here is the steeple, turn it over, and, hey, where are the people?

THE recent publicity about the Church Without Walls report due to be unveiled in May at the Church of Scotland's General Assembly is curiously reminiscent of how the government leaks information to manage the media.

As explained by Alan Taylor's article in Seven Days two weeks ago, the report has been created by a special commission made up of members appointed by the General Assembly and two employees of the Church's offices in 121 George Street. It appears at first that the report's recommendations make a lot of sense.

There is too much worry and effort spent making ends meet. Talk to any minister or office bearer and you will find there are too many churches struggling to keep afloat financially. Despite all the money the Church has, local churches never seem to get a rebate and the financial burden grows heavier and heavier.

The idea of a church without walls is very appealing. Buildings, whether a beautiful and historic church or one built in the 1960s or a new purpose- built multi functional building, all need care and upkeep. So we just sell all the buildings and our problems will be solved. This is a facile argument; the constraints of the buildings are mainly in the minds of those who cannot see beyond them. It seems strange that these buildings have stood for years and while each other generation has adapted them for church and community use, we are unable to do so.

Why are we different from our forbears? In the past, church buildings were used for all sorts of purposes, not just open for Sunday services. With the world running out of resources it seems a bit profligate to just scrap them all. God is not confined to within the walls of a church anyway.

If you accept the Church is a body of believers in Jesus Christ who continue his work and witness on earth, the big question is: how do we who claim to be Christians go about doing this? If the special commission is to be believed it is to be done by local groups of Christians joining together with little structure.

This is fine in theory but you only have to look at past attempts to remove barriers between different denominations in the name of ecumenism. It hasn't worked very well; the best kind of ecumenism is the kind that respects the beliefs and traditions of all and doesn't try to push everyone into a super-structure that compromises the beliefs of all within it.

Church history is littered with failed attempts to get back to the simplicity of the early Church. The interesting thing about the report is its enthusiasm about outreach into the community, meeting with workers, pubbers and clubbers. This is how it should be - the Church should be involved in every part of life and reach out to every part of life. Its problem is that it is losing sight of the tasks of the Church. How good it would feel to be without constraint to spread the good news of the gospel to those who never saw the need for it.

However, we should not forget that the Church actually has faithful members, long suffering souls who have put up with all the changes and vacillations and yet have kept the Church going, enabling us to have this debate. How easy to write them off. The question that should have been addressed and hasn't is what does God mean to the Church of Scotland today?

And the role of 121 George Street needs to be discussed. Over the years the Church has become more and more centralised and 121 has become more powerful. To those who are not involved in this machine, it appears that the Church is now run by fewer people. In the name of cost cutting and efficacy the number of members on boards - constructed mainly of General Assembly appointees - and committees is reduced.

The seeming merry-go-round of a kind of "professional committee person" who effortlessly moves between boards and jobs must cause concern about how rigorously policies and actions are reviewed. Is there a temptation to leave the running of the Church to the paid officials, often in turn recruited from the membership of the boards they serve? It seems to me sitting in the pew that the Church at national level is out of touch with the local church and does little to help or support it. I seem to observe two institutions, the Church at national level running along one line and the local church running along an entirely different line with only the occasional mutual point of reference. Perhaps the most alarming thing about the article was the final paragraph. Peter Neilson, convenor of the commission, was asked what he would do if the report was not accepted and his answer was worrying: "My wife says I would commit suicide".

Even if this was said in a lighthearted way it leads me to concerns about how stressful life can be for parish ministers and there is little or no appropriate pastoral care either at local or national level. Most ministers are committed and motivated people who give up usually more lucrative careers to serve God in the Church. Their role is continually being changed and eroded and it leaves many feeling marginalised and unsure.

It is suggested that the Church should use the talents of all the people of God and that is what the Church should undoubtably do, but to work it has to be all the people of God not just a few who are only interested in doing their own thing and never mind the rest.

Margaret Andrews is the wife of Reverend Edward Andrews, minister of St Nicholas Buccleuch in Dalkeith www.churchofscotland.org.uk

Copyright 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.