In common with our siblings in Christ, in the church around the world, we seek to show the five marks of mission:
Tell – We proclaim the good news about God and His kingdom
Teach – We teach, baptise and nurture new believers
Tend – We respond to human need through loving acts of service
Transform – We seek to transform unjust structures in society, to challenge violence of every kind and to pursue peace and reconciliation
Treasure – We strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the Earth------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE STORY SO FAR...
Understanding that action, without reflection and considered conversation, often ends up as 'doing something for the sake of doing something', Upper Clyde has embarked upon an ongoing conversation with some of our neighbouring parishes: Douglas Valley, and Cairngryffe (within the 3-way linkage known jointly as the Tinto Parishes). Through prayer and discussion, we are exploring and potentially working towards a possible shared future as one 'maxi' rural parish.
By joining together, how might we employ our combined resources to better serve our communities?
Watch this space for updates, as our conversations unfold... The most recent updates will be given first, with previous updates further below, in order to give an ongoing view of the process as it unfolds.
By joining together, how might we employ our combined resources to better serve our communities?
Watch this space for updates, as our conversations unfold... The most recent updates will be given first, with previous updates further below, in order to give an ongoing view of the process as it unfolds.
UPDATE, JAN 2024:
As one of the clusters within the presbytery whose proposal to the planning team differed considerably to the draft outcome, our cluster took up the option to further engage with the team, asking for details on how they arrived at decisions around buildings and staffing. While noting the deadline for submissions to the team was for 5 February, as we had already been working on a response, we were able to submit a document to the team on Fri. 22nd December. We hope to have a response and clarification from the team in due course.
As one of the clusters within the presbytery whose proposal to the planning team differed considerably to the draft outcome, our cluster took up the option to further engage with the team, asking for details on how they arrived at decisions around buildings and staffing. While noting the deadline for submissions to the team was for 5 February, as we had already been working on a response, we were able to submit a document to the team on Fri. 22nd December. We hope to have a response and clarification from the team in due course.
UPDATE, 4 OCTOBER, 2023:
3 special Presbytery meetings were called to approve the Presbytery Plan, each meeting focusing on West, East, and South geographical groupings within the Presbytery. At the first of these, held on Tues 26 Oct. at 7pm, a counter-motion was proposed by Rev. Dr Peter Donald to delay the plan while more detail could be supplied to various congregations. Presbytery voted for Dr Donald's counter-motion - 3 times. The first vote, in favour, was 89 to 80, and again for the second vote.
The (unexplained) third and final vote was again in favour - this time standing at 89 to 71.
As a result of this vote, the subsequent 2 special meetings of Presbytery were cancelled. The Convenor of the planning committee - without any rancour, but rather, to step aside and allow for fresh eyes to take on the task - then tendered his resignation as Convenor.
The next steps from this vote look like the following:
3 special Presbytery meetings were called to approve the Presbytery Plan, each meeting focusing on West, East, and South geographical groupings within the Presbytery. At the first of these, held on Tues 26 Oct. at 7pm, a counter-motion was proposed by Rev. Dr Peter Donald to delay the plan while more detail could be supplied to various congregations. Presbytery voted for Dr Donald's counter-motion - 3 times. The first vote, in favour, was 89 to 80, and again for the second vote.
The (unexplained) third and final vote was again in favour - this time standing at 89 to 71.
As a result of this vote, the subsequent 2 special meetings of Presbytery were cancelled. The Convenor of the planning committee - without any rancour, but rather, to step aside and allow for fresh eyes to take on the task - then tendered his resignation as Convenor.
The next steps from this vote look like the following:
- our Presbytery Clerk will inform the Principal Clerk of the General Assembly that the plan has been delayed
- in theory, congregations can approach the planning committee and ask for details of the plan, as needed, within their area...
- a planning review team from Edinburgh may very well come in to explore the process over this last 18 months to determine why we have thus far failed to approve a plan
- members of the national Presbytery Mission Plan Implementation Group (PMPIG) may step in to assist us in our process
At the meeting, the representatives of our Southern Ministries Cluster all voted for Dr Donald's counter-motion.
From an Upper Clyde point of view, one reason for voting to delay concerned comments made about our building as well as access. Last year, when the Presbytery Buildings team came to inspect our church building, we were given a 'Category A' listing - basically, the building would stay open. There were no further comments. This year, without any further internal inspection, and, with a new Buildings Officer in place who hadn't seen inside our building, we were given a 'Category B*' status (which doesn't actually exist at General Trustee level).
The comments were as follows:
From an Upper Clyde point of view, one reason for voting to delay concerned comments made about our building as well as access. Last year, when the Presbytery Buildings team came to inspect our church building, we were given a 'Category A' listing - basically, the building would stay open. There were no further comments. This year, without any further internal inspection, and, with a new Buildings Officer in place who hadn't seen inside our building, we were given a 'Category B*' status (which doesn't actually exist at General Trustee level).
The comments were as follows:
This single united charge will require one main place of worship and one other building.
A redeveloped and reimagined Douglas Valley will be the main place of worship for the charge.
B* statement – Upper Clyde church is categorised as B* to enable the congregation to focus on a plan for the significant reconfiguration of the building that will be needed, including improving access to the site all year round. This is to be progressed and assessed at the first annual evaluation of the PMP and if significant progress cannot be made the building would revert to a B Categorisation
Cairngryffe church B will close at the point of union.
On the basis that we have no idea what is meant by 'significant reconfiguration', and, that the first we heard of this was when the plan was made public, the Session could not, in conscience, vote for the plan to go through. As Trustees of the church, it would be entirely irresponsible to agree to something so lacking in detail, and with no idea of what the financial implications might be.
As to the, quite frankly, bizarre comment about 'improving access' - there were no comments or issues raised about this in last year's draft plan - so we were rather astonished by this.
On average, we cancel worship 1 Sunday a year because the snow has come in. There are some years where there have been no cancellations at all over the course of the year. As to access to the church building - before folk even try to get to the building, if they live outwith Abington, they have to access the main road from their respective villages that, hopefully, has been gritted. I mean, we could put in a grant to buy a couple of snow ploughs to help clear the roads that the Council don't clear... or set up a team of prayer warriors to actively pray against snow falling in winter... but that's really the limits of what we could do. Given we're at the highest altitude in Presbytery, a possible 1 Sunday a year out of 52, is a pretty good batting average.
So, these two comments, in particular, warrant a conversation with the planning team as to their reasoning. However, the Convenor of the planning committee observed that, when it came to decisions made about buildings, there was actually little in the way of information - so, not entirely helpful.
On a wider principle, the plan was inconsistent when it came to taking into consideration the distances some people would have to travel to access a church building. In some areas of presbytery, multiple buildings were kept as people would have to travel more than 6 miles. A number of our folk already travel that, and more. If the focus for worship centred on the building in Douglas, some of our congregation - who already travel just on 12 miles to get to church, would have a 22 mile journey. In other instances, having done a spreadsheet on villages/ distance/ travelling times, some folk within our parish would triple their mileage, while others would double it. Only 2 out of our 9 villages would fall under 10 miles to reach church (Wiston at c9.7 miles, and Crawfordjohn at c.8.5 miles - thereafter: Abington 10.3 miles, Roberton 12.2 miles, Crawford 14.1 miles, Lamington 14.5 miles, Leadhills 14.8 miles, Elvanfoot 15.8 miles, Wanlockhead 16.5 miles, then outlying settlements - Camps valley 17.1 miles, and out at the Daer 22.3).
So it seems that it's a case of one rule for urban areas, another for rural...
Outwith this, we have the matter of staffing. Currently there is 1 x full-time Minister of Word and Sacrament, plus we share a Community Outreach Worker with Douglas Valley and Tinto Parishes.
The proposal is to have just the one ministry post. This to cover what would become double the mission and ministry work. So, it would look like this:
Upper Clyde parish would move from the current c180sq miles and become part of a parish that is over at minimum c250sq miles.
9 villages would become 18, 5 schools would become 8, plus a cottage hospital would be in the mix.
On average, we cancel worship 1 Sunday a year because the snow has come in. There are some years where there have been no cancellations at all over the course of the year. As to access to the church building - before folk even try to get to the building, if they live outwith Abington, they have to access the main road from their respective villages that, hopefully, has been gritted. I mean, we could put in a grant to buy a couple of snow ploughs to help clear the roads that the Council don't clear... or set up a team of prayer warriors to actively pray against snow falling in winter... but that's really the limits of what we could do. Given we're at the highest altitude in Presbytery, a possible 1 Sunday a year out of 52, is a pretty good batting average.
So, these two comments, in particular, warrant a conversation with the planning team as to their reasoning. However, the Convenor of the planning committee observed that, when it came to decisions made about buildings, there was actually little in the way of information - so, not entirely helpful.
On a wider principle, the plan was inconsistent when it came to taking into consideration the distances some people would have to travel to access a church building. In some areas of presbytery, multiple buildings were kept as people would have to travel more than 6 miles. A number of our folk already travel that, and more. If the focus for worship centred on the building in Douglas, some of our congregation - who already travel just on 12 miles to get to church, would have a 22 mile journey. In other instances, having done a spreadsheet on villages/ distance/ travelling times, some folk within our parish would triple their mileage, while others would double it. Only 2 out of our 9 villages would fall under 10 miles to reach church (Wiston at c9.7 miles, and Crawfordjohn at c.8.5 miles - thereafter: Abington 10.3 miles, Roberton 12.2 miles, Crawford 14.1 miles, Lamington 14.5 miles, Leadhills 14.8 miles, Elvanfoot 15.8 miles, Wanlockhead 16.5 miles, then outlying settlements - Camps valley 17.1 miles, and out at the Daer 22.3).
So it seems that it's a case of one rule for urban areas, another for rural...
Outwith this, we have the matter of staffing. Currently there is 1 x full-time Minister of Word and Sacrament, plus we share a Community Outreach Worker with Douglas Valley and Tinto Parishes.
The proposal is to have just the one ministry post. This to cover what would become double the mission and ministry work. So, it would look like this:
Upper Clyde parish would move from the current c180sq miles and become part of a parish that is over at minimum c250sq miles.
9 villages would become 18, 5 schools would become 8, plus a cottage hospital would be in the mix.
Our community and outreach work includes pioneering Anna Chaplaincy (currently the only ones in Scotland doing this ministry so far) along with our farming chaplaincy work at Lanark Market, and local area outreach within our village communities.
From a logistics point of view, I'm just not sure how one person could possibly do this vaguely adequately, let alone well.
At the moment, we're in a slight limbo while we wait for any instruction from Presbytery as to how we should all proceed. Maybe a moment to catch our respective breath before we plunge into the rush and busyness of it all again. Our cluster group is planning to have a joint meeting at some point in the next wee while in order to regroup and to look ahead. We are all in agreement about becoming a union and working together, and meanwhile, we continue to support one another and stand together to work for a reasonable way forward...
Will continue to update the situation as I have information.
From a logistics point of view, I'm just not sure how one person could possibly do this vaguely adequately, let alone well.
At the moment, we're in a slight limbo while we wait for any instruction from Presbytery as to how we should all proceed. Maybe a moment to catch our respective breath before we plunge into the rush and busyness of it all again. Our cluster group is planning to have a joint meeting at some point in the next wee while in order to regroup and to look ahead. We are all in agreement about becoming a union and working together, and meanwhile, we continue to support one another and stand together to work for a reasonable way forward...
Will continue to update the situation as I have information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AN UPDATE FROM OUR EASTER NEWSLETTER, APRIL, 2023:
Change is afoot within the Church of Scotland. Currently, all presbyteries are being reorganised with what was 43 presbyteries likely to become around 9. Having been in the former presbytery of Lanark, we’re now a part of Forth Valley and Clydesdale, basically, an amalgamation of Lanark, Hamilton, and Falkirk presbyteries. Rural Upper Clyde is at the extreme southern end of what has now become a much more urban presbytery. Not an easy position.
At the same time as presbytery is reorganising, each presbytery is also tasked with creating a new presbytery plan; essentially, doing a stocktake of resources such as ministry posts and buildings. Due to limited resources, the effect of this will be the potential closure of buildings, along with fewer full-time ministry posts.
Along with many other organisations, post-lockdown, the Church of Scotland has been struggling to get back to where we were before COVID completely changed our lives. All over Scotland, congregations are smaller in number than before, with those more vulnerable people, in some cases, still shielding. As a society, we’ve not quite got or ‘mojo’ back. This will also affect the way presbytery plans will roll out across Scotland: with fewer folk returning to church onsite, brutally, it may be a case of a ‘use us, or lose us’ knock-on effect. Meanwhile…
The initial plan proposed for our area last year would have seen a 5-way union between Lesmahagow and Coalburn, Biggar and Blackmount, Douglas Valley, Tinto Parishes, and Upper Clyde., with 2 f/t ministry posts allocated. This was rejected and, overall, the whole plan fell. Late in 2022, a new presbytery planning team was formed.
Within the shaping of this new plan, Upper Clyde has been in conversation with our neighbours Douglas Valley and the Tinto Parishes. Since 2018, we have been working informally as a parish grouping, which enabled us to jointly apply for and benefit from sharing our Community Outreach Worker, Angela Wilson. From our conversations with representatives of the 5 congregations, Upper Clyde, Douglas Valley, and Cairngryffe decided to jointly explore the possibility of forming closer ties, potentially becoming a union, or ’maxi’ rural parish.
Joining together would very much lighten the administrative burden each congregation currently struggles with: instead of finding 3 Session Clerks, 3 treasurers, etc, we’d only need one, drawn from a wider pool of people. As rural communities, we have shared interests and connections, and would not lose our unique voice, a fear expressed with the first presbytery plan. At the moment, we’ve only been allocated the one ministry post but plan to appeal this. As the conversations continue, we’ll keep you updated on our website. Please do get in touch with me (Nikki, via our 'contact us' link to the right) if you’ve any questions or comments you’d like to make.
At the same time as presbytery is reorganising, each presbytery is also tasked with creating a new presbytery plan; essentially, doing a stocktake of resources such as ministry posts and buildings. Due to limited resources, the effect of this will be the potential closure of buildings, along with fewer full-time ministry posts.
Along with many other organisations, post-lockdown, the Church of Scotland has been struggling to get back to where we were before COVID completely changed our lives. All over Scotland, congregations are smaller in number than before, with those more vulnerable people, in some cases, still shielding. As a society, we’ve not quite got or ‘mojo’ back. This will also affect the way presbytery plans will roll out across Scotland: with fewer folk returning to church onsite, brutally, it may be a case of a ‘use us, or lose us’ knock-on effect. Meanwhile…
The initial plan proposed for our area last year would have seen a 5-way union between Lesmahagow and Coalburn, Biggar and Blackmount, Douglas Valley, Tinto Parishes, and Upper Clyde., with 2 f/t ministry posts allocated. This was rejected and, overall, the whole plan fell. Late in 2022, a new presbytery planning team was formed.
Within the shaping of this new plan, Upper Clyde has been in conversation with our neighbours Douglas Valley and the Tinto Parishes. Since 2018, we have been working informally as a parish grouping, which enabled us to jointly apply for and benefit from sharing our Community Outreach Worker, Angela Wilson. From our conversations with representatives of the 5 congregations, Upper Clyde, Douglas Valley, and Cairngryffe decided to jointly explore the possibility of forming closer ties, potentially becoming a union, or ’maxi’ rural parish.
Joining together would very much lighten the administrative burden each congregation currently struggles with: instead of finding 3 Session Clerks, 3 treasurers, etc, we’d only need one, drawn from a wider pool of people. As rural communities, we have shared interests and connections, and would not lose our unique voice, a fear expressed with the first presbytery plan. At the moment, we’ve only been allocated the one ministry post but plan to appeal this. As the conversations continue, we’ll keep you updated on our website. Please do get in touch with me (Nikki, via our 'contact us' link to the right) if you’ve any questions or comments you’d like to make.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hi - thanks for visiting.
We're always happy to receive comments, however,
we do moderate them to avoid spam.