The Church of Scotland is mired in a terrible mess, in particular over the linked controversies concerning gay ministers and gay marriage, but there is a simple and straightforward solution to its travails.
I believe it should have the courage to stop seeking to be a national church.
For some time our national church has been national in name only, and far too bound up in self-aggrandising bureaucracy. It has a structure of courts, yes courts, with at their apex a sovereign General Assembly which meets once a year – at very considerable expense – in Edinburgh. This Assembly – with a membership that changes each year – officially legislates, and the language used in many of the debates can be legalistic and obscure.
The Assembly meets in Edinburgh, in a very fine auditorium, created in 1858. A little to the north is the equally grandiose administrative headquarters of the Kirk, at 121 George Street, another splendid building, built between 1909 and 1911, and extended in 1932. Neither, need I say, is a church.
There is a grievous disconnect here. On the one hand we have the Kirk's legislature – the Assembly – and its administrative HQ down the road. Then we have the actual ongoing life of Kirk, which is carried on at local, congregational level. Many of these congregations are thriving. The congregations used to be based on parishes, but the Kirk has an acute problem with ministerial supply, and it simply cannot provide a minister for every parish in Scotland, although that was once its great aim. Now many of the rural parishes are linked – sometimes as many as four or five of them – into unwieldy amalgams, vast in area, yet often still without a minister.
Meanwhile in the conurbations, the cities, the towns and the suburbs – here the Kirk is often doing much better. This is because in densely populated areas there are many "gathered congregations". You do not necessarily go to your local parish church; you may well travel across town to a congregation whose minister, and/or theology, suits you better. You seek out a congregation filled with like-minded folk.
Some of these congregations do much that is remarkable, contributing to our wider society through all sorts of voluntary effort. Here is the true strength of the Kirk.
The irony is that the General Assembly was over the years a strong advocate for a Scottish Parliament. Now we have our Parliament at Holyrood, the Kirk is less able to speak for Scotland, as it once did. Few Scots now pay attention to the debates and decisions of the Assembly. And indeed few ordinary Kirk members pay much attention either. They are more concerned about what is going on in their own congregations. The Church of Scotland used to be a key component in Scottish national identity; not any more.
If the national Kirk were brave enough to start disbanding itself as a national organisation, there would be benefits. Some congregations would be liberal, and in tune with the times. Others, possibly the majority, would be more conservative and evangelical, presenting a counter culture to the society around them. But members would feel at ease, and more confident.
The money they raise – and many congregations are generous in their giving – would be spent largely as they wished. The cost of 121 George Street (which should surely be sold) and the running of the annual Assembly are largely paid for by congregations. This money could be spent on meaningful and relevant Christian activity rather than bureaucracy.
I do not envisage congregations acting in isolation. The national network of presbyteries might or might not continue, but there could be a loose federation of congregations, to attend to any national business. The main point is that people could find a congregation (and minister) that suited them, and join in. This might be more difficult in rural areas, admittedly, but then as someone wise pointed out to me just yesterday, in rural areas people often drive a long way for their shopping, and indeed their petrol.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article