Scottish Church Initiative for Union

Ecumenical Review, The, July, 2002 by Sheilagh M. Kesting

Church of Scotland (Presbyterian); Methodist Church; Scottish Episcopal Church; United Reformed Church.

On 1 April 2000 the five participating churches of SCIFU became four, with the uniting of the Scottish Congregational Church with the United Reformed Church in the UK to form the United Reformed Church. Also in 2000 the initiative for union (SCIFU) group produced a second interim report. It had been clear from the responses to the first interim report (1997) that there had been misunderstandings about the nature of the document, and misunderstandings about the implications and the purpose of what was being outlined in the document as the basis of a way forward.

The second interim report

In response to questions raised by the participating churches, the second interim report began with a reflection on the nature and purpose of the church, assisted by the document of that title from the WCC's Faith and Order commission. It then went on to try to answer the question, Why union'? There were those who advocated cooperation as either an interim stage or even as an alternative to union. It was felt necessary to defend union.

The meaning of mission was spelt out in a way that would preserve the diversity of understanding that currently exists in all the participating churches, and against pressure to give too narrow a definition of the term.

Concerns expressed within the Church of Scotland led to a section on historic statements of faith, which sought to place the Westminster confession of faith as one among a number of documents in which each of the participating churches define themselves historically and which they use to affirm their current understanding of the Christian faith. The group, however, left open for debate whether there should be an attempt to produce a new Scots confession for the 21st century and whether this should be drawn up in the wider context of the membership of Action of Churches Together in Scotland, through its unity, faith and order commission.

Through a section on leadership issues, the group sought to answer some of the anxieties surrounding the eldership, stressing that the eldership was not simply a question of function, but was to be understood as an order of ministry, exercised, as are all particular ministries, within the context of the ministry of the whole church. The role of the church meeting as the place where elders are identified and selected would ensure a corrective to any suspicion of exclusiveness.

Reassurance was given on the right to call a minister: in all the participating churches a congregation has a right to accept or reject a nominee. The panel left open whether a variety of systems might be applied in a united church. The structures of accountability between the personal and the conciliar envisaged for a united church were intended to ensure that the proper checks and balances would be in place to lessen the possibility of the abuse of power. They would make clear the parity of all ministers, rooted in the one ministry of Christ given to the whole people of God through baptism.

On bishops, the report asked for a Scottish consensus on episkope. Bishops could only be understood within the broader context of an understanding of oversight in the church. Parallels between elders, ministers and bishops were pointed out as was the relationship from New Testament times between diakonia and pastoral oversight. Elders, ministers and bishops, therefore, exercise a servant role. The ministry of bishops is personal, not individual, and personal implies links with the community. In answer to anxieties about the bishop's role in ordination, the suggestion was made that if ordination is an act of the whole church, then it should involve representatives from the whole church. This would ensure that the bishop has a key role. But then so too would ministers, elders and members of the congregation. This would mean significant changes in the traditions of almost all the participating churches.

Responses to the first interim report suggested that the maxi-parish (this is the working title for a multi-centred local geographical area responsible for mission to the local community) was an extra tier of government and bureaucracy between the local congregation and the regional church council. In response, the SCIFU group spelt out in a section on structures the importance of understanding local church government as comprising three component parts--the church meeting, the "worship centre" (that is a working title only) council and the maxi-parish council. The report contained an appendix, which spelt out how the principles of the local structure might work.

The rest of the report dealt with the other anxieties--on relations with other churches not involved in SCIFU and the world church, buildings, the feeling that the initiative was "top-down" and therefore imposed, and the time scale for the process - in ways which the group hoped would be reassuring.

The SCIFU group made what, with hindsight, proved to be a mistake. It decided to publish, as appendices, three working documents as examples of the kind of material it was handling. All three were about bishops--"Oversight Authority in SCIFU", "The Teaching Ministry of the Bishop", and "The Bishop's Work". For those nervous about introducing bishops into a united church, these appendices were read as cast in tablets of stone. This raised the levels of anxiety, drew attention away from the points of principle outlined in the body of the report, and gave bishops a disproportionate amount of space. This was reflected in the responses.