Principal Donald Macleod of the Free Church College has a fascinating column in last weeks West Highland Free Press (Friday 11th October). In commenting on the general state of the church in Scotland he makes a number of telling points as regards the Free Church and in particular the question of finance and the distribution of ministers within the Church. What he says is important. It is well expressed and arises out of a well founded concern for the future of the Free Church in Scotland. It is a debate which the whole church needs to hear, be informed about and be involved in. If you are a non Free Church visitor to this website I therefore crave your indulgence as we focus on this particular piece of internal Free Church business. Perhaps the issues raised here are of some interest and value to those outside the immediate confines of the Free Church.

Summary of Principal Macleod’s article

Principal Macleod argues that the Free Church has lived beyond its means for some time. However in recent times things have been better, most notably because of the secession of 2000 which greatly reduced our pay roll. However this year we have been hit hard by the collapse of the Stock Market, the reduced rate of income tax and a change in government policy on student support.

Principal Macleod argues “The problem is not income, but expenditure; distributions not contributions”. He then goes on to argue that Chalmer’s principle of the strong helping the weak is under ‘serious threat’ from the growing number of strong congregations taking more and more out of central funds and putting less and less in. Assistants, youth workers, administrators and full time teachers are listed as being to blame. There is not enough money for this and something will have to give.

Additional workers should generate their own support as would happen in secular business. A congregation with two ministers should have doubled attendances and givings. And we should expect our youth workers to lead youngsters to the Lord and into full members of the church but “we have no stomach for confronting youth with such responsibilities”. Instead we are in danger of cheap grace.

Meanwhile, to make things worse, we are making it harder for the smaller churches to get ministers at all. “If we aspire to be a national church we need an even distribution of ministers throughout the country; in Dumfries, for example, and Paisley and Lochcarron”. There is no way to compel the larger congregations to give more – although we can and do penalise the smaller ones. Some large congregations such as Stornoway behave selflessly but the Principal argues, “unless our stronger congregations rediscover their sense of denominational solidarity and use their surplus to maintain a Christian witness in less favoured areas, we are doomed”. The Free Church must give every congregation one minister before it gives any two.

Finally Principal Macleod anticipates the questions of whether we can afford the College by pointing out what has been done to cut costs there.

It is a compelling case. One which will touch a chord in several within the Church – not least those who fear that they are to be deprived the services of a minister because of the ‘greed’ of the larger congregations. However there are other factors that need to be borne in mind.

1) It is quite simply wrong to state that income is not a problem. A friend of mine working in the Free Church Offices once calculated that if every member in the Free Church tithed then, even on a worst case scenario, the Church would have double its needed income. The fact is that many Free Church Christians do not tithe and furthermore many of those who do often do not give their tithe to the Church. The Church is one of only several beneficiaries – alongside Tear Fund, individual missionaries, charities and interdenominational organisations. We do need to consider questions of income and we do need to consider what we can do to encourage people to give to the Church. One thing is surely to let people see that their money is a) being managed wisely and b) that the Church is moving forward – i.e., that we have vision. Our people are very happy to give to a Church which is planting a new congregation in South Uist and reaching out to people in the Ferry in Inverness. They are not happy to see the Church squander money on situations which they perceive to be hopeless and dying. Perhaps it is not fair for people to make that kind of judgment. But it is incumbent on the wider church to use its resources wisely. And not operate on a patch and repair maintenance basis.

2) How serious is the problem of larger congregations employing ‘staff’? The impression given by the article is that this is a large scale situation within the Church. Principal Macleod does not name names – but we shall. The Free Church is a small church and we all know who is being referred to. The current situation in the Free Church is this.

Buccleuch, Free North and Stornoway currently have assistant ministers with Smithton having permission to call one.

Smithton and Aberdeen currently have youth workers – paid from within their own resources. St Peter’s have a part time youth worker.

Smithton have an administrator as do St Peter’s.

The only ones that are centrally funded are the assistants – and even then we need to remember that for a congregation to be able to call an assistant minister they must actually send up sufficient funding for three. But it could be argued that if congregations are spending money on local staff they are then not able to send it up centrally. But is that true? For example, the St Peter’s youth worker has been almost entirely funded by grant income from outwith the Church. Our administrator is also paid for by ‘new’ money. It is questionable whether any of these workers have in actual fact cost the wider church a penny – these things are often funded by people who, rightly or wrongly, do not like the idea of money disappearing down a ‘black hole’ and prefer to see where it is being spent. Be that as it may – even allowing for the worse case scenario the current situation is that we have three assistants in three of our larger congregations and two others who pay for their ‘staff’ themselves. The crisis in Free Church finances cannot reasonably be laid at the door of Smithton, Aberdeen and Buccleuch. These three congregations between them gave £200,000 to central funds last year. That means that taking away the four centrally paid salaries involved, these congregations gave to the wider church a ‘profit’ of £140,000. Meanwhile Stornoway gave £232,472 and the Free North gave £104,942. Assuming the cost of a minister to be £18,000 (120% of the equal dividend) these five congregations took £108,000 from central funds in 2001. They put in £537,414 – a net profit to the denomination of £429,414. Thus these five congregations paid for another 24 Free Church ministers. It can hardly be labelled the strong helping themselves! It strikes a populist chord to suggest that the strong are only looking after themselves. Unfortunately it is not true and such inaccurate language runs the risk of feeding the ever present danger or jealousy of congregations that are perceived to be more successful.

3) We are not sure if we agree with the principle that those who earn their living from the gospel should be asked to generate their own support. However even in allowing for this one wonders why this criteria should only apply to assistants and youth workers? It is surely a little bit simplistic to suggest that an assistant minister should result in a doubled congregation and doubled givings. What would happen if we were to apply that criteria across the board? Should we put ministers on performance related pay? Increased congregations, more members, more baptisms and your value goes up? It is certainly a model that suits the business world but one suspects that it is not an exact fit for the Church.

4) And we are extremely puzzled by the suggestion that youth workers in the Free Church are offering cheap grace. Given that the concept of youth worker is a relatively new innovation it is hard to ignore what is an unnecessary slur on the work of the Aberdeen, Dundee, Smithton and ex Rosskeen youth workers (the only youth workers we are aware of in the Free Church). They do not offer cheap grace and they do their utmost to bring young people into the life of the Church. The proof of the pudding is of course in the eating. As I visit various Free Churches I observe that there are in general very few young people in our pews – even in congregations which are considered to be larger and stronger. However in the four congregations which have had, or do have youth workers one notices that there are many young people in the membership. The Free Church does not need less youth workers – it needs more. And we would not be unhappy to see a youth co-ordinator appointed in Lewis, in Glasgow and in Easter Ross. The sooner Rosskeen replaces its youth worker the better. And we understand that the Lewis presbytery in conjunction with Mission to The World (the missionary arm of the Presbyterian Church in America) are in the process of appointing a youth co-ordinator. Doubtless it could be argued that the amount of money spent on this will mean a reduction in giving from that Presbytery to central funds. We hope not. And yet even if that were the case then so be it. The Lewis Presbytery provide considerable support to the rest of the Church. It is vital for the future of the Free Church that we retain our own young people. That includes our Lewis young people. If a Presbytery youth worker helps in that aim and helps free up more time for ministers to be involved in sermon preparation then it will not only be good for the Lewis churches but the whole Free Church.

5) Which brings us on to the question of the distribution of resources and in particular the implication that because Buccleuch has an assistant or Smithton has a youth worker then Dumfries or Paisley do not have a minister? The argument is superficially attractive but on closer examination lacks substance. Firstly we must say that there are no ministers currently engaged in youth work. There are only three who are assistants. And who is to say that they are unfairly distributed? Would anyone seriously argue that Chris Smart’s outreach work in the Ferry should be stopped? Or that Kenny I is a waste of money in Stornoway? Or that Bob Ackroyd’s work in pastoral visitation, preaching and university and prison chaplaincies is something that is not as important to the Free Church as him being involved elsewhere – especially when one remembers that the ‘senior minister’ of Buccleuch is currently serving the wider Free Church through editoring the Monthly Record and being in charge of the Church’s legal response. Who of us would want to leave Alex Macdonald to carry that burden on his own? And whatever happened to the sense of call? What if these men feel called to that work? Should we undermine that call or suggest that somehow it is invalid because they are not doing the job of a ‘proper’ minister?

But the issue of distribution of our ministerial resources is an important one. Principal Macleod suggests that if we want to be a national church then we will need to distribute our ministerial resources more equitably. With that we entirely agree. Take a look at our current distribution –

Thus we have almost 70% of our ministers serving an area which has 5% of Scotland’s population. And our future plans are to add 15 ministers to this one area whilst only giving 6 to cover the other 4.75 million of Scotland’s people. Can we call this fair distribution?

But surely I am forgetting that we need to minister where we have people and buildings? Indeed we do and we must never forget our ‘loyal’ people. However we cannot allow sentiment for the past to obscure vision for the future. There are small communities in Scotland where the Free Church has faithfully provided a gospel ministry for over 100 years. Yet often with little response. Meanwhile we have largely neglected the vast majority of our countrymen. How does this fit in with the concept of ‘fair distribution’? How does this fit with the criteria that we would expect gospel workers to generate their own support? In Principal Macleod’s words we do ‘need an even distribution of ministers throughout the country” and yes, that does mean we should seek to provide ministers in Paisley, Dumfries and Lochcarron. These are all regional centres where we should have a presence. But it does not mean that we should operate on the basis of subsidising a parish ministry system which was devised for the era of the horse and cart and takes no account of the motor car. It is incredible that people have no difficulty in driving from Brora to Inverness for shopping but would consider it an affront to be asked to drive to Golspie (or vice versa) to worship. No-one is saying that these smaller communities should not have a Free Church minister but we are suggesting that they do not have an automatic right to have them at the expense of work within the centres of population. I was a minister in a small Highland parish in which there were two evangelical ministers for 2,000 people. Now I minister in a community where we would be doing well if we have one for every 20,000 people. Is that fair distribution?

Furthermore there is a kind of myth going about which suggests that our forefathers did with one minister in one parish and that is all we need today. Our forefathers lived in a different era – an era when the majority of people either went to Church or expected to go to Church. A world where the minister and the church were respected and where it was considered normal and desirable to go to Church. A world where Christianity was taught in the schools and at least nominally acknowledged in the corridors of power. But even in that world it is wrong to assume that the one man ministry was the norm. Most congregations would have had large and active elderships. Many would have had teachers and other local people who were able to devote a considerable proportion of their time to the work of the Church. The Free Church even employed ‘Bible women’ when it was necessary. And in the cities men like McCheyne pioneered the concept of ‘team ministries’ working with other ministers, assistants, women visitors, teachers etc. They recognised that in order to be able to meet the needs of their centralised communities they needed to have the resources.

There is a further factor. If we keep on expecting ministers to fulfil a 19th century pattern of ministry in a 21st century world then we will end up with more and more cases of breakdown and burn out. I know of several men who are exhausted and worn out. Many times I have felt that way. It is not new. It is just that we are expected to be a jack of all trades and a master of all. Scotland desperately needs preachers of the Word. The Free Church desperately needs to improve the quality of its preaching. That is what the Free Church College exists for – to prepare preachers of the Word. And that is what we need it to continue to do. But what happens when these preachers leave the College? We put them into posts where they are expected to be administrators, mini bus drivers, youth workers, evangelists, marriage counsellors, writers, clerks, fund raisers, committee men, local politicians, teachers and social workers as well as preachers of the Word. All this whilst paying them a wage which forces their wives to go out to work whilst also being expected to be a second worker for the congregation. (which incidentally is why single men often have a more difficult time getting a call – they don’t fit the ‘buy one get one free’ picture!). Now in some situations it is possible to carry out this workload – with the assistance of an experienced and established small congregation. But it is virtually impossible in many situations. Which is why, if we are to have more effective ministries and churches we need to think about how we distribute our resources. For much of my ministry I have been a mini bus driver, youth club leader, bulletin sheet designer, pastoral visitor, counsellor, church politician, writer, mission organiser, evangelist etc. Some of these I am happy to continue – others are beyond my capacity. We need a team of people to do that.

One final thought on assistants. They should be compulsory. Good as the College is there is no substitute for experience. The days when probationers would serve their apprenticeship in small congregations have long gone. There is a great deal to be gained in students fresh out of the College serving an assistantship with an experienced minister in one of the larger churches.

What can the Free Church do about its finances?

Principal Macleod is surely correct in arguing that something has to be done with the Free Church’s finances. The way he seems to be suggesting is that we do away with assistants, youth workers etc and concentrate all our resources on providing ministers for all the congregations we have. This maintenance strategy would in our view lead to disaster. It would result in the continual slow decline of the Church, the discouragement of those congregations which are growing and a continuing demoralisation within the ministry. But is there any alternative? Can I suggest the following?

1) We should have a strategy for the whole of Scotland. A simple aim would be to have a good healthy Free Church within 30 minutes drive of everyone in Scotland.

2) We should reduce our core churches to somewhere between 30 and 50. In addition to this we would have preaching stations, extension charges and various other means of supporting smaller groups.

3) Ministers should be paid 72% of the national average salary rising incrementally to 85% after 15 years service.

4) The Free Church should support foreign missions at the rate of 10% of our ordinary income.

5) Congregations should be allowed to sell their manses and pay a housing allowance to their ministers.

6) We should pool resources with like minded brethren. For example we could have agreements with evangelical Church of Scotland’s. E.g. The Free Church would have a minister in Golspie and the Church of Scotland would have one in Brora. This would not prevent either church holding services in their neighbouring village or people travelling from one to the other (as happens already) but it would mean that we could have at least one bible preacher in every community, whilst releasing funds for other areas which do not have one. We should also make use of and cooperate with the increasing interest in Scotland from our fellow Presbyterians in the USA.

7) Instead of relying on the current system of fundraising we need to identify the major denominational non-congregational expenditure and seek to fund it accordingly. It is time to resurrect the various funds and to levy congregations accordingly. We should have funds for Church extension, overseas missions, the College and administration. A levy of 5% on ordinary income could be placed for each of these funds. Furthermore the very large congregations could give more. We certainly support Principal Macleod’s call for the larger congregations to give selflessly and sacrificially.

8) Furthermore we need to encourage systematic and regular giving. A Church which has a mission rather than a maintenance orientation would be better placed to inspire and motivate its people.

I suspect that no-one will agree with all these proposals and I am not prepared to defend them to the death. But we do need to start thinking a bit more radically and constructively. For the Free Church to do more than survive we will need strong congregations. There will be no point in shouting for the stronger congregations to help the weak if there are no stronger congregations. In this respect I would like to mention my own congregation. Sometimes one hears snide asides about the number of ministers in St Peter’s. We actually have one – yours truly. It is true that we have had a youth minister and an international worker. We have also had American missionaries and as already mentioned we currently have an administrator and a part time youth worker. We need more workers and are currently trying to get some. We are currently engaged in two church plants, university outreach, international outreach etc. But this is not empire building – nor is it selfishness. It would be to the detriment of the wider church if we were to be restricted to the (allegedly) traditional one man ministry. There are currently five students in the Free Church College who have at one time been part of this congregation. We have two of our members currently on the mission field. And this from a congregation with 50 members. My own personal aim is to see one of our members going each year into the ministry or the mission field. It is not just an aim – it is something we are actively working at. We are always going to be exporting people to other places and we are happy to do so. Our model of church is one which seeks this. It could not be done without a ‘team’. It is my belief that a team of five people working together in St Peter’s will do a lot more for effective outreach and church growth in the Dundee catchment area (which we define as 30 minutes drive) than five separate small congregations – each struggling to keep its head above water. Of course we hope to have these small congregations – hence our church plants in St Andrews and Montrose/St Cyrus (Forfar, Cupar, Arbroath watch out!). But they need to be supported from a stronger ‘mother’ church. There we see a different way of the strong helping the weak. And surely a much more effective way than a highly centralised structure run by committee?

And Finally….

Where should we be having this debate?

I am thankful for Principal Macleod raising this question. It is an important one that needs to be openly discussed within the Church. However it is rarely appropriate or proper to discuss internal church matters in the wider secular press. Donald Macleod was the most successful and stimulating editor of the Monthly Record that the Free Church has had in recent years. Part of this was due to a philosophy of journalism he espoused which was very similar to that of an equally gifted Free Church journalist, Hugh Miller, the editor of the Witness. Writing in 1996 Macleod argued that Miller had determined to speak for the Church rather than to it. His comments on Miller are worth quoting – “To have opted for the opposite policy (addressing the internal questions of the Church) would have been to encourage navel-gazing, foster division and leave the Church without anything to say to the outside world. Only on a small number of issues would it ever have been right to comment on in-house debates.” If that was true of writing in the Church’s own newspaper surely it is even more apposite when one is writing in a secular newspaper where the majority of readers have no interest in or understanding of, the internal affairs of the Church. The right place for the Church to debate these very important issues is ‘in house’ – through the Monthly Record, our own website and above all the Church courts.

The Free Church College – Unlike some, we are not prepared to argue that the College is a luxury the Free Church can not afford. Rather it is one of our core activities which must be fully resourced and funded. The College is important not only in providing for a ministry of the Word in the Free Church in Scotland but should also be our gift to the wider Church. Unless we want to go the sectarian and delusionary ‘big fish in small pond’ route of the self-styled ‘Continuing’ we need to have a broad and passionate vision. The College is a key part of that. Principal Macleod and the current staff are doing an excellent job in developing the College and as he points out in his article they have also been doing their bit for fundraising. Nevertheless the College will never be self financing and the rest of the Church must recognise this and guarantee its continued funding. Professors and students should not need to sacrifice their puddings in order to save money. Equally, those congregations and presbyteries which have well thought out and viable proposals for team ministries should not need to sacrifice their youth ministry in order to maintain outdated non-functioning congregations. Discuss.

back