There has recently been considerable comment regarding litigation involving the Kirk and the former office bearers of the congregation of St George's Tron Church of Scotland (Letters, October 15-20, 22 & 23).

To clarify, the only court action which has been raised is that brought by the Kirk Session of the continuing Church of Scotland congregation seeking to recover its records and the title deeds of the manse. These are being withheld by those who have left the Church of Scotland and formed a new congregation. The records, and in particular those relating to finance and governance, are required for the efficient functioning of the congregation and to enable accounts to be lodged with the Presbytery and the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, as required in law. This court action was initiated with considerable reluctance and only after numerous requests over a number of months from the Presbytery and the office-bearers of the congregation had met with repeated refusals to hand over the items concerned.

No other legal action has been initiated. An offer to allow the former minister and his family to continue to live in the manse under a leasing arrangement was made but was turned down.

The Presbytery of Glasgow has determined that it wishes to use the St George's Tron building for the ongoing ministry and mission of the Church of Scotland. It firmly believes it is possible to build a thriving Church of Scotland congregation in the best traditions of St George's Tron, respecting the tradition of conservative evangelical preaching and compassionate service to the city centre. Therefore there can be no question of the general trustees allowing this building to be appropriated by the new congregation.

The new congregation left behind considerable unpaid contributions to central funds and to the Presbytery of Glasgow, together with an outstanding loan to the general trustees, which together amount to almost £1 million. Contrary to what has been claimed, repayments on the outstanding loan in September 2011 and March 2012 were not made on the due dates. It was not until June this year the outstanding 2011 payment was settled.

It remains the hope of all concerned within the Church of Scotland that it will prove possible to resolve the issues relating to the property and funds belonging to the Church of Scotland congregation without recourse to further litigation. However, the principles of charity law and good stewardship of the Church of Scotland's assets require to be honoured.

Rev Dr Grant Barclay, Convener, Council of Assembly;

Rev Dr James Jack, Chairman of the General Trustees of the Church of Scotland;

Rev Neil Dougall, Convener, Ministries Council;

Rev John Spiers, Convener, Glasgow Presbytery Cohesive Group;

Church of Scotland, 121 George Street, Edinburgh.

I appreciated the article "Kirk gay clergy rebellion grows", and the proposal that a template should be created to facilitate a gracious and harmonious way forward (The Herald, October 25).

Three broad principles need to be acknowledged. First, as ministers and elders we are merely stewards of the Kirk's heritage. Ownership of church buildings may be significant in a court of law but not in the Kingdom of God. What is important is the purpose for which the building is used – the glory of God. This may be achieved by erstwhile congregations of the Kirk and is of far greater significance than any financial transaction which facilitates it.

Secondly, the history of a congregation can never be changed no matter who owns the historical records nor where they reside. St George's Tron will always and forever have grown out of the Kirk and been a part of its story. We should respect and honour this for it is a significant part of their identity and crucial for the creation of any instrument which will shape our future relationship with seceding congregations.

Thirdly, our baptism into Christ makes us brothers and sisters no matter the denomination to which we belong. Our contemporary focus on the ordination of openly gay men and women is only one aspect of our Christian identity. Why should it distract us to such an extent that we are in danger of making enemies out of former friends and blinding ourselves to all that we have in common, not least the proclamation of the gospel and our work for the common good? What divides us should never distort our mutual allegiance to the earliest creed of the church, Jesus is Lord.

It is for this reason I was surprised to note no-one quoted in your recent article wanted to be named. As brothers and sisters in Christ, we have Christian names and using them enables us to establish an open, transparent and hospitable environment for dialogue, especially in the public forum. Our human dignity is diminished by our anonymity and our lack of courage in taking ownership of our views and actions compromises the gospel of peace.

Rev David D Scott,

The Manse,

Preston Road,

East Linton.

It was interesting to read the article which stated a number of churches may leave the Church of Scotland if practising or open homosexuals are admitted.

I have always thought large numbers of churches or ministers leaving was not something we would see.

I believe what could happen is that far more ministers will leave at 65 than is currently the case and some worshippers will leave and join a Bible-believing church. Many more will remain because of their long-term social connections with the parish church.

Although very much on the fringes of this debate, I gained the impression that the national church would react in what could be described as a Christian way towards any church which wished to leave. The church seemed to be saying at one point if any parish wished to leave, and that included all the buildings, the national church would not stand in its way. But there were two main concerns.

First, regarding parishioners who did not wish to leave the national church and monies owed to the national church. There seems to have been a debate concerning what would happen to the church building if a small but strong section of the parishioners wished to stay as members of the national church. Should the church go to the large departing section or remain with the small section of ardent Church of Scotland members? It may be that at some stage the church seemed to be embracing the idea – reluctantly or not – that the church buildings would have to remain with the rump, as it were.

Secondly, the other main concern, not surprisingly, concerned money. It seems to be the case that any monies owed by the parish church should be repaid to the national church. Frankly, I do not see how the church could do otherwise and it does seem to me from earlier letters that St George's Tron seem willing to embrace this situation.

But what happens after 2013 if the Kirk goes apostate and admits homosexual preachers, totally against biblical scripture?

Although in favour of the repayment of the St George's Tron loan to the church now, I would not be in favour of it being paid in 2013. Despite being an elder, I will not give my weekly freewill offering to an apostate church. I shall divert it to the uniform organisations and I would not argue for the repayment of any monies to an apostate church. The national church could find itself having to grapple with this problem on a far larger scale come April, 2013.

It was also stated in your article that the involvement of the Moderator might be helpful. I suggested such an idea in certain circles following the 2011 General Assembly vote. I wanted him to state that ordaining openly homosexual ministers was unbiblical and should not be supported by the General Assembly. I was told the position of Moderator was that of a chairman and he should be impartial and not take a side in any debate. My response was to say I hoped future moderators would have an assembly to moderate.

I do however think the Moderator should set up a commission to look into why so many Church of Scotland ministers do not believe in the Bible.

David Syme,

65 Buchan Street,

Wishaw.