there is nothing really new in the arguments.  But what struck me was how our slightly different theological perspectives change the emphasis and focus of the arguments we make.

Maybe the most exciting (not necessarily in a good sense) external event at the Churchwide Assembly was a tornado touching down next to the convention center and damaging the far end of the building as well as the Lutheran church across the street.

Got to love the City Pages blog that writes:

So what happens when you crowd thousands of Lutherans in a convention center and a tornado comes along? Nothing. The humble folk of Scandinavian heritage took news of the storm as calmly as one would take news of a church potluck.

(Actually, Lutherans go nuts over potlucks. So that comparison is off a bit.)

But there was a predictable response, or at least the Twitter crowd predicted it, from certain quarters that this tornado was a sign or punishment from God related to the same-sex topics. (So PC(USA) be warned for your meeting there next year, although there was no such sign for the Presbyterians last year in San Jose or the Episcopalians this year in Anaheim.)  The most prominent of those declaring the possibility of God’s warning was Minneapolis Baptist minister John Piper writing in his blog.  And because of his high profile it did get news coverage in both the regular as well as religious press.  (And with 492 comments to that post, at the moment, it struck a nerve with readers as well.)

So another variation on Law and Gospel — The message of punishment is a message from God that His Law has been transgressed.  There is still a place for Law in the Law and Gospel tension.

But in the Law and Gospel debate this week there has been an even more widely and hotly discussed topic — the release of the Lockerbie bomber from Scottish prison on compassion grounds.  The Church of Scotland was in favor of the release and issued this statement:

The Church of Scotland today praised the decision that meant Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released today on compassionate grounds by Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill.

Rev Ian Galloway, Convener of the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland said:

“This decision has sent a message to the world about what it is to be Scottish. We are defined as a nation by how we treat those who have chosen to hurt us. Do we choose mercy even when they did not choose mercy?

This was not about whether one man was guilty or innocent. Nor is it about whether he had a right to mercy but whether we as a nation, despite the continuing pain of many, are willing to be merciful. I understand the deep anger and grief that still grips the souls of the victims’ families and I respect their views. But to them I would say justice is not lost in acting in mercy. Instead our deepest humanity is expressed for the better. To choose mercy is the tough choice and today our nation met that challenge.

We have gained something significant as a Nation by this decision. It is a defining moment for all of us.”

I found it interesting that it was about being Scottish and not distinctly being Christian.  In an interview with CNN Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill echoes this.  Some of his responses:

MacAskill: Well, each and every compassionate release that has been granted, and there have been 30 granted since the year 2000, is done under individual circumstances. And as we were seeing, in Scotland, justice is equally tempered with mercy. Those who commit an offense must be punished and have to pay a price.

Equally, we have values that we seek to live by, even if those who perpetrate crimes against us have not respected us or shown any compassion. Here is a dying man. He didn’t show compassion to the victims, American or Scottish. That does not mean that we should lower ourselves, debase ourselves, or abandon our values.

He was justly convicted, but we’re allowing him some mercy to return home to die.

[snip]

And certainly this atrocity was a barbarity that we have never experienced before in our small country. And it’s a barbarity we hope will never be replicated here, nor would we wish it anywhere else.

But equally, the Scottish justice system is predicated upon justice being enforced, but mercy and compassion being capable of being shown.

Many around the world were not in favor of the release, including the U.S. Government, victim’s families, and airline pilots.

Scanning the news reports I see more objection from this side of the Atlantic.  But again, it challenges us as to how we hold Law and Gospel, judgment and mercy in this case, in tension.  This compassionate release appears to be a more accepted in the U.K. than in the U.S.  But it is not unheard of here as a California news item today shows.  Very different crimes, but both releases on compassionate grounds for terminally ill prisoners convicted of murder.

Update: T
here are now posts from or about Scottish pastors who have weighted in on the release.  There is a piece about Fr. Patrick Keegans,  who visited the prisoner in jail, believes he is innocent, and welcomes the release.  On the other side, there is a post by Church of Scotland minister the Rev. Ian Watson who argues that forgiveness and compassion are the place of the individual and not the state.  Maybe most interesting are his comments about how his thinking changed over the days following the release.

While you may come down on one side or the other of each of these examples, each is a strong reminder that our God is a God of both Law and Gospel.  God has set down laws and requirements for us to meet.  There are definite rules to be followed and consequences if we don’t.  But in the end, we as humans are incapable of fulfilling the Law and our only hope of salvation and eternal life is the Gospel.  Now, as the people of God, how do we model and balance the Law we are under and the Gospel that has ultimately saved us in our everyday lives.

Good luck and let’s be careful out there.

Developments In Scotland

1 Reply

Over the last two months there has been a slow but nearly constant stream of news coming out of the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland.  Having not posted on any of the individual bits and pieces I thought I would now try to go back and summarize the general flow of the news.

While one particular item is simmering, there have been a couple of  other interesting, and not completely unrelated, news items.  One of these is the initiation of Sunday ferry service to the Islands.  Earlier this month the ferry service between the Mainland of Scotland the Isle of Lewis began, leading to silent protests and discussion over the end of a way of life.  As an article in the Telegraph put it:

The staunchly Presbyterian island is one of the last areas of the country where the Sabbath is widely regarded as a day of rest.

and later

The Free Church of Scotland – the Wee Frees – claim the move will destroy a way of life, while supporters say it will drag Lewis and neighbouring Harris – which have had Sunday flights for seven years – into the 21st century.

Although the church has showed some skepticism with the explanation, in the article the ferry company says that by not running on Sunday they are in violation of a European law “if it followed the wishes of one part of the community on Lewis, while sailing to almost every other large island on a Sunday.”

This is just one in a series of protests by Presbyterians in the UK protesting activities moving onto the Lord’s Day, including a protest just under a year ago by members of the Free Presbyterian Church in Ireland when the first Sunday football (soccer) match was held.

Now, at about the same time last month the Isle of Lewis made the news again for the first same-sex partnership ceremony or wedding in the Western Islands.  Again, in that conservative corner of Scotland the locals were not enthusiastic about the news, reported in the Sunday Mail, especially the leadership of the Free Church.

And in an interesting twist a court ruling was returned this week over church property, but in contrast to the cases stateside, this was the conservative Free Church (FC) prevailing in the case against one of its congregations that had broken away in 2000 as part of the formation of the more conservative Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) (FCC).  This is reported as one of about 12 congregations where there is a property dispute.  In his decision the judge said:

The defenders admitted that they had left the structure of the FC and had set up their own structure. There was and is an FC and the body to which the defenders belonged took themselves away from that and set up their own structure. As the defenders did not aver that the FC no longer adhered to its fundamental principles they had lost their property rights. There was a sharp issue between the parties as to how the series of authorities had to be understood. The defenders’ analysis of the authorities was fundamentally misconceived: if they were correct chaos would result since the FCC had set up competing trustees. What the authorities clearly showed was that those who left a voluntary church and separated themselves from its structure lost their property rights in it unless they showed that they adhered to the fundamental principles of the Church and that those who remained within the structure did not. Neither group in the present case averred that the other did not adhere to fundamental principles.

In other words, at least as I understand it, since this was a disagreement over details of the faith and not the major substance of their doctrine the FCC has no legal basis for claiming the property as the “true church.”  (I welcome clarification and/or correction as I am not as familiar with Scottish legal decisions.)  My summary is echoed in articles from The Herald and the Stornoway Gazette.  And in the article in The Herald it says:

But Reverend John Macleod, principal clerk of the Free Church (Continuing), said: “Our legal committee will be studying Lord Uist’s findings and consulting our lawyers in early course.”

The FC spokesman says they hope this will set a precedent so that legal action against the other congregations will not be necessary to recover the property.  Variations on a theme, no?

Finally, the continuing “hot topic”:

When we last discussed the situation in the Church of Scotland the General Assembly had just concluded, the Rev. Scott Rennie had been approved for his call to a church in Aberdeen, a moratorium was in place on any new calls to same-sex partnered ministers, and a gag order had been placed on all officers of the church.  So where do we go from here?

On July 3 the Rev. Scott Rennie was inducted (installed) as the pastor of Queen’s Cross Church in Aberdeen Presbytery. (BBC)

On July 25 a Church of Scotland minister announced he would step down from his call in disagreement with the General Assembly decision (BBC) but did not announce plans to leave the Church of Scotland.  A few days later a member of one of the church councils announced that he was leaving the CofS over this. (The Press and Journal)

At about the same time the editor of the Free Church magazine The Monthly Record, the Rev. David Robertson, wrote an editorial in the latest edition that suggested that those leaving the Church of Scotland could find a home in the Free Church.  Titled “Ichabod — The Glory Has Departed” he criticized the action of the CofS General Assembly  and says:

Whatever happens, barring an extraordinary outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Church of Scotland is crippled and dying and will find itself increasingly unable to bring the Living Water of Jesus Christ to a thirsty nation.

The editorial then goes on to suggest responses from the Free Church (highly edited for length):

We have to respond. This is the most significant event in the history of the Church in Scotland since the union of 1929. It affects us all. Again, we simply list some suggestions.

1) We need to repent as well. There must not be even a hint of schadenfreude, delighting in another’s misery in order to indulge in an ‘I told you so’ kind of self-justification. How eff
ective are we in reaching Scotland’s millions? Any form of pride or thankfulness that we are ‘not as others’ is utterly reprehensible and totally unjustified.

2) We must offer as much support we can to our brothers and sisters who are really hurt and suffering within the Church of Scotland. Not because we want to entice them to join us, but simply because they are our brothers and sisters. Many of them are faithful, hardworking and fine Christians who have served Christ for many years within and through the Church of Scotland. They are pained beyond belief. Now is not the time to stick the boot in. Now is the time to offer a helping hand, including to those who will stay.

3) We need to provide a home for those who cannot stay. If this means for the sake of Christian unity that we have to allow them to worship God in the way they are used to – then so be it. It is surely not a coincidence that the year before the Special Commission is due to report, the Free Church will be debating and deciding on whether to amend what forms of worship will be allowed within our bounds. We should not do what is unbiblical or sinful in order to facilitate Christian unity, but neither should we allow disagreement on secondary issues (disagreements which we have amongst ourselves already) to prevent us from uniting with likeminded brothers and sisters. [text deleted] It is time for us all to recognize that we are no longer in the 19th century, or even in the 20th. We are no longer a Christian society with a national church which just needs to be reformed. We are in a postmodern secular society where the vast majority of people are ignorant of the Gospel, ignorant of the Bible, and have little or no meaningful concept of the Church. For us this is a new beginning. We need new wine, and for that we need new wineskins.

4) We need to inform the Church of Scotland that the stumbling block in our negotiations with them has just become a mountain. We always knew that the issue of scripture was the major one, but now that the Assembly has decided that Scripture is not synonymous with the Word of God, it is difficult to see on what basis we can have any meaningful official discussions. [text deleted]

5) We need to seek realistic co-operation and build bridges to overcome years of prejudice and misinformation on all sides. At an official level, Free Church presbyteries could offer associate status to Church of Scotland ministers, elders and congregations. We should seek to form Gospel partnerships in areas where we share the same theology and understanding of the Gospel. We would support rather than compete with one another and perhaps plant churches and worship together…

While these are personal comments of the editor of the official magazine, point 4 reflects the concern expressed at the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland for the direction of the mainline Church of Scotland and the implications that had for the continuing talks regarding their ecumenical relations.

The editorial concludes with this:

These are dark days and the worst is yet to come. But these are also days of great opportunity for the light of the Gospel to shine all the more brightly… Where is the passion of Knox who declared, ‘give me Scotland or I die’? Where is the vision of Chalmers when he stated, ‘Who cares for the Free Church compared with the Christian good of Scotland’? Those who share that passion and vision must unite – across denominations – and make a stand to uphold and proclaim the wonderful full gospel of Jesus Christ. Who knows – it may be that these past days have been the shake-up that a complacent church in Scotland has needed. May the latter days of the Gospel in Scotland be greater than the former.

I have been looking for reaction to this editorial in either official statements or news coverage and have not seen any yet.  I’ll update when I do.

There are definitely rumblings of concern out there, and an article in The Herald today puts some of them in writing, but without naming a lot of names.  It mentions a church that is looking at withholding its annual contribution to the national church.  It says that there are 35 churches that have said “they will not accept gay ordination under any circumstances” with the report of more congregations to follow.

Finally, the restrictions on discussing the ordination standards in the Church of Scotland, particularly in public or to the media, are starting to be questioned.  In particular, the Rev. Louis Kinsey presented an argument last week on his blog Coffee With Louis about the problem with the ban on discussion, and the comments got picked up by The Herald.  He concludes his argument with this:

It is simply contrary to the spirit of the church, the church that worships the Word made public in Jesus Christ, to prevent its Courts, Councils and congregants from trying to talk this issue and its implications through in every way possible, including publicly, albeit with graciousness and respect.  It cannot be argued that further discussion can continue within Presbyteries.  It just won’t happen.  We all know that.  Life and Work?  The pages of Life and Work are sealed, as far as letters and articles on this matter are concerned.  That magazine just will not publish.  They are following the moratorium. 

There is, now, no arena in which this debate can continue, and yet it should continue, because God continues to have a strong view on the matter.  All parties to this debate can at least agree on that.

My hope is that the moratorium will be challenged.  It only serves to drive debate underground and it stifles the exchange of opinion.  It is patronizing because it infers that the Assembly simply cannot and will not trust the members and ministers of the Kirk to hold a public discussion in a spirit of respectful disagreement.  It was agreed without evidence, on the say-so of the proposer, and because it prevents Kirk members from hearing one another’s perspective, it only adds to the momentum towards disintegration.

This moratorium is hurtful not helpful and should be ended.  It is a mistake that needs correcting.  It is the absence of freedom of speech.

There is much going on here, most in initial stages, including the work of the Special Commission.  We will see how all of these facets of the situation develop.

What Is Your Strategy For Mission? Some Thoughts On The Call Of Clergy In The Mainline Church

2 Replies
“Because that’s where the money is”
Quote attributed to bank robber Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks.

That quote came to mind this morning over coffee as I read an interesting article, “If cooking slowly and growing organically are in, why is rural ministry out?” by Darryl Hart on Front Porch Republic.  (And a quick note – if you are not familiar with this blog but enjoy well written and thought provoking essays about contemporary culture that sometimes have something to do with religion check the blog out.)  The article is about why clergy would rather pastor suburban and urban churches than rural ones.		  Church in Bodie, California
from Wikimedia Commons

I do not mean to imply that all clergy with a preference for urban churches are there because of the salary, although it might be the case.  As the article discusses, and I was running through in my mind while reading it, you could fill in the blank in the sentence “Because that is where the (blank) is/are” with any number of other things, including “people,” “resources,” “opportunities.”  In fact, the article itself focuses mainly on the people and the large, urban multi-site churches.

But the problem of finding clergy for rural churches is a real one, as Adam Copeland pointed out in his blog post “The huge problem of the clergy shortage that doesn’t exist.”  The problem is not one of numbers — at the end of 2008 the PC(USA) had 10,751 congregations and 21,286 ministers.  The problem is that too few of them sense a call to serve in the rural areas or that rural congregations are less able to afford a full-time minister.

But the problem is a bit more complex than just saying “we have more ministers than churches so there should be no problem.”  Going back to 2007, the last year that the full comparative statistics are available, and looking at the breakdown by call, we can see that there are 21,368 clergy.  But of those, 7,753 are honorably retired (and for the non-junkies reading this honorably retired is a call) leaving 13,615 active ministers.  To find how many are active in parish ministry as a senior pastor, co-pastor or solo pastor you can add up the categories of Pastors (6,100), Supply Pastors (626), and Interim Pastors (484) for a total of 7,210 filling some of the 10,751 pulpits.  So from this viewpoint there is a clergy shortage because only 67% of the pulpits are filled.

(I would note that there a lots of other ways that a pulpit could be filled and it would not show up in this analysis including commissioned lay pastors, yoked churches, union churches, part-time interim and supply pastors who would be counted by their regular job category, and retired ministers serving in a supply or interim capacity.)

So only 53% of the active ministers in the PC(USA) are helping lead congregations as their primary call.  Add to that the 1,395 Associate Pastors and the way these statistics are reported there are 8605 ministers primarily in parish ministry, or 63% of the total.  (This does not include, or intend to minimize, the role of ministers in other calls who still contribute on a congregation level, whether they do so as a Parish Associate or in other ways.) (And while other validated ministries like chaplains and seminary instructors are vital, it does make me wonder when over one-third of the active ministers are not in parish ministry.  Another time.)

Taking this one step further and looking at the filled pulpits geographically by synod you get the following, ranked by % filled:

 Synod No. Congregations No. Filled Pulpits % Pulpits
Filled 		% of active
in pulpit 		 Median size of
Congregation
 So. Cal. and Hawaii  298  297  99.7%  41.8%  158
 Pacific  463  421  90.0%  44.6%  119
 Alaska-Northwest  268  223  83.2%  49.8%  107
 Rocky Mountains  239  185  77.4%  51.1%  102
 Northeast  1160  865  74.6%  56.2%  110
 Boriquen de Puerto Rico  73  54  74.0%  63.5%  84
 South Atlantic  978  680  69.5%  48.6%  125
 Covenant  783  542  69.2%  61.7%  120
 Lincoln Trails  661  455  68.8%  51.0%  100
 Southwest  164  112  68.3%  48.9%  91
 Mid-Atlantic  1450  926  63.9%  53.2%  105
 Sun  883  540  61.2%  54.3%  89
 Trinity  1279  783  61.2%  60.6%  108
 Lakes and Prairies  908  502  55.3%  57.6%  95
 Living Waters  745  391  52.5%  48.9%  65
 Mid-America  468  234  50.0%  54.5%  73

Looking at this data you get the strong sense that metropolitan areas are more successful at filling their pulpits even though no single synod is exclusively urban or exclusively rural.  The Synod of Southern California and Hawaii is almost certainly the most urban of all the synods covering the urban areas of Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Diego and the surrounding areas.  And while the synods with the lower percentages of filled pulpits do have urban centers, their geographic location in the mid-continent means those urban areas are generally smaller and that there are a substantial number of small-town congregations in those synods as well.

I include the last two columns of data as possible proxies for a measure of the rural/urban blend of the synod.  The median size of the congregations is an easier metric to tie to the rural/urban mix with the conventional wisdom being that rural areas have smaller congregations.  Indeed, there is a strong statistical correlation of 0.77 between the % of pulpits filled and the median congregation size.  My theory behind the second metric, the % of active ministers fi
lling pulpits, is that urban areas should have a lower percentage because there are greater opportunities for other validated ministry in more urban settings.  And indeed, while the correlation is not as good, the -0.50 inverse correlation between % of pulpits filled and % of active ministers filling pulpits is still respectable.

Now I fully realize that there are other interpretations of these correlations.  For instance, higher median size of congregation correlating with more filled pulpits could be seen as an aggressive program of consolidating churches so as to fit the available pastoral resources.  Likewise, the inverse correlation between filled pulpits and the percentage of ministers serving in parish ministry may not be a sign of more and varied opportunities, but rather a greater surplus of ministers available to fill open positions.

OK, so I just set about trying to prove what we think we already know.  Now, what are the implications for ministry and mission?

I would be curious if detailed numbers such as these are available for other Presbyterian branches.  In my search over the lunch hour I was more successful at finding congregation statistics than clergy statistics.  But the anecdotal evidence suggests that mainline churches in general, not just the PC(USA), have more ministers serving in positions outside the parish.  Therefore, if we need more parish ministers we must (1) recruit new individuals with a call for congregational work, (2) convince those presently serving in other ministries that parish work is valuable, rewarding, important, etc. (3) keep ministers in the congregation rather than leaving because of financial needs, burnout, or conflict.  Are the mission priorities such that we value parish ministry enough to recruit individuals to serve congregations and find ways to keep gifted individuals in those congregations, especially when it is in rural areas?

While the PC(USA) may have this surplus to try to work with other areas are not so lucky.  It is a well publicized issue within the Church of Scotland that there are not enough ministers, especially for the islands.  Possible solutions being discussed there include video links to island churches for worship and changing the understanding of the Scottish church so that it does not need to be a national church with a presence in every community, no matter how small.  Within the last week The Herald published an article that indicated its sources say the Special Commission studying the territorial church will recommend altering that section of the Articles Declaratory.  This was followed by some letters to The Herald, some of which advocated keeping the territorial church, but being more creative in providing leadership.  Then today there was a letter to The Herald from the Principal Clerk of the General Assembly pointing out that if the Special Commission recommends it there is still a long process of three GA votes and two sets of presbytery votes to approve the change.

But returning to the essay by Mr. Hart — in it he makes some strong comments about our concept of mission, particularly the interests of those who call themselves evangelicals.  It is not just that the big city has the population and the resources, it is the opportunity for celebrity or the brush with celebrity, the “L.A. moment” as my family calls it.  Mr. Hart writes:

Of course, the reasons why evangelicals fawn over the city may stem from sources other than the obvious appeal of bright lights and big buildings. One of them may be a born-again infatuation with celebrity and the disillusionment that follows when public figures like Mark Sanford or Miss California, Carrie Prajean, fall from grace. Evangelicals are disposed to understand grace and faith in extraordinary categories and so overlook stories of ordinary believers, routine piety, and even rural congregations as insignificant. Discontent with the average and routine aspects of natural life and of grace appears to breed a similar dissatisfaction with humble ministries in places of little interest to the editors of the Times.

So what are our mission objectives and our mission priorities?  Do we “go out into all the world” or just where it is easy, convenient, or even possibly exciting and rewarding?  Is a big urban church better than a small rural congregation?  And maybe most importantly, when a minister makes the commitment to serve a rural parish do we support that decision and find ways to encourage and help them in that ministry?

If all congregational ministry matters equally we need to be ready to support it equally.

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Say What?

Leave a reply

To use the line from the old Westerns — “It’s quiet around here.  Too quiet.”

Yes, at least for the last day it does seem that office holders and members of the Church of Scotland have been observing the “urged” “quiet period” regarding public discussion of issues related to human sexuality.  One day down, 735 to go.  (For the record, I am an office holder and member in another Presbyterian denomination.  I can’t imagine our gang being so well behaved.)

Anyway, sarcasm, cliches, and snarky comments aside, I have to admit that I have been very impressed with how “all the usual suspects,” on both sides of the issue, have taken this to heart.  Stewart Cutler did comment on the “gag” order itself.  Ian Watson posted the text of a news story about the quiet period.  Danny expresses the concern that waiting another two years just allows each side to become entrenched.  And Chris Hoskins, in his reflection on Monday, says he’ll avoid that topic in his daily reflection.

What are the instructions?  The minutes have not been posted yet, and I don’t see a full read-back in the daily updates, but tracking back the changes (and checking it against Stewart’s text) it seems that the sections dealing with the quiet period say

2. Instruct all Courts, Councils and Committees of the Church not to
issue press statements or talk to the media or to make public comment,
whether in publications or otherwise, on decision-making in relation to
contentious matters of human sexuality, with respect to Ordination and
Induction to the Ministry of the Church of Scotland, until 31 May 2011;

and

3. Urge all members who are subject to the discipline of the Courts of
the Church of Scotland to act in accordance with the process outlined
in 1 and 2.

And it was understood in the debate that blogging was included in the prohibited communication.

The exact parameters are still not specifically understood and I am sure the boundaries will be worked out as people “test the limits” of the motion.  As people have a chance to think this through there may be official guidelines.  And while I consider it unlikely, there may even be a complete breakdown for individuals since the term is “urge,” not a strict instruction like “shall,” leaving little force for ensuring compliance.  In fact, the limits are being tested already, as reported by the Scotsman, with one minister writing a letter to that paper criticizing the Assembly’s earlier action in the Aberdeen case.  As a member of a presbytery it is being debated if he is representing the presbytery after being “instructed” not to comment, or acting as an individual after being “urged” not to.  As is customary in Presbyterian polity it will be up to the presbytery to decide on a case to discipline a member.

And what constitutes “public comment?”  Could the suggested actions of some sessions to withold their payments to the larger church in protest be considered a form of public comment?  This is a form of protest and comment that has been used in the PC(USA) and has clearly gotten the attention of some governing bodies there.

So there are many uncertainties and two years to go with this.  We will see what understandings develop as time goes on.

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Reaction To The Judicial Case

Leave a reply

With about two days since the Assembly made its decision in the case of the Dissent and Complaint Against a Decision by the Presbytery of Aberdeen more information and reaction is now available on the web.

First, for the details of the Assembly session I have found no better source than the official audio summary from the Church of Scotland found on the Daily News Updates page.  For those interested in the polity details there is no other source that goes into the details of how the case proceeded and what was actually being decided.  This case was not about the particular individual or ordination standards in general, but whether the Presbytery of Aberdeen had specifically followed the procedures for reviewing the call to the charge as stated in Acts VIII 2003 (DOC Format).  (That is a church law reference, not a scriptural one.)

Specifically, the two points of complaint were:

Aberdeen Presbytery was therefore wrong to take a decision that was contrary to the stated position and practice of the Church in sustaining the call to a minister in a self professed active homosexual relationship.

The Presbytery of Aberdeen, in sustaining the call to a minister in an avowedly active homosexual relationship, has also acted contrary to the commitment to ‘prayerful dialogue’ urged on us all by the General Assembly of 2007.

The problem that the complainers had was that there is no specific section in the Church of Scotland polity that sets standards for these situations in the manner of the PC(USA) G-6.0106b.  (Hence today’s overture.)  The complaint argues from “the historic and orthodox position of the church,” and a 2007 GA report that says the Kirk does not see orientation as a barrier to service but that there is disagreement over homosexual activity.  The complaint also says “The ordination and induction of active homosexuals has never been the accepted practice of the Church of Scotland or the Church catholic, except where there has first been a clear debate and decision to ordain active homosexuals.”

A few other interesting details about the process from the audio update:  The commissioners from the presbytery against which the complaint is filed (Aberdeen) may not participate as commissioners or vote.  Being a judicial case the commissioners are to come to the case without “preconceived notions.”  This is a bit different than my previous comments.  In the discussion about the wider effects of this cases outcome the commissioners were informed that a decision in a judicial case does not set standards for the wider church and that whether a particular case sets a precedent can not be know at the time of the case but only when it is used as precedent in a future case.  Finally, the vote was not a yes/no vote but rather a vote on two different motions, one supporting and one denying the dissent.

There was plenty of comment about the decision, as you can imagine, but the two Scottish bloggers that seem to have the best read of the situation are Stewart Cutler and Chris Hoskins.  Neither disappointed in their analysis and comments on the day.  In addition to a brief post Saturday night with the results of the case Stewart posted on Sunday about being between the two votes and the fact the situation was unsettled.  (He also has a reaction to the motion passed today about the standards, but I’ll get to that another time.)

Chris Hoskins has an extensive post about Saturday and closes with a paragraph worth reading about the evening session to hear the case.  Here is what he wrote:

Saturday evening was interesting. At the start of the evening I wasn’t
that as bothered about the outcome as I was about how the debate was
conducted. I don’t want to talk here about the outcome, plenty of
people are doing that, I want to talk about attitudes (again). I was
worried that people would be hostile and disrespectful to one another
during the debate. I think the way that the moderator handled the night
was fantastic. He made it clear from the start that he would not
tolerate ungracious behaviour and that he would not tolerate people
cheering or jeering. Overall I thought everyone did a great job of
upholding this. I thought that both parties did a great job of keeping
focused on the actual issue, and not allowing themselves to be derailed
from that. I was so grateful and proud for the respect, grace and
dignity that was displayed for all those who were involved and by all
those who spoke during the debate. The attitudes displayed gave me hope
for the future debates that will be had on this issue.

A couple of other blog reactions worth noting.  John Ross at Recycled Missionaries has a long post on the theological decline in the Kirk titled A New Church For Scotland?  There is another long post at Clerical Whispers which looks at the Church of Scotland decision in the context of other churches, particularly the Church of England which is a bit closer to Clerical Whispers’ regular territory of the Irish Roman Catholic church.  Two other bloggers close to the controversy, Rev. Louis Kinsey at Coffee With Louis and Rev. Ian Watson at Kirkmuirhillrev have not posted any extensive or personal comments about the vote yet.  I am sure they will when the time is right and I look forward to their thoughts.

(UPDATE: Much of this post was written before the motion at the Monday session that now asks members of the church not to comment to the press or on-line about these issues.  In light of that new request we will have to see how individuals respond to the proceedings of the Assembly.  As I mention above, I am working on a post about the request for not commenting.)

At this time I have not seen any official statements yet from two of the groups that are part of the discussion, The Fellowship of Confessing Churches and Forward Together. OneKirk did issue a press release expressing their approval of the decision.  I am sure that more will be forthcoming now that the near-term situation is better known with today’s decision to study the issue.

Finally, I need not tell any GA Junkie that for the media the vote on Saturday night was simply about ordination standards and not process.  At least Ekklesia acknowledges the nature of the vote.  While the middle part of the article says “Although those campaigning against Mr Rennie purely because he is gay and in a faithful relationship…” they do have at the very end “The decision the Assembly took this evening was not specifically on the
question of sexuality, but about the rightness of the decision taken by
the local Presbytery in Aberdeen.”

I wish I could say much good about this Associated Press article published on the KXMC web site.  The AP headline is “Church of Scotland votes to appoint gay minister.”  The article begins with this line:  “LONDON (AP) There’s a new Anglican church conflict over
sexuality this time, in Scotland.”  I’m sorry, the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, not Anglican.  (A similar mix-up is apparent in the news story headlined “Another gay appointment rocks Anglican Church” from On Top Magazine who claims to have gotten the story from The Guardian.  I could not find that error in the Guardian Story so at some point they will probably catch the mistake and correct the text.)

And the Herald had an interesting and extensive article about the debate titled “Landmark Victory or Ecclesiastical Fudge?”  This question of a “fudge” gets back to the polity issue that the case, in and of itself, does not set a precedent but must wait for future cases to evaluate it’s precedent-setting status, or lack there of.  The article is worth reading if for no other reason that it provides more quotes from the debate than I have seen in any other source.

There is certain to be more on this as everyone considers the two different actions taken as a package and snapshot of the Assembly.  In particular, the Herald has an article saying that conservatives think they may yet be able to stop the Rev. Rennie’s appointment.  We will wait for more developments.

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — Live Blogging The Lochcarron-Skye Overture Debate

Leave a reply

Greetings — I am semi-live blogging this session of the
General Assembly (2009) of the Church of Scotland.  I apologize to those with e-mail feeds or a feed
reader since you will probably only get the first section of the post
since I’ll be adding updates throughout the session.  Also, if you are
reading this on a browser live you will also need to refresh the screen
since I don’t have push technology on my blog.  It’s tough being Web
1.99999 in a Web 2.0 world.  Thanks for your patience.

This
blogging is semi-live since I am not there but only following on the webcast.  This session is to deal with the overture from the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye proposing specific standards for these cases.  It is being continued from Saturday evening from whence it was postponed because the judicial case ran until almost 11:00 PM.

4:00 PM local time – Right on schedule the Assembly turns to the order of the day, the Overture from Lochcarron-Skye.  There is a proposed motion to reverse the order of the motions in this section.  The Moderator asks for advice and when the Deputy Clerk begins a longer answer the Moderator reminds her “I was looking for advice, not a conversation.”  Based on the advice then given the Moderator says not to reverse the motion.

4:03 – The opening presentation by Rev Dr John L McPake moves the following:

For the sake of the peace and unity of the Church the General Assembly:
1. Appoint a Special Commission composed of nine
persons, representative of the breadth and unity of
the Church, to consult with all Presbyteries and to
prepare a study on Ordination and Induction to the
Ministry of the Church of Scotland in the light of the
issues (a) addressed in the report welcomed by the
General Assembly of 2007: “A challenge to unity:
same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and
human sexuality”, and (b) raised by the case of
Aitken et al v the Presbytery of Aberdeen, and to
report to the General Assembly of 2011;

2. Instruct all Courts, Councils and Committees of the
Church to observe a moratorium on issuing public
comment, whether in publications or otherwise,
and decision-making in relation to contentious
matters of human sexuality, in particular with
respect to Ordination and Induction to the Ministry
of the Church of Scotland, until 31 May 2011; and

3. Urge all members who are subject to the discipline
of the Courts of the Church of Scotland to act in
accordance with the process outlined in 1 and 2.

4:14 – Rev Dr Angus Morrison seconds

4:19 – The Assembly turns to Addendum.  There are three that are being read by the Deputy Clerk so commissioners know what is ahead.  In addition, the Deputy Clerk notes that the three addendum’s are no inconsistent with the main motion or the other addendum’s.

4:24 – Motion to amend so the Special Commission reports back to GA from 2011 to 2010.  Wants to minimize the time this process will take since it could be followed by an act sent to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  Another commissioner argues that this has been going on too long as it is.  Moderator asks him to speak to the amendment alone.  He says he will but continues on speaking to the whole motion saying that it should be denied and just adopt the presbytery overture and get a vote over with.  Give the presbyteries a vote not just a consultation.  Moderator stops him to commissioner applause.

4:30 – Other speakers on both sides of dates.  One speaker reasonably arguing for 2011 to take the time for real discussion and “cooling off.”  Commissioner in background can be seen rolling his eyes.

4:40 – Moderator calls for one more speaker on each side.  Speaker for 2010 speaks of media perception and “people in the pews” think the GA made a decision Saturday night on the whole subject not just that case.  Speaker against 2010 is convener of Special Committee on the Third Article — Committee was given two years and he wishes they were given three.

4:48 – Now there is an interesting polity question from the floor: Can this motion be taken outside the Barrier Act because it stops presbyteries from sending overtures to next year’s GA on this subject.  Deputy Clerk responds that this is a narrower focus (single issue) than the Lochcarron-Skye Overture so some reconciliation might be needed.

Motion to change to 2010 rejected overwhelmingly.

New addendum to include kirk sessions as part of the consultation, not just presbyteries.

5:03 – “and kirk sessions” agreed to
Section 1, as amended, is agreed to

Debate on Section 2
Active debate on exactly what the moratorium means:  no sermons?  no public comment at all?  how broadly is the topic of human sexuality to be avoided? what about discussion groups?  What about blogs?

The discussion tries to focus on “press statements” but there is concern about other statements which might be picked up by the press.  In deciding on the current amendment to the amendment the Deputy Clerk reminds commissioners that they are only voting on which version they prefer even if they dislike them both.

5:52 – This discussion continues, and there are still other motions and the overture to deal with this evening.  OK, I now see why the business from Saturday night was continued to today. 

Deputy Clerk weighs in that having made the decision on Saturday night it would not be advisable now to make a decision that would reverse that particular case.  [Editorial comment:  Then why was the specific dealt with before the general standard?]

The vote on Section 2 as amended by standing is ruled against, there is a challenge so they are now voting electronically.
Section 2 as amended is agreed to 314 to 285.  The Moderator apologizes for his previous incorrect call.

Section 3 – Motions for new Section 3’s

Motion to “instruct Presbyteries
to observe a moratorium on ordination and inductions which might appear
to prejudice the Special Commission before it reports.”  Moderator states that it is probably already agreed to based on the vote for Section 2.  Allows seconder to speak about how the Kirk now needs time and how the liberal side, which he is on, needs time to wait and maybe be uncomfortable.

While the Moderator acknowledged that this was already agreed to, he did call for a vote on this as a sign of support.  It was agreed to overwhelmingly.

New motion: For the avoidance of doubt, affirm that the provision of this whole
motion shall in no way be interpreted as offering grounds for
challenging the decision in the referred case Aitken and others against
the decision of the Presbytery of Aberdeen.

6:38 – The motion is approved

New motion to clarify other Assembly committees that may work during the discussion period.  Agreed to.

The Moderator declares the motion agreed to.  A commissioner protests that there was no vote on the whole motion.  The Moderator say that all the sections were agreed to but “for the avoidance of doubt” he calls for the Assembly vote.

6:46 – The Assembly turns to the Overture.  There is a request for the Presbytery to withdraw their overture.  One of the presbytery commissioners asks for time to consult with all the presbytery commissioners.  The Moderator suspends the meeting for 5 minutes.

6:55 – The Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye agrees to withdraw the overture to a great round of applause.

6:58 – The Assembly adjourns with prayer.

So the Church of Scotland has a Special Commission to work on this for the next two years.  Blessings upon all those on the Commission.

General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — What Is Not On The Table But Waiting In The Wings

Leave a reply

The ordination/installation standards debate that has caught all the attention for the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has distracted a lot of people from the other business of the Kirk.  This is too bad since there is a lot of other important business to be done at the Assembly and I hope that last night’s debate won’t take too much wind out of the rest of the Assembly meeting.

One of the things that has really impressed me about the Church of Scotland is the spirit and seriousness with which they have been addressing the changing place of the church, dare I say mainline church, in modern society.

I think that there are a number of reasons for the Kirk’s success in addressing this, not the least of which is that while the debate on various aspects of human sexuality has been on the table (such as the issue of blessing same-sex unions in 2007 and multiple reports from the Working Group on Human Sexuality) the various issues have not distracted the church the way they have in some other denominations — Presbyterian and otherwise.

But another aspect is the length of time that the church has been seriously dealing with this.  One major milestone was the “Church Without Walls” (CWW) report and group.  The original report was commissioned in 1999 and presented in 2001 and it’s purpose was

To re-examine in depth the primary purposes of the Church

and the shape of the Church of Scotland as we enter into the next
Millennium;

to formulate proposals for a process of continuing reform;

to consult on such matters with other Scottish Churches;

and to report to the General Assembly of 2001.

The recommendations of that report were:

  • Live with a Gospel for a year
  • Review community, worship and leadership
  • Integrate children and/or create new churches
  • Develop paths for the journey of discipleship
  • Plan strategically to develop leadership in congregations in worship, pastoral care and mission
  • Work in teams and partnerships
  • Recover the role of the evangelist
  • Turn the church “upside down”- priority to the local
  • Renew prayer life
  • Encourage sabbatical time from church activities
  • Fund new initiatives through special funding
  • Review overall financial strategy
  • Dare to take risks

Have a look at the summary of the 2001 report (DOC Format)  And this year there was a GA “fringe event” to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the start of the CWW which Liz at “journalling” talks about yesterday and today.

Since 2001 this work has not stopped.  While the 2009 GA voted on Thursday to fold the Church Without Walls Planning Group into the Mission and Discipleship Council the part of the charge “to formulate proposals for a process of continuing reform” has indeed been realized as have many other of the recommendations.

Monitoring of CWW, as well as changes to the Kirk structure originally fell to Assembly Council.  But when that body was restructured the next group charged by the GA to look at the future of the Kirk, and the group that was keeping an eye on the CWW Planning Group, is the Panel on Review and Reform.  It has as part of its charge:

…to listen to the voices of congregations and Presbyteries, to present a vision of what a church in need of continual renewal might become and to offer paths by which congregations, Presbyteries and agencies might travel towards that vision.

Formed in 2004 it has been holding discussion with presbyteries and congregations as part of its work.  In their 2009 Report to the Assembly they discuss the continuing discussion process and also encourage all governing bodies and entities of the Church of Scotland to include the Kirk’s vision statement on their publications.  That vision statement says:

The vision of the Church of Scotland is to be a church which seeks to inspire the people of Scotland and beyond with the Good News of Jesus Christ through enthusiastic, worshiping, witnessing, nurturing and serving communities.

However, the Church of Scotland has recognized that they have a constitutional, and traditional, impediment to reform in the Third Article of the Articles Declaratory:

lll. This Church is in historical
continuity with the Church of Scotland which was reformed
in 1560, whose liberties were ratified in 1592, and for whose
security provision was made in the Treaty of Union of 1707.
The continuity and identity of the Church of Scotland are
not prejudiced by the adoption of these Articles. As a national
Church representative of the Christian Faith of the Scottish
people it acknowledges its distinctive call and duty to bring
the ordinances of religion to the people in every parish of
Scotland through a territorial ministry. [emphasis added]

The Church of Scotland has a status that almost no other Presbyterian branch has and that is its standing as a National Church.  They are, by the Kirk’s constitution, required to be everywhere in Scotland, and as you can imagine there are costs involved in keeping small churches open.

At the 2006 General Assembly there was a request, and the assembly complied, with establishing a Special Commission on Structure and Change.  The purpose was to evaluate the changes to the central committees and offices of the church and to consider changes to the overall structure, including presbyteries.  In the report presented to the 2008 General Assembly (DOC Format) they discuss the Third Article.  Here is that section, absent the text of the Article which I included above:

13. The Third Article Declaratory

13.1 [Text of the Third Article]

13.2 The Church is accordingly constitutionally committed to providing a ministry, understood
as including a ministry of Word and
Sacrament, in every part of Scotland
without exception. It appears to us that everything that we have been called upon to
consider in the areas of structure,
finance and the allocation of resources,
flows from the imperative contained in the Third Article and, in particular, its third
sentence. It is the requirement to bring
the ordinances of religion to the people
in every parish of Scotland through a territorial ministry that determines that congregations
must be maintained, irrespective of
their ability to support themselves and
therefore that other congregations must take
on the burden of that support. It has implications for how resources are to be allocated.

13.3 We believe that the time is right for the Church to look critically at the Third Article and
decide whether it should be retained,
amended or removed altogether.

13.4 We question whether any valuable principle is dependent upon retaining the Third Article. We
would agree with the view expressed in Church Without Walls that it is a statement that needs to be
examined and questioned at the beginning
of the twenty-first century. It may be
that as a result of such an examination the Church will conclude that the time has come
humbly to lay down the title of
“National Church” and accept a new title
such as “A Church for the Nation”. It may be thought more meaningful for the Church to
“represent to” the Scottish people the
Christian faith rather than to assume
that the Church of Scotland is “representative of the Christian faith of the Scottish
people”. We are one of many Christian
denominations within our country and it
may be that an ecumenical outlook would be more effective in reaching all Scotland with
the Gospel. Major changes would not
necessarily see the Kirk lose its
Presbyterian identity. The Presbyterian Church in other countries has survived without being
“national” in its context. Our
self-identity would change in some ways but
so would the ability to earn greater respect within the nation. The example of Jesus as the humble
servant would seem to provide a helpful
model.

13.5 Whether there is a continuing role for the Third Article is helpfully discussed in a section of
Church without Walls. We have included that
section as Appendix IV to this report.
We commend it to the Church as a
starting point in its consideration of the question.

The 2008 Assembly established the special committee to look at the Third Article and how it impacts the church and it will report back to the 2010 Assembly.

This would be a major change as you can imagine and there is already discussion about what the implications are.  At the National Youth Assembly this past September the youth debated this as part of their discussion of “Future Church.”  In the National Youth Assembly Report to this General Assembly recommendation, or statement, number 10 is:

10. Believes that Territorial Ministries as outlined in Article 3 have a complex impact on the mission of the church; it could be perceived as the focal point in relation to the calling and training of ministers without appropriate attention to the possibility of using lay ministers and particular callings. At the same time territorial ministry offers a precious universality in the support of the country’s people.

And the news media has picked up on a proposal to use video technology to provide ministerial presence in churches that have vacancies, particularly those in remote areas that have difficulty attracting ministers to their charges.  The action item in the Ministries Council report says:

6. Note with concern the pressures being faced by the Church in Presbyteries facing numerous, lengthy vacancies, commend ministers, deacons, Auxiliary ministers, readers and elders who are enabling the Church in these presbyteries to evolve new patterns of life, and welcome in particular the possibilities that video technology, secondment and transition ministry offer.

Like other Presbyterian branches the Church of Scotland has difficulty getting their ministers distributed to all the churches with urban charges being preferable to small isolated churches on the islands in Orkney.

So as the Assembly continues this coming week we will see what other references are made to a church thinking out side the box and looking to the future to see what a 21st century church looks like.  But the Assembly will also be looking ahead to the 2010 Assembly and the report on the Third Article that is now waiting in the wings.