Appendix F Ga2002
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APPENDIX F PRESBYTERIES OF EUROPE AND JERUSALEM 1. Remit 1.1 The General Assembly of 2000 received a report from a Special Commission which had been set up the previous year to address a number of issues relating to the Board of World Mission. One of the recommendations of that Special Commission was that the Board of Practice and Procedure “should carry out an analysis of the Church of Scotland in Israel and should consider dispensing with the Presbytery of Jerusalem and placing the work of the Church’s institutions there under the aegis of the Board of World Mission; that the Board of Practice and Procedure should reflect whether the sanctioned charges of the Presbytery of Europe should continue to form a Presbytery or be added to Schedule A of the Act anent Overseas Charges; that the Board of Practice and Procedure should consider the relationship between the Presbytery of Europe and the Board of World Mission, if the Presbytery remains in existence in the long term”. 1.2 The General Assembly adopted all the recommendations of the Special Commission and, accordingly, the Board of Practice and Procedure was given this remit. The Board, in turn, remitted the matter to a special Committee under the convenership of the Rev David Arnott, with the Principal Clerk as secretary. The membership of the Committee is listed in Appendix One. 2. Methodology 2.1 The Committee decided to approach its task in the following ways: (1) to consult individuals and groups within the Board of World Mission, the relevant Presbyteries and others involved in the work in mainland Europe and in Israel/Palestine; (2) to seek information, through correspondence and (where possible) conversation with representatives of European Churches operating within Scotland; (3) to make visits to both Presbyteries and meet with individuals and groups within the local context. A list of all those with whom representatives of the Committee met in these ways can be found in Appendix Two and the Board would like to place on record its appreciation of the assistance given in this way. 2.2 The Committee regrets that it is unable to bring to this year’s General Assembly a report on the Presbytery of Jerusalem. Whilst considerable analysis of the Church of Scotland in Israel/Palestine has been undertaken, it has not been possible, for a variety of reasons, to complete the research at this time. The Committee’s work in this area will therefore continue and a full report will be presented by the Board to next year’s General Assembly. What follows, therefore, relates only to the Presbytery of Europe. 3. The Presbytery of Europe 3.1 In addressing the Europe part of its remit the Board was quite clear that this did not involve an evaluation of the work being done by the Europe charges and their role within the mission of the Church, or the question of whether these charges should continue. The issue remitted to the Board of Practice and Procedure was a very simple one. Should the charges continue to form a Presbytery or should the Presbytery be abolished with the charges relating directly to the Board of World Mission through Act VI, 2001 anent Overseas Charges? 3.2 As it began its work the Board was also aware that what lay behind the remit was a frustration identified by the Special Commission on the part of both the Presbytery of Europe and the Board of World Mission in their working relationship. 3.3 The Church of Scotland has a number of congregations throughout continental Europe and these are grouped together under the Presbytery of Europe. At the same time these charges and the Presbytery itself relate to the Board of World Mission through that Board’s Europe Committee. The Board acts as employer of the ministers, something which immediately puts the Europe ministers in a different category from ministers serving in Scotland, the former being employees, the latter holders of an office. Moreover, while home-based parish ministers are responsible to the Presbytery in all things, Europe based ministers are responsible to the Presbytery in terms of life and doctrine and to the Board for the conduct of their duties. These factors have been the cause of tensions and difficulties. 3.4 A number of the European charges also relate to denominations within their respective countries. For example, the Budapest congregation is simultaneously a Church of Scotland charge and a congregation of the Reformed Church of Hungary and the minister of the Amsterdam Church is a member of both the Church of Scotland Presbytery and the local court of the Netherlands Reformed Church. The congregation in Malta is a joint charge with the Methodist Church and, while not hitherto formally one of the sanctioned charges within the Presbytery, its minister over the past twenty-five years, being a minister of the Church of Scotland, has had a seat in the Presbytery. These “dual membership” arrangements can and do create legal complications in terms of property titles and state recognition in some countries. 3.5 As well as being involved in Europe through the various “Scots Kirks” the Church of Scotland also has a network of partnership relations with various European Churches. These relationships are dealt with entirely by the Board of World Mission and do not involve the Presbytery at all. For example, the Board recently responded to a request from the Waldensian Church for assistance in obtaining an English speaking minister for their congregation in Turin by seconding a minister of the Church of Scotland. It was a matter of some grievance to the Presbytery that, notwithstanding preliminary involvement in the initiative by Presbytery members, it had no locus in the process. The minister concerned now has a seat in the Presbytery. 3.6 As far as funding is concerned, some of the Europe congregations are entirely self-supporting (even aid giving), others require central funding in part and some are totally dependent on such funding. In the year 2000 the net cost to the Church of retaining the charges in Europe was £286,000. This cost was met from the Board of World Mission’s co-ordinated budget which includes income from the Salvesen Trust. The Board has a duty to ensure that income from the Salvesen Fund, whether used in Europe or elsewhere in the world, is utilised in accordance with the terms of the bequest. The cy pres scheme (1991) relating to the Salvesen Trust states that the Board of World Mission should apply the fund for any purposes (including where appropriate, the rendering of financial assistance to indigenous Churches) which, in the opinion of the Board, provide or assist in providing the ordinances of religion to Scots in any part of the world outwith the UK. A number of the European charges are developing as ‘international congregations’ with excellent and vital work being done, not least with immigrant communities from Africa, students living far from home etc. However, if this approach, while commendable in itself, is taken to a point where there are not significant numbers of Scots in the congregation, the Board could find itself in the position of being unable to use part of its income generated from the Salvesen Trust for these charges. However, at present a strong core of Scots lies at the centre of each of these charges. 3.7 In its deliberations the Committee spoke to and corresponded with ministers from foreign language Churches who are living and working in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. There is no one pattern for their relationship with their own parent bodies and indeed some expressed similar frustrations as expressed by the Presbytery of Europe. What is revealing, however, is that those parent Churches have not suggested that their ministers become mission partners working with local Church of Scotland congregations, nor indeed is the Committee aware of any formal links or recognition of these congregations at Presbytery level. 3.8 There is one school of thought within the Board of World Mission which argues that the Europe charges should integrate completely with local partner Churches. Certainly this would be in keeping with the general policy of the Board of World Mission over the years to encourage former colonial charges to become part of the indigenous Church, something which most have done. However, this is a minority view and, in any case, as noted in 3.1 above, was not a question which was remitted to the Board of Practice and Procedure. Accordingly, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Europe charges should continue within the Church of Scotland and addressed the question which was raised by the Special Commission, namely should they continue to form a Presbytery or be added to the Schedule of the Act anent Overseas Charges? (Note: this Act was in preparation at the time the Special Commission reported and was passed by the General Assembly of 2001. It provides a framework for supporting the few remaining overseas charges other than those in the Presbyteries of Europe and Jerusalem, and which cannot realistically be grouped into a Presbytery, namely the congregations in Bermuda, the Bahamas, Trinidad and Sri Lanka). 4. To Continue the Presbytery or Not 4.1 Although the reasons for having a Presbytery of Europe are historical the Committee is of a mind that the presbyterial system still offers a suitable framework in which the charges can exercise God’s mission in their location, through their services of worship and their involvement with local congregations. It also offers a mechanism whereby that mission can be enabled and encouraged.